2 Mar 2024 11:38 am
Will you stop clinging to this 'section 3 doesn't state' drivel. Section 3 doesn't require a citation either.
Insurrection is a crime - until someone is at least charged and tried with it in a criminal sense, there was no insurrection for anyone to answer for, under any circumstances. You can't just stack **** to any height you like. The FBI has said there was no insurrection - why is their word, not the one you've chosen to adhere to instead of the opinions of an appellate court in Dickwater, wherever? How is the word of the FBI, not the final word for you? I suggest it's not the final word, because it hasn't been determined through serious legal rigour that the FBI is right in their statement - first that there wasn't an insurrection, and secondly that Trump wasn't guilty. So it's dismissible as not being established
Well, it cuts both ways - there's been no legal rigour applied here, period, and so it remains undetermined. There's only one sane direction - the one that resonates with the age-old concept of innocent until proven guilty. There wasn't an insurrection until it's been determined through reasonable legal rigour that such a thing took place. Equally, you can't hold Trump guilty of taking part in an insurrection until it's been determined one took place, and that he took part. It has to work this way, or there'll be no one left on the damn ballot to vote for. Insurrection is a crime, put people on trial for it or shut up smearing people's good names
No, I'm not raking through history to 'provide links'. If you can't directly dispute a point, then question your own links.