There in nothing in your piece, or the one you linked to, which mentions any use of force or the threat of force. In fact you write "calling Senators to persuade them. . ." and "personally pressuring Wayne County, Michigan, canvassers." Persuasion is not force or the threat of force.
In addition the riot started before he finished speaking. In that speech he called for them to protest "peacefully and patriotically" a fact which is always omitted from the anti-Trump pieces such as yours.
It was Trump who authorized the DOD to ask DC for permission to deploy National Guard troops. The mayor asked his Chief of Police who refused because his police force is trained for such things and he didn't want people in military uniforms to create the false impression that a military attempt to overthrow the government was afoot.
He was not evicted from the Whitehouse, he moved. There were no tanks in the streets. You don't have a single example of force used by Trump.
Greg, Trump rather notably failed for several hours to authorize the deployment of the National Guard to protect the Capitol--all while talking to congressmen and using the riot to pressure them to keep him in office unconstitutionally. There was a conversation with Kevin McCarthy who was pleading for him to speak out to stop the riot, and Trump replied, "I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are." Then there's the detail I linked to recently about how the Trump White House conspired with the rally organizers to hide the fact that he intended to call on his supporters to march on the Capitol, depriving them of proper notice of the risks.
Links for those two points, because you should know by now they I always have the facts to back this up:
That second one is linked above, in the very article you are replying to, as is the Colorado Supreme Court's recitation of all the evidence showing Trump's complicity, not just in J6, but in the wider conspiracy to prevent the certification of the vote.
I don't get why people are so eager to make excuses for Trump. What do you possibly think you will get out of a new Trump administration, or Trump's continued influence over the Republican Party, that makes these mental gymnastics seem worthwhile?
I don't want another Trump administration. I'm still hoping for Niki Haley. But I'm trying not to let my antipathy towards his candidacy color my view of the vexed question: Did he employ the use of force or the threat of its use? Does the failure to try and stop the use of force initiated by someone else implicate him in the use of force? Is suppose you could argue that if he had a duty to do so and he failed to do it. Remember his request for the National Guard was turned down by DC before the event.
The strongest fact you have to implicate Trump on the use of force is the Twitter post from someone inside the White House indicating that Trump's call to march on the Capital was to be kept under wraps until he sprung it on them during his speech. That implies he did not want law enforcement to be prepared for what was about to happen. And then there is the further implication that he did this because he knew what was about to happen. It's thin, but it's there.
My broader objection is that the Democrats have tried with success to use the power of the prosecutors office to indict candidates in order to keep them off the ballot. Governor Rick Perry in Texas comes to mind. There was another case in Wisconsin where it was attempted. Then there was the whole Russian collusion hoax where the power of law enforcement was used against Trump. Don't you see this as a threat to our Constitutional Republic?
I tend to agree. The weakest part of this, and almost every other, argument around invoking the 14A is the definition of 'insurrection'. Certainly there is a dictionary definition of what that is and, just as certainly there is an operation definition of what an insurrection is (at least one that calls for a federal response) in the Insurrection Act of 1807.
A lot of other people want us to focus solely on some dictionary definition of what an insurrection is and accept the fact that one took place because it meets any of the dictionary definitions of what that is, even if those definitions don't include any use of force or armaments.
On the other hand, in the Insurrection Act of 1807 there are three conditions that must be satisfied for what is happening to become an 'insurrection' worthy of the feds declaring than an insurrection is in progress AND that that insurrection requires federal intervention.
While they don't explicitly say it, the first two levels that are identified in the law are really just civil disturbances, but that can be deduced from the fact that the responsibility for handling the disturbances are, first, the local authorities and, secondly, the state's governor and the powers that he wields including the use of the NG (unless the governor proves either incapable of or unwilling to suppress the disturbance and bring peace back into the area of the disturbance and then the president can declare an insurrection is going on and take actions independent of the governor.)
The third level, the one that spills over into the federal sphere of control, and the one that is clearly what was meant when they used the term 'insurrection', requires a far, far greater evidentiary and scope hurdle that few want to discuss... preferring to just conclude that an 'insurrection' did or did not occur.
To put this in perspective, the BLM and other 2020 civil disturbances in Portland and Seattle, while they were rebellion against civil authorities and included attacks against federal government properties, never really reached the threshold to allow the feds to declare them 'insurrections' as defined in the law.
But, the southern states with their weapons, civil disobedience, and incitement to violence by the civil authorities, by all of the requirements of the Insurrection Act, clearly placed those states in a state of insurrection against the federal government. By the same rules found in the Insurrection Act, what happened on January 6 was a civil disturbance and not an insurrection, we shouldn't allow one side to focus on some abstract, dictionary, definition and tell us that this is the ultimate authority for the definitions we must use, it's not.
Why the Dems, the government, and other people that should know better say, and are allowed to continuing saying, that J6 and other, like behaviors, were 'insurrections' is beyond me.
For my money, the Insurrection Act of 1807 operationalized the definition of what an 'insurrection' is and, the dictionary definitions of insurrection notwithstanding, overrides any gameplaying by those that want to punish someone they want to punish.
You mention the requirements of the Insurrection Act, but say too little about them specifically to tell how that would apply here. I looked and could not find anything conditions that don't apply to January 6.
It's an odd argument to make because the usual criticism of the Insurrection Act is that it is far too vague and broad about what counts as an insurrection, including “unlawful combination” or “conspiracy” that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.” That would definitely include J6 and a whole lot more. And it's too vague about what powers he can command in an emergency--so much so that on J6, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act so they could volunteer themselves as his personal militia.
"The legal term “self-executing” can be a bit misleading, because obviously the mere words on the page do not enforce themselves. What this principle means in practice is that the provisions of the Constitution are to be enforced by everybody. Everybody has the authority to block an unconstitutional act. In this case, a whole collection of individuals in our election system have a role in deciding who is qualified to run for office, from secretaries of state to the courts."
This is the fundamental problem with their argument right here, and of yours. Qualifications for office are set out in legislation, and matters like age and residence involved in the qualifications are settled by reference to official documents, records, and the like; they provide the factual basis in case a decision is challenged in court, as is assured under due process. Similarly, in the case of the Civil War, insurrection and rebellion were defined in accordance with Section 5 of the Confiscation Act of 1862 as holding office in the government of a state in rebellion or in the CSA government, serving as a CSA military officer, or giving aid to the CSA while living in a state in the Union, and it added the qualification that they be convicted of this--the conviction is the basis for the decision of disqualification. This article has been retained the current federal law defining particular crimes (18 U.S. Code Chapter 115) in its definition of insurrection, which retains the original wording almost word for word: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 . Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, so it is essentially a resort to governing by men not laws to say that the provision is somehow self-enacting because "we all know" what applies--in practical terms, there has to be officially acceptable documentation that the disqualification applies if the decision disqualifying someone from running for election is appealed to the courts, and even Baude and Paulsen admit as quietly as they can that this is so, as pointed out in a good response to their article (footnote numbers omitted):
"Either way, however these difficult legal and factual questions are answered, any adverse initial determination made by state or local election officials would not be final as a matter of constitutional law, for as Professors Baude and Paulsen themselves concede, however grudgingly, an adverse or
negative decision by local officials regarding a candidate’s eligibility for office would most likely be subject to judicial review by a regular court of law: “such determinations about ballot eligibility may also be subject to further judicial review.” Alas, in making this key concession, Professors Baude and Paulsen are like two poker-players with a non-verbal but information-revealing facial tick or cue--in Poker lingo, a “tell.” That is, the fact that they so reluctantly concede the possibility of judicial review of the Disqualification Clause reveals the disingenuous and politically-motivated nature of their central “self-execution” argument." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4564998
In short, yes, any official can make any decision he or she likes, but it has to stand up in court. What counts as insurrection when there is no question of having served the Confederacy (a matter of public record)? A court decision that the party in question violated the law in accordance with the definition given in law. There is no such decision regarding Trump, and in lieu of such a decision, it is a violation of due process to disqualify him from running for or holding office.
The whole thing falls to bits with only two words: "Due Process".
And, no, the Civil War parallel does not hold. There's a teensy weensy difference between serving in an army that boasted of war crimes in advance, in a war that killed tens of thousands - and being associated with a protest that got out of hand.
Trump could, truthfully, claim that all he did was to say "Protest patriotically and peacefully". The word "incite" happens to have a real meaning, for the record. It means to actually call for a specific course of action. Denying the legitimacy of an election is no more than Americans have been doing for 20 years (see Gore v Bush, Clinton v Trump)
So all this has done is ensure Trump's re-election. Great work.
I see I've got a small gang of conservative media consumers coming into the comments here.
"A protest that got out of hand" is a string of words you can use to make yourself feel better about making excuses for this, but it's not an accurate or honest description of the event.
As for due process, that issue has been dealt with repeatedly, including above. Due process means the ordinary process appropriate for a legal action--and that can include the Colorado Supreme Court hearing evidence from witnesses and arriving at a finding of fact about the insurrection, and it can even include the Maine's Secretary of State using her legal authority to rule about whether a candidate is eligible to be on the ballot. Cries of "due process" in this case are not about due process. They are attempts to derail any process that achieves a result you don't like.
One reason I am against Trump being re-elected is that the next US president will have the last chance, pretty much, to pass legislation that stops AI before it kills everyone. So, yes, I take it pretty seriously. So seriously that I get testy watching this idiocy ensure Trump's re-election.
And how many of those allowed clhim to confront his accusers, summon his witnesses etc?
For the record, I am very keen on Trump not being president, since the next US administration is probably the last one that has a chance to shut down AI before it kills everyone, so I am taking it pretty seriously. Seriously enough that watching this idiocy ensure his re-election makes me testy
Become more informed before you call other people idiots. The Colorado Supreme Court ruling was based on extensive hearings in which Trump and his lawyers were available. I just gave you a link to the Proud Boys trials, so you can check on how those were conducted and verify the rights of the accused. Look it all up.
And no, runaway AI is not a threat, James Cameron to the contrary notwithstanding. So if that's all that worries you about US election, you needn't get so worked up.
If your concept of AI risk makes you think of James Cameron rather than, e.g., Eliezer Yudkowsky, Max Tegmark, Geoffrey Hinton, Dario Amodei etc., then I really do not know where to begin. And, yes, those are real people doing real research in the real world, often for decades. The conclusion from all of them is that AI is an existential risk, aka a "kill everyone" risk (yes, that exact phrase is used by AI engineers).
I read your article, and your idea is that AI is no risk because we can simply program it not to be. That's... barely even wrong. The world's leading AI scientists have thought of that and know why it doesn't work
I have no brief for the proud boys etc., I am solely concerned about Trump and how these prosecutions seem to have handed him the election. God help us all, but He doesn't exist
Prove it. And proof in a legal arena - or any other arena - usually involves challenging evidence, allowing criticism etc. Merely having one group select what evidence supports their view is something else.
As to the rest:
1). Not a conservative, 2). I have compared Trump to Caligula, among others.
An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow a government as distinct from only conspiring or thinking about doing so. On January 6th and the in days before it, Trump clearly made such an attempt. The election was decided beyond any legal challenge or appeal on December 14th, 2020, when the electors voted. Trump’s efforts after that to remain in power were intended to overthrow the government of the United States. I have often wanted to ask some of Trump’s defenders what other purpose than blocking the final certification of the election they think there could have been for staging the rally on January 6th. It surely wasn’t Bing and Danny getting the men of the 151st division to show up on Christmas Eve to show the Old Man he wasn’t forgotten. I think the frightened, overwrought supporters Trump brought to Washington and stirred up with talk of losing their country if what was about to happen in the Capitol was not stopped probably were called in on some vague idea of Trump’s to use them to provide muscle for the efforts to remain in power illegally. However, it really does not matter if I or anyone else is wrong on that. Trump would have been guilty of insurrection if his supporters had stood peacefully outside the Capitol and chanted slogans instead of attacking. Trump’s order to Pence to not allow Biden’s election to be certified and instead recognize bogus Trumpist electors from several states was by itself an act of insurrection and an attempted coup. .Anyone working to overturn the election after December 14th was an insurrectionist enemy of the republic. I doubt if it will matter, but Robert is right. The 14th Amendment applies to Trump.
I was truly on the fence about this, but your arguments have convinced me. I have seen lots of very bad things done by very bad people in this country, but January 6th was the first time I ever feared for future of America. I voted for Trump in 2016, but his behavior has been beyond the pale. If he is elected to the presidency one more time there is every possibility we will never get our country back again.
There in nothing in your piece, or the one you linked to, which mentions any use of force or the threat of force. In fact you write "calling Senators to persuade them. . ." and "personally pressuring Wayne County, Michigan, canvassers." Persuasion is not force or the threat of force.
In addition the riot started before he finished speaking. In that speech he called for them to protest "peacefully and patriotically" a fact which is always omitted from the anti-Trump pieces such as yours.
It was Trump who authorized the DOD to ask DC for permission to deploy National Guard troops. The mayor asked his Chief of Police who refused because his police force is trained for such things and he didn't want people in military uniforms to create the false impression that a military attempt to overthrow the government was afoot.
He was not evicted from the Whitehouse, he moved. There were no tanks in the streets. You don't have a single example of force used by Trump.
Greg, Trump rather notably failed for several hours to authorize the deployment of the National Guard to protect the Capitol--all while talking to congressmen and using the riot to pressure them to keep him in office unconstitutionally. There was a conversation with Kevin McCarthy who was pleading for him to speak out to stop the riot, and Trump replied, "I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are." Then there's the detail I linked to recently about how the Trump White House conspired with the rally organizers to hide the fact that he intended to call on his supporters to march on the Capitol, depriving them of proper notice of the risks.
Links for those two points, because you should know by now they I always have the facts to back this up:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/interior-watchdog-january-6-report_n_658081d0e4b036ecab461422
That second one is linked above, in the very article you are replying to, as is the Colorado Supreme Court's recitation of all the evidence showing Trump's complicity, not just in J6, but in the wider conspiracy to prevent the certification of the vote.
I don't get why people are so eager to make excuses for Trump. What do you possibly think you will get out of a new Trump administration, or Trump's continued influence over the Republican Party, that makes these mental gymnastics seem worthwhile?
I don't want another Trump administration. I'm still hoping for Niki Haley. But I'm trying not to let my antipathy towards his candidacy color my view of the vexed question: Did he employ the use of force or the threat of its use? Does the failure to try and stop the use of force initiated by someone else implicate him in the use of force? Is suppose you could argue that if he had a duty to do so and he failed to do it. Remember his request for the National Guard was turned down by DC before the event.
The strongest fact you have to implicate Trump on the use of force is the Twitter post from someone inside the White House indicating that Trump's call to march on the Capital was to be kept under wraps until he sprung it on them during his speech. That implies he did not want law enforcement to be prepared for what was about to happen. And then there is the further implication that he did this because he knew what was about to happen. It's thin, but it's there.
My broader objection is that the Democrats have tried with success to use the power of the prosecutors office to indict candidates in order to keep them off the ballot. Governor Rick Perry in Texas comes to mind. There was another case in Wisconsin where it was attempted. Then there was the whole Russian collusion hoax where the power of law enforcement was used against Trump. Don't you see this as a threat to our Constitutional Republic?
I tend to agree. The weakest part of this, and almost every other, argument around invoking the 14A is the definition of 'insurrection'. Certainly there is a dictionary definition of what that is and, just as certainly there is an operation definition of what an insurrection is (at least one that calls for a federal response) in the Insurrection Act of 1807.
A lot of other people want us to focus solely on some dictionary definition of what an insurrection is and accept the fact that one took place because it meets any of the dictionary definitions of what that is, even if those definitions don't include any use of force or armaments.
On the other hand, in the Insurrection Act of 1807 there are three conditions that must be satisfied for what is happening to become an 'insurrection' worthy of the feds declaring than an insurrection is in progress AND that that insurrection requires federal intervention.
While they don't explicitly say it, the first two levels that are identified in the law are really just civil disturbances, but that can be deduced from the fact that the responsibility for handling the disturbances are, first, the local authorities and, secondly, the state's governor and the powers that he wields including the use of the NG (unless the governor proves either incapable of or unwilling to suppress the disturbance and bring peace back into the area of the disturbance and then the president can declare an insurrection is going on and take actions independent of the governor.)
The third level, the one that spills over into the federal sphere of control, and the one that is clearly what was meant when they used the term 'insurrection', requires a far, far greater evidentiary and scope hurdle that few want to discuss... preferring to just conclude that an 'insurrection' did or did not occur.
To put this in perspective, the BLM and other 2020 civil disturbances in Portland and Seattle, while they were rebellion against civil authorities and included attacks against federal government properties, never really reached the threshold to allow the feds to declare them 'insurrections' as defined in the law.
But, the southern states with their weapons, civil disobedience, and incitement to violence by the civil authorities, by all of the requirements of the Insurrection Act, clearly placed those states in a state of insurrection against the federal government. By the same rules found in the Insurrection Act, what happened on January 6 was a civil disturbance and not an insurrection, we shouldn't allow one side to focus on some abstract, dictionary, definition and tell us that this is the ultimate authority for the definitions we must use, it's not.
Why the Dems, the government, and other people that should know better say, and are allowed to continuing saying, that J6 and other, like behaviors, were 'insurrections' is beyond me.
For my money, the Insurrection Act of 1807 operationalized the definition of what an 'insurrection' is and, the dictionary definitions of insurrection notwithstanding, overrides any gameplaying by those that want to punish someone they want to punish.
You mention the requirements of the Insurrection Act, but say too little about them specifically to tell how that would apply here. I looked and could not find anything conditions that don't apply to January 6.
It's an odd argument to make because the usual criticism of the Insurrection Act is that it is far too vague and broad about what counts as an insurrection, including “unlawful combination” or “conspiracy” that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.” That would definitely include J6 and a whole lot more. And it's too vague about what powers he can command in an emergency--so much so that on J6, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act so they could volunteer themselves as his personal militia.
See here:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-fix-insurrection-act
"The legal term “self-executing” can be a bit misleading, because obviously the mere words on the page do not enforce themselves. What this principle means in practice is that the provisions of the Constitution are to be enforced by everybody. Everybody has the authority to block an unconstitutional act. In this case, a whole collection of individuals in our election system have a role in deciding who is qualified to run for office, from secretaries of state to the courts."
This is the fundamental problem with their argument right here, and of yours. Qualifications for office are set out in legislation, and matters like age and residence involved in the qualifications are settled by reference to official documents, records, and the like; they provide the factual basis in case a decision is challenged in court, as is assured under due process. Similarly, in the case of the Civil War, insurrection and rebellion were defined in accordance with Section 5 of the Confiscation Act of 1862 as holding office in the government of a state in rebellion or in the CSA government, serving as a CSA military officer, or giving aid to the CSA while living in a state in the Union, and it added the qualification that they be convicted of this--the conviction is the basis for the decision of disqualification. This article has been retained the current federal law defining particular crimes (18 U.S. Code Chapter 115) in its definition of insurrection, which retains the original wording almost word for word: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 . Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, so it is essentially a resort to governing by men not laws to say that the provision is somehow self-enacting because "we all know" what applies--in practical terms, there has to be officially acceptable documentation that the disqualification applies if the decision disqualifying someone from running for election is appealed to the courts, and even Baude and Paulsen admit as quietly as they can that this is so, as pointed out in a good response to their article (footnote numbers omitted):
"Either way, however these difficult legal and factual questions are answered, any adverse initial determination made by state or local election officials would not be final as a matter of constitutional law, for as Professors Baude and Paulsen themselves concede, however grudgingly, an adverse or
negative decision by local officials regarding a candidate’s eligibility for office would most likely be subject to judicial review by a regular court of law: “such determinations about ballot eligibility may also be subject to further judicial review.” Alas, in making this key concession, Professors Baude and Paulsen are like two poker-players with a non-verbal but information-revealing facial tick or cue--in Poker lingo, a “tell.” That is, the fact that they so reluctantly concede the possibility of judicial review of the Disqualification Clause reveals the disingenuous and politically-motivated nature of their central “self-execution” argument." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4564998
In short, yes, any official can make any decision he or she likes, but it has to stand up in court. What counts as insurrection when there is no question of having served the Confederacy (a matter of public record)? A court decision that the party in question violated the law in accordance with the definition given in law. There is no such decision regarding Trump, and in lieu of such a decision, it is a violation of due process to disqualify him from running for or holding office.
“In case you were trying to remember whether it really was an insurrection.”
BFD! I have seen that, (and probably worse), at high school pep rallies!
Kind of curious what kind of high school you went to.
The whole thing falls to bits with only two words: "Due Process".
And, no, the Civil War parallel does not hold. There's a teensy weensy difference between serving in an army that boasted of war crimes in advance, in a war that killed tens of thousands - and being associated with a protest that got out of hand.
Trump could, truthfully, claim that all he did was to say "Protest patriotically and peacefully". The word "incite" happens to have a real meaning, for the record. It means to actually call for a specific course of action. Denying the legitimacy of an election is no more than Americans have been doing for 20 years (see Gore v Bush, Clinton v Trump)
So all this has done is ensure Trump's re-election. Great work.
I see I've got a small gang of conservative media consumers coming into the comments here.
"A protest that got out of hand" is a string of words you can use to make yourself feel better about making excuses for this, but it's not an accurate or honest description of the event.
As for due process, that issue has been dealt with repeatedly, including above. Due process means the ordinary process appropriate for a legal action--and that can include the Colorado Supreme Court hearing evidence from witnesses and arriving at a finding of fact about the insurrection, and it can even include the Maine's Secretary of State using her legal authority to rule about whether a candidate is eligible to be on the ballot. Cries of "due process" in this case are not about due process. They are attempts to derail any process that achieves a result you don't like.
One reason I am against Trump being re-elected is that the next US president will have the last chance, pretty much, to pass legislation that stops AI before it kills everyone. So, yes, I take it pretty seriously. So seriously that I get testy watching this idiocy ensure Trump's re-election.
And how many of those allowed clhim to confront his accusers, summon his witnesses etc?
For the record, I am very keen on Trump not being president, since the next US administration is probably the last one that has a chance to shut down AI before it kills everyone, so I am taking it pretty seriously. Seriously enough that watching this idiocy ensure his re-election makes me testy
Become more informed before you call other people idiots. The Colorado Supreme Court ruling was based on extensive hearings in which Trump and his lawyers were available. I just gave you a link to the Proud Boys trials, so you can check on how those were conducted and verify the rights of the accused. Look it all up.
And no, runaway AI is not a threat, James Cameron to the contrary notwithstanding. So if that's all that worries you about US election, you needn't get so worked up.
I covered that here: https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/why-the-robots-wont-eat-us
If your concept of AI risk makes you think of James Cameron rather than, e.g., Eliezer Yudkowsky, Max Tegmark, Geoffrey Hinton, Dario Amodei etc., then I really do not know where to begin. And, yes, those are real people doing real research in the real world, often for decades. The conclusion from all of them is that AI is an existential risk, aka a "kill everyone" risk (yes, that exact phrase is used by AI engineers).
I read your article, and your idea is that AI is no risk because we can simply program it not to be. That's... barely even wrong. The world's leading AI scientists have thought of that and know why it doesn't work
I have no brief for the proud boys etc., I am solely concerned about Trump and how these prosecutions seem to have handed him the election. God help us all, but He doesn't exist
Though I honestly can't resist pointing out that AI controlled weapons systems are, in fact, being developed and deployed.
>not an accurate or honest description
Prove it. And proof in a legal arena - or any other arena - usually involves challenging evidence, allowing criticism etc. Merely having one group select what evidence supports their view is something else.
As to the rest:
1). Not a conservative, 2). I have compared Trump to Caligula, among others.
I just know bad arguments when I see them.
Anyway enjoy Trumpening 2
This isn't Twitter. Take things seriously or don't comment.
As to the legal arena, you do realize that multiple people have been convicted in court of "seditious conspiracy"? Trump will get his turn, too.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-22-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related
An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow a government as distinct from only conspiring or thinking about doing so. On January 6th and the in days before it, Trump clearly made such an attempt. The election was decided beyond any legal challenge or appeal on December 14th, 2020, when the electors voted. Trump’s efforts after that to remain in power were intended to overthrow the government of the United States. I have often wanted to ask some of Trump’s defenders what other purpose than blocking the final certification of the election they think there could have been for staging the rally on January 6th. It surely wasn’t Bing and Danny getting the men of the 151st division to show up on Christmas Eve to show the Old Man he wasn’t forgotten. I think the frightened, overwrought supporters Trump brought to Washington and stirred up with talk of losing their country if what was about to happen in the Capitol was not stopped probably were called in on some vague idea of Trump’s to use them to provide muscle for the efforts to remain in power illegally. However, it really does not matter if I or anyone else is wrong on that. Trump would have been guilty of insurrection if his supporters had stood peacefully outside the Capitol and chanted slogans instead of attacking. Trump’s order to Pence to not allow Biden’s election to be certified and instead recognize bogus Trumpist electors from several states was by itself an act of insurrection and an attempted coup. .Anyone working to overturn the election after December 14th was an insurrectionist enemy of the republic. I doubt if it will matter, but Robert is right. The 14th Amendment applies to Trump.
Thank you so much for the "White Christmas" reference.
I was truly on the fence about this, but your arguments have convinced me. I have seen lots of very bad things done by very bad people in this country, but January 6th was the first time I ever feared for future of America. I voted for Trump in 2016, but his behavior has been beyond the pale. If he is elected to the presidency one more time there is every possibility we will never get our country back again.