Dec 21, 2023Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
Good article. In my mind, I've always been in the camp where I believe that the less attention you give to Trump, he becomes weaker. He thrives on grabbing attention to himself, and what Colorado court did may have solidified his grip on the base of GOP voters, which is the exact opposite of what we want.
If Biden beat Trump on his own merits, then why can't he do the same thing again in 2024? I mean, it's far better to win an election based on one's accomplishments and merits than relying upon the courts and lawfare to defeat his political opponent. I fear all of this will only create a mindset among GOP voters that they'll have to engage in the same kind of lawfare that denied their man an opportunity to land back in White House.
Otherwise, Trump will now claim his election was stolen twice.
Better to let Trump run and let the voters decide for himself who they want to be next Republican nominee and whether he wins the presidential race. If Trump wins, so be it. I'm not too worried about him. He is not Hitler. He is not the end of world. He is not Antichrist. He is just a man, and there is plenty of opposition within bureaucracy that will slow down Trump's agenda. He is old, and he has a high likelihood of dying in the office than leaving it. Like Biden, I don't see how Trump lasts four years in White House. Relax, America will be fine even with him in White House. America is not like Germany before WW2.
People need to calm down.
Likewise, Biden is not the end of world. America will be fine even with him in White House for 2nd term. I don't like him. I think he greatly weakens America, but that's another story. I can live with either man in White House. Ultimately, neither man is my role model or to be idolized. I place my trust in God as much as possible. America has plenty of story left when both men will finally have left the stage for better or worse.
As for defining what is an insurrection. I've always believed the definition to be taking up arms against federal government, like actively participating in combat against federal troops or law enforcement agents. Speaking out against government is not enough to be labeled as insurrectionist in my book. Confederate veterans actually participated in combat and were obviously rebelling against federal government. If one wants to label J6 rioters as insurrectionist because they fought against law enforcement agents and broke into Capitol buildings, that's fine with me. Likewise, I also believe that BLM riots were insurrectionist, I legitimately believe that they engaged to overthrow local governments through the power of mob terror. So in my book, they are also insurrectionists.
In my mind, I don't think Trump's speech was enough to be labeled as insurrectionist, one must actively take up arms against federal government, and he has not done that at all.
Nevertheless, both Trump AND Biden are unfit to be President. They should retire to their homes and let the next generation take up the reins. I'm not going to vote for Trump, never did, and I certainly hope the voters will have enough sense to reject both men.
I want to point out one thing. In at least one case cited in the CREW link, a person was deemed to be ineligible by courts without having taken up arms against the government.
Kenneth Worthy was a NC county sheriff before secession and held the same office under the Confederacy. He was not accused of violent acts against the federal government or convicted of a crime yet a court disqualified him from holding office.
Good comment, some of which I agree with and some I don’t, but I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Good point. But if I may point out something. Worthy actively participated in giving aid and comfort to insurrectionist forces by securing the rear area through law enforcement activities. He was actually part of an insurrectionist government that actively opposed legitimate government. This is different from Trump.
I’d argue that Trump also gave material support to the J6 insurrection (as well as inciting it for his own benefit), but yes, our opinions don’t count for much.
I completely agree with just about everything you said Dan. All this action has done is to reinforce people's opinions about the weaponization of the law and our courts. Any voters that may have been on the fence as to which party poses the greatest danger to democracy might now be influenced to vote republican in the general election, mainly because as far as I know, Trump has not been found to be guilty of insurrection. And if that should change, why then would not every one that donated money to BLM during the riots of 2020 also be guilty of aiding and abetting. I am far from being all that knowledgeable about law, but from all the feedback that has been generated by this decision, it appears that there are plenty of people who disagree with this finding and that includes some of the supreme court justices in Colorado.
Per 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection reads as follows: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
In Portland Oregon alone protesters took control of city streets, they broke windows, set fires, kicked in doors to the Federal Courthouse. etc. and in cities all across America, police and emergency vehicles were vandalized and set on fire, officers of the law were assaulted. The damages resulted in millions of dollars in destruction of taxpayer property and at least 25 people lost their lives. Any member of congress that in any way endorsed these protests/riots should be held accountable for aiding and abetting.
Portland is the only place where there was any involvement with the Federal government, and those involved have been charged and/or tried as applicable. That is also true of rioters around the nation: they have and continue to be held accountable for their actions.
That does not make any of those riots a rebellion or insurrection: vandalism, destruction of private/public property, assault - sure. And that's what has been charged.
More importantly: there is a big difference between supporting peaceful protest - which is what members of Congress supported - and rioters, which they did not support. The riots and protests are separate things, and that needs be recognized.
I disagree. There were violence and injuries involving federal personnel and property in the vicinity of the White House and other locations in DC. I watched much of it live on TV.
Well out of the 97 or so arrested about half were not prosecuted and no one was prosecuted for insurrection. Lets also think about the storming of the US Supreme Court during the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. Crowds of people pushed past police lines, pounded on doors and in general tried to disrupt an official hearing. If I remember correctly I believe there were nearly 200 arrests made with the majority all being released. And this is an honest question....you say people supporting a peaceful protest were not supporting the riots. I can accept that, but I would honestly like to know how Trump who said to peacefully march to the Capital was supporting the rioters. I also remember Maxine Waters going on the air and telling her supporters to get up in the faces and accost Trump administration officials. Should that not be considered some form of incitement or perhaps intimidation? Or how about Chuck Schumer going on air during the review of Roe vs. Wade, and telling the justices that they would pay the price. Is he responsible for the action of the guy who was armed and making threats against Brett Kavanaugh? Did Trump specifically say to the crowd to go storm the capital?
Lack of evidence will lead to lack of prosecution: prosecutors typically only charge where they are certain they can get a conviction.
The Kavanaugh thing happened during Trump's administration: you'd have to ask him why they didn't charge more that broke the law - which "getting up in faces" is not inherently a crime.
The important thing here is that you're engaging in whataboutism: the answer is "charge those accordingly".
The preponderance of all the evidence for Trump shows it was a premeditated effort to stop/alter the electoral count outside the bounds of the law. That is seen from the coordination with those on the ground to start said riot: that was the intent, not a side effect.
Regardless of the legal outcome, government officials conspired to remove Trump from office via the bogus Russiagate accusations and investigations. That failed.
I am no fan of Trump and would never vote for him. Nonetheless, I see the Dems trying to keep Trump off the ballot because the inept and failing Biden cannot win.
Just as Impeachment has become a game of political ping pong, using whatever arcane laws are available to keep a candidate off the ballot is bad precedent. What goes around, comes around.
The Dems have used their cronies in the media to perpetuate the myth that Trump is the most danger ous person around. But he started NO wars.
The oligarchs don't care who is President as long as like Biden they promise nothing will change.
I'm a leftie and I'm calling out this sham prosecution based on a sham claim of insurrection.
I can think of dozens of reasons that would invalidate a state supreme court's ruling to strike a candidate's name from a ballot regardless of a state law that allows citizens to challenge eligibility. Most involve protected classes but there are others.
Good article. In my mind, I've always been in the camp where I believe that the less attention you give to Trump, he becomes weaker. He thrives on grabbing attention to himself, and what Colorado court did may have solidified his grip on the base of GOP voters, which is the exact opposite of what we want.
If Biden beat Trump on his own merits, then why can't he do the same thing again in 2024? I mean, it's far better to win an election based on one's accomplishments and merits than relying upon the courts and lawfare to defeat his political opponent. I fear all of this will only create a mindset among GOP voters that they'll have to engage in the same kind of lawfare that denied their man an opportunity to land back in White House.
Otherwise, Trump will now claim his election was stolen twice.
Better to let Trump run and let the voters decide for himself who they want to be next Republican nominee and whether he wins the presidential race. If Trump wins, so be it. I'm not too worried about him. He is not Hitler. He is not the end of world. He is not Antichrist. He is just a man, and there is plenty of opposition within bureaucracy that will slow down Trump's agenda. He is old, and he has a high likelihood of dying in the office than leaving it. Like Biden, I don't see how Trump lasts four years in White House. Relax, America will be fine even with him in White House. America is not like Germany before WW2.
People need to calm down.
Likewise, Biden is not the end of world. America will be fine even with him in White House for 2nd term. I don't like him. I think he greatly weakens America, but that's another story. I can live with either man in White House. Ultimately, neither man is my role model or to be idolized. I place my trust in God as much as possible. America has plenty of story left when both men will finally have left the stage for better or worse.
As for defining what is an insurrection. I've always believed the definition to be taking up arms against federal government, like actively participating in combat against federal troops or law enforcement agents. Speaking out against government is not enough to be labeled as insurrectionist in my book. Confederate veterans actually participated in combat and were obviously rebelling against federal government. If one wants to label J6 rioters as insurrectionist because they fought against law enforcement agents and broke into Capitol buildings, that's fine with me. Likewise, I also believe that BLM riots were insurrectionist, I legitimately believe that they engaged to overthrow local governments through the power of mob terror. So in my book, they are also insurrectionists.
In my mind, I don't think Trump's speech was enough to be labeled as insurrectionist, one must actively take up arms against federal government, and he has not done that at all.
Nevertheless, both Trump AND Biden are unfit to be President. They should retire to their homes and let the next generation take up the reins. I'm not going to vote for Trump, never did, and I certainly hope the voters will have enough sense to reject both men.
I want to point out one thing. In at least one case cited in the CREW link, a person was deemed to be ineligible by courts without having taken up arms against the government.
Kenneth Worthy was a NC county sheriff before secession and held the same office under the Confederacy. He was not accused of violent acts against the federal government or convicted of a crime yet a court disqualified him from holding office.
Good comment, some of which I agree with and some I don’t, but I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Good point. But if I may point out something. Worthy actively participated in giving aid and comfort to insurrectionist forces by securing the rear area through law enforcement activities. He was actually part of an insurrectionist government that actively opposed legitimate government. This is different from Trump.
Nonetheless we're in waiting phase.
Thank you for replying back to my comment.
I’d argue that Trump also gave material support to the J6 insurrection (as well as inciting it for his own benefit), but yes, our opinions don’t count for much.
I completely agree with just about everything you said Dan. All this action has done is to reinforce people's opinions about the weaponization of the law and our courts. Any voters that may have been on the fence as to which party poses the greatest danger to democracy might now be influenced to vote republican in the general election, mainly because as far as I know, Trump has not been found to be guilty of insurrection. And if that should change, why then would not every one that donated money to BLM during the riots of 2020 also be guilty of aiding and abetting. I am far from being all that knowledgeable about law, but from all the feedback that has been generated by this decision, it appears that there are plenty of people who disagree with this finding and that includes some of the supreme court justices in Colorado.
BLM was not an insurrection.
J6 was.
Either the Constitution matters or it doesn't. The text is what it is.
Per 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection reads as follows: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
In Portland Oregon alone protesters took control of city streets, they broke windows, set fires, kicked in doors to the Federal Courthouse. etc. and in cities all across America, police and emergency vehicles were vandalized and set on fire, officers of the law were assaulted. The damages resulted in millions of dollars in destruction of taxpayer property and at least 25 people lost their lives. Any member of congress that in any way endorsed these protests/riots should be held accountable for aiding and abetting.
Portland is the only place where there was any involvement with the Federal government, and those involved have been charged and/or tried as applicable. That is also true of rioters around the nation: they have and continue to be held accountable for their actions.
That does not make any of those riots a rebellion or insurrection: vandalism, destruction of private/public property, assault - sure. And that's what has been charged.
More importantly: there is a big difference between supporting peaceful protest - which is what members of Congress supported - and rioters, which they did not support. The riots and protests are separate things, and that needs be recognized.
I disagree. There were violence and injuries involving federal personnel and property in the vicinity of the White House and other locations in DC. I watched much of it live on TV.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-took-trump-to-underground-bunker-amid-george-floyd-protests
Disagree on what, exactly?
As I said: if the Feds can make a case, they will.
Well out of the 97 or so arrested about half were not prosecuted and no one was prosecuted for insurrection. Lets also think about the storming of the US Supreme Court during the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. Crowds of people pushed past police lines, pounded on doors and in general tried to disrupt an official hearing. If I remember correctly I believe there were nearly 200 arrests made with the majority all being released. And this is an honest question....you say people supporting a peaceful protest were not supporting the riots. I can accept that, but I would honestly like to know how Trump who said to peacefully march to the Capital was supporting the rioters. I also remember Maxine Waters going on the air and telling her supporters to get up in the faces and accost Trump administration officials. Should that not be considered some form of incitement or perhaps intimidation? Or how about Chuck Schumer going on air during the review of Roe vs. Wade, and telling the justices that they would pay the price. Is he responsible for the action of the guy who was armed and making threats against Brett Kavanaugh? Did Trump specifically say to the crowd to go storm the capital?
You are correct. There is plenty of video evidence.
Lack of evidence will lead to lack of prosecution: prosecutors typically only charge where they are certain they can get a conviction.
The Kavanaugh thing happened during Trump's administration: you'd have to ask him why they didn't charge more that broke the law - which "getting up in faces" is not inherently a crime.
The important thing here is that you're engaging in whataboutism: the answer is "charge those accordingly".
The preponderance of all the evidence for Trump shows it was a premeditated effort to stop/alter the electoral count outside the bounds of the law. That is seen from the coordination with those on the ground to start said riot: that was the intent, not a side effect.
Regardless of the legal outcome, government officials conspired to remove Trump from office via the bogus Russiagate accusations and investigations. That failed.
I am no fan of Trump and would never vote for him. Nonetheless, I see the Dems trying to keep Trump off the ballot because the inept and failing Biden cannot win.
Just as Impeachment has become a game of political ping pong, using whatever arcane laws are available to keep a candidate off the ballot is bad precedent. What goes around, comes around.
The Dems have used their cronies in the media to perpetuate the myth that Trump is the most danger ous person around. But he started NO wars.
The oligarchs don't care who is President as long as like Biden they promise nothing will change.
I'm a leftie and I'm calling out this sham prosecution based on a sham claim of insurrection.
I can think of dozens of reasons that would invalidate a state supreme court's ruling to strike a candidate's name from a ballot regardless of a state law that allows citizens to challenge eligibility. Most involve protected classes but there are others.