With regard to the US Statute 18 USC §2383, are there any Democrat members of this site with sufficient lack of bias to explain, while there were charges of insurrection against a few of the hundreds of people charged with a variety of crimes for Jan 6 involvement, why there is not one single conviction for insurrection, yet your political-finger-pointing talkers continue to call the incident an "insurrection?" Some of you do, too. Since there are no convictions, it didn't happen, did it? Something did, but that is not what it was, was it? Can you call it what it was please? Don't ask me; I not the one giving answers. Don't wait for your talking pointers; they're sold down the river. Keep a decent head on your shoulders, huh?
What is your definition of insurrection, and does it agree with the statute, 18 USC §2383?
Posts
Total:
32
"a violent uprising against an authority or government"
I wouldnt call Jan 6 an insurrection.
Few thousand people walking around and yelling aint ever going to overthrow US government.
-->
@fauxlaw
Was there even a charge of insurrection?
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
That is exactly what it was. An opportunity for Democrat, and even a few Republican talking points. I do not believe our government ought to be operated by talking points. It has a constitutional framework to follow, and, sorry for the misguided pols, but political parties area not therein mentioned, while even God is.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes. As I said; several. There was once a list of all the charges made against every person arrested.
This citation from Newsweek in 2023 is not the list I had. That list was complete, listing names, charges, and results of trial with dates. Attempting to retrieve it was fruitless, it's been coincidentally pulled. This list does not include charges in all cases, but does list convictions. Not one, as I d=said, for insurrection.
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes. As I said; several. There was once a list of all the charges made against every person arrested.This citation from Newsweek in 2023 is not the list I had. That list was complete, listing names, charges, and results of trial with dates. Attempting to retrieve it was fruitless, it's been coincidentally pulled. This list does not include charges in all cases, but does list convictions. Not one, as I d=said, for insurrection.
Being loyal to an ex-president cannot be an act of insurrection. Going against the establishment like Jesus did is an insurrection.
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It was violent
Jan 6 was domestic terrorism. Noif. No but.
It was violent
Not an uprising. Most people were just walking around. Few that got violent dont count. Otherwise, BLM riots would be uprising too then.
-->
@Shila
Going against the establishment like Jesus did is an insurrection.
Nope. Not when Christ's response to Pilate after the latter's question to him, "Whence art thou?" was replied to by the answer, "My kingdom is not of this world." What threat, therefore, to Pilate, and Rome? Pilate's response was to wash his hands, symbolic representation of his own dismissal of responsibility for Christ's life. And the. only reason why he had to remain involved is because the Sahedrin and Pharisees claimed they had no authority [due to Rome] to exact death by punishment for anybody. No, they did not get it, either. None of them believed Christ would resurrect, and scattered like Democrats today, wondering why they lost the 24 election. None of them get that, either, regardless of Trump. The Dems lost their own election by their own doing, or not doing, as the case may actually be. They had no message, apparently, that voting Democrats wanted. or they would not have lost. Bad-mouthing Trump is an obvious vote killer because everyone is tired of the complaining without a better message of what Democrats would do instead. As for Christ, he offered a lot of answers that a lot of people wanted, absent of Sanhedrin/Pharisees, and Roman's, the latter of which ultimately embraced the message themselves, didn't they, corrupted though it become.
-->
@fauxlaw
With regard to the US Statute 18 USC §2383, are there any Democrat members of this site with sufficient lack of bias to explain, while there were charges of insurrection against a few of the hundreds of people charged with a variety of crimes for Jan 6 involvement, why there is not one single conviction for insurrection, yet your political-finger-pointing talkers continue to call the incident an "insurrection?"
I'll start by pointing out that I've never used the term insurrection to describe J6 because all that does is give Trump cultists the excuse they need to deflect. It's a complicated issue because there were thousands of people involved all with different levels of involvement and motivations, so any one word to describe it other than the most vaguest of terms will be easily hand waived away by those uninterested in confronting the reality of what happened.
One other thing before I directly address your question is that the framing of this I find disingenuous. The idea here is that if a violation of a particular criminal statue isn't charged then this shows that the alleged activity didn't happen. That's not how reason works. Prosecutors will only bring charges if they believe they have enough evidence to attain a criminal conviction in a court of law. Those are extremely high standards and have no place being applied in the court of public opinion, especially when the prime defendant in said court is also a the front runner to be the next President of the United States.
Now with all that said, I find it odd that you ask this question when multiple individuals were charged with seditious conspiracy. That charge contains every element of insurrection plus it requires conspiring to effectuate said insurrection, so it's the exact same charge but worse.
Even though that directly conflicts with your narrative, I'm still willing to set that to the side and get to what I think is really the meat of the issue. The problem with calling it an insurrection is that it all depends on what point of view you're looking at it from. If we're talking about the motivations of the individual rioters than like I said, that varies quite a bit and there's too many "outs" for an insurrection aligned individual to use. The real charge here that applies is incitement of insurrection, which directly falls on Donald Trump. As long as what happened was his intention, and it was an attempt to rebel against the United States government, then the charge holds. Neither are reasonably disputable.
You cannot dispute that sending a mob to attack the US Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the lawful winner of the election is a rebellion against the United States government and/or is laws.
And as far as Trump's motivations... I've argued them many times here so I'll just cut to the end. There is, or at least would have been, a plausible argument that Trump didn't want what happened to occur... Up until the 187 minutes after he spoke at the ellipse. For him to sit there in the WH dining room watching the entire thing play out on TV without making a single phone call to anyone in the chain of command, not one order for the national guard to deploy as they sat there for hours ready and waiting for that order... There is no rational case to be made that this is a man who didn't want this, and that's before we consider that he pardoned every single one of them.
-->
@Double_R
Jan 6 will go down as one of the most Pyrrhic victories in history for the Democrat party. Right up there with wiping out the Alamo and ambushing Pearl Harbor.
-->
@Double_R
I’ll respond to your points in their sequence.
“…if a violation of a particular criminal statue isn't charged then this shows that the alleged activity didn't happen. That's not how reason works. Prosecutors will only bring charges if they believe they have enough evidence to attain a criminal conviction in a court of law.”
There were charges for insurrection by the prosecution, but there are no convictions. Zero. So, prosecutors failed to achieve conviction even though they thought insurrectihon occurred. That argument was dead before you made it.
“…especially when the prime defendant in said court is also a the front runner to be the next President of the United States.”
Nope, that one Is dead, too. The court[s] wherein these J6 trials are being held are not the court[s] and not the cases the prosecution[s] tried to convict Trump. They have one, but that trial was so fraught with bogusness, the appeals may take years to get through. It is likely a vacated conviction.
“…multiple individuals were charged with seditious conspiracy.”
Sure. A lot of people were charged with disturbing the peace, too, but neither that, nor sed. conspiracy [18 USC §2384] are constant talking points in the media, nor among the screaming Democrats. I asked a pointed question about insurrection only because that’s the one-leaf word salad the media and the Democrats repeat ad nauseas. Thus, my limited question.
“You cannot dispute that sending a mob to attack the US Capitol.”
Oh, but I can. That is the other ad nauseas comment made by the media and Democratsa. But Trumo did note say that in his beech. ERead the transcript. He said “…go peacefully to the Capitol.” What’s so confusing about that. Other than the it is not confusing at all, unless one already has an agenda.
“…an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the lawful winner of the election is a rebellion against the United States government and/or is laws.”
Show me statute forbidding questioning election results.
“…not one order for the national guard to deploy…”
Since when is the President responsible for the Capitol Building security? That’s the Speaker’s responsibility. That building does not belong to the Exec branch. Trump offered Pelosi Nat’l Guard assistance days before Jan 6. She refused. See her former job description, not Trump's.
So, I repeat my original question...
-->
@Greyparrot
Pyrrhic victory
Amen. Don't forget the immortal words of JoeBiden: ""Stem the migration at the southern border..."
That exec command in Mar. 2021 didn't fit any word salad Kamalala knew, so it was ignored. So much for "Got it done."
-->
@fauxlaw
That argument was dead before you made it.Nope, that one Is dead, too.
What are you talking about? Neither of these arguments addressed a word I said.
Sure. A lot of people were charged with disturbing the peace, too, but neither that, nor sed. conspiracy [18 USC §2384] are constant talking points in the media, nor among the screaming Democrats. I asked a pointed question about insurrection only because that’s the one-leaf word salad the media and the Democrats repeat ad nauseas. Thus, my limited question.
Again, what are you talking about? You asked whether anyone was charged with insurrection. Yes, multiple people. The charge was seditious conspiracy which is exactly the same thing but worse. Your limited question has been answered.
But Trumo did note say that in his beech. ERead the transcript. He said “…go peacefully to the Capitol.” What’s so confusing about that.
What's confusing is that Trump's speech was 11,000 words long over 45 minutes and this one clip of 3 words is the only thing in the entire speech that wasn't incendiary.
You see, in language and communication there is this thing we call context, and context is necessary for understanding what message someone is trying to convey. 45 minutes of telling the crowd that their country is being stolen from them and they'll have to fight like hell to get it back, and let's have trial by combat, and you can't take back your country with weakness you have to show strength... Is not offset by 3 words in the middle of that speech. And that's before we get to everything Trump had been saying for the two months prior.
And here's one for you, riddle me this; how does one peacefully make their voice heard when their voice has been stolen from them? This is the ultimate contradiction of this defense. Trump is literally telling this crowd that their voice (through their vote) is being stolen from them by the people who are brazenly hijacking the constitution to install the loser into office... And the remedy for this is to yell really loud? It's patently absurd, and everyone in the crowd knew it.
“…an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the lawful winner of the election is a rebellion against the United States government and/or is laws.”Show me statute forbidding questioning election results.
It's in the statute that says you cannot beat up police officers on your way towards trespassing onto the US Capitol during an official proceeding.
Since when is the President responsible for the Capitol Building security?
When it's under attack by a hostile force genius.
Trump offered Pelosi Nat’l Guard assistance days before Jan 6. She refused.
Yeah this is another one of those MAGA zombie lies. Trump did not offer 10k troops and even if he did it was not Nancy Pelosi's decision to make.
Regardless, what's hilarious about this is that even if it were true that only makes your case even worse. Why would Trump have made this offer in the first place? Answer; only if Trump had good reason to believe the US Capitol was in danger. And the only threat posed to the capitol that day were the protests Trump was actively organizing. If you really believe Trump was aware of the threat posed that day and he went out there and gave that speech anyway... That's a damning indictment of what he was trying to stir up as he told that crowd to fight like 20 times.
Oh, and you never did offer an answer to the question... What was Trump doing during those 187 minutes?
8 days later
-->
@fauxlaw
Since there are no convictions, it didn't happen, did it?
And OJ didn't do it.
-->
@ultramaximus2
An irrelevant argument is just that.
-->
@fauxlaw
Since there are no convictions, it didn't happen, did it?
That's your argument, right? That the absence of convictions demonstrates that the crimes didn't happen. This is something so well-known to be untrue that I don't believe you made the argument in good faith. How could you? You're smarter than that.
-->
@ultramaximus2
Yes, that is my argument, based on court case results. And the fact that of the several thousand Supreme Court cases ever tried, a mere 10% have been overturned by subsequent Court cases. That's a relative acceptable percentage of success, 90%, to figure the Court, overall, for dealing with what amounts to human frailty of adherence to absolute truth, is flawed. So, you accept the "fact" of insurrection by hearsay? I would say you're supposed to be smarter than that.
-->
@fauxlaw
Would you prefer the term "seditious conspiracy"?
-->
@fauxlaw
Im not sure how familiar you are with criminal proceedings. Usually the DAs will want to prosecute the charges that are easiest to prove and most often charges get plea bargained. Charges for insurrection under 18 USC §2383 may run in to legal problems. The whole thing was an attack but seemed like a disorganized riot or an angry mob. This may not satisfy the intended meaning of insurrection or rebellion under the statute. Thats what I would imagine the reason could be, but I havent looked at the court cases to see what happened with them. Even if I did look at the records Im probably not going to see what was going on in the DAs head. This would all come from the same DAs office, although separate state level charges (or DC federal enclave charges) can make a different DA.
-->
@TwoMan
I prefer to think by the charges prosecution brought and which they thought they could win. I presume they know what they're doing, and not what they would like to see happen according to the narrative, including the prevalent belief of incitation to riot by Trump, which they did not even charge. Scared rabbits. They failed in their attempt in even in what they hoped they could win, because they buy into the errant belief that they cannot charge a sitting president for crimes. That is just DOJ policy for the last 50 years, not the law of the land.. Cases closed; done deal.
-->
@ultramaximus2
I have looked deeply into this whole affair because I am a student of the law, though retired. And, I am skilled in linguistics, by college degree, plus a PhD in history and in English lit. and have analyzed Trump's J-6 speech, and the statute of 18 USC §2383 [rebellion and insurrection] and find no corollary to make the charges of insurrection the prosecution charged to multiple people, and lost all of them. That was a multiple wing-and-a prayer they hoped would fly, but didn't. And Trump's language was in no way inciteful, not when he says "Go peacefully to the Capitol" A lot of wishful media thinking to the contrary, but journalism rarely teaches linguisitc syntax, but a linguistics program does. Words mean things, and there are fully eight definitions of "fight," and only one of them involves physical confrontation. Trump's syntax was not that, but. saying "fight," journalists, and political pundits will automatically assume the one "fight " definition that fits their own bias on the event, and not what the event actually was.
Actually, the same goes for Trump's speech in which he allegedly said he would "eliminate the Constitution," but, everybody misses that the whole section of his speech sets up a conditional situation in which if things went south because of rampant misunderstanding and outright violation oof constitutional principles, he would move to replace it, but, the conditions have not yet reached that threshold. Journalists don't know how to diagram sentences anymore, or they would understand what he said. Political pundits, too. We're a nation of dwindling academic skills, in spite of the rising cost of education. We are now educated to accept nonsense concepts, like gender fluidity, let alone climate change. Sure, it changes, but nowhere will we evert find a worldwide climate that stays within plus/minus 1.5 degrees C.
-->
@fauxlaw
The prosecution sought convictions for seditious conspiracy, assault of law enforcement officers, trespassing, disrupting congress, theft, weapons crimes, etc. There is no blanket term that covers all of the offenses committed that day. Perhaps instead of insurrectionists, they should just rightly be called criminals.
-->
@TwoMan
I know for a fact that about a dozen of some 800 people charged with various crimes for J-6 actions at the Capitol were charged with insurrection on fed. statute 18 USC §2383, but none were convicted for it.
-->
@fauxlaw
The issues with insurrection charges are probably similar in the other cases (ie why prosecutor would dismiss such charges)
-->
@ultramaximus2
Interesting article, thanks for the reference. But I found a commentary within it at the start of Blackman's fourth point, that "...but there was evidence that he [Trump] gave aid and comfort to an insurrection..." but Blackman does not bother to define what that evidence was, and I find the exclusion not to be in his favor. I don't see that this was Jack Smith's own opinion, either. That neither Smith, nor Blackman speak any further to it is curious to me. If someone has that "evidence," why is no one presenting it? Smacks of my favorite idiot, Adam Schiff, who also maintains having all manner of evidence of Trump misconduct, but has yet, after the years since the 1st impeachment conviction attempt, to reveal exactly what it is. If it is legit evidence against Trump, and he continues to hold it within his vest, is he truly the spear he envisions himself to be? What's he waiting for? God's final judgment? I suspect that will shine more light on Schiff than on Trump.
-->
@fauxlaw
Try page 61 section E "other charges"
-->
@ultramaximus2
Brevity is the soul of wit. The rest are witless.
-->
@ultramaximus2
No J6 insurrection convictions in a +90 district would be the same as OJ being acquitted by a jury with 11 Klansmen.