Congressional Resolution Declares No Insurrection by Donald Trump

1. 95

   Readmikenowposted 2 months ago

   Gaetz, Stefanik offer resolution declaring Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection’
   
   Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) unveiled a resolution Tuesday that declares former President Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
   
   The resolution — which spans one page and has more than 60 GOP co-sponsors — comes as groups across the country try to disqualify Trump from appearing on their 2024 presidential election ballots on claims that he engaged in an insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
   
   “We are here today to authoritatively express that President Trump did not commit an insurrection, and we believe Congress has a unique role in making that declaration,” Gaetz said. “It’s not the job of the states and especially not the job of some bureaucrats in Colorado to make this assessment and interfere with the right of voters to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice.”
   
   “As President Donald Trump continues to dominate in the polls, extreme Democrats will stop at nothing in attempt to prevent President Donald Trump from returning to the White House,” Stefanik said.
   
   The resolution, which is nonbinding, would declare that it is “the sense of the House of Representatives” that Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Crazy that we need this... the political divide is deep.

      replyreport
2. 85

   Valeantposted 2 months ago

   January 6, 2021, 2:24pm.  Over an hour after the violence at the Capitol had been going on.  Donald Trump tweets out:  "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"
   
   The courts found that this incitement was one of ten different actions that qualified as engaging in the insurrection.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      What courts?
      
      This seems like a criticism of Mike Pence and not a call to insurrection.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         The fact that you're not aware of the basic facts of which court found that he did engage in insurrection, and then which court upheld that finding, is pretty concerning.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            The fact that you aren't able to provide any proof to validate your accusation is also pretty concerning.
            
            I wonder if it even exists.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               You have to understand that this was a planned occurrence, what occurred on Jan 6 you could say was an "inside job".
               
               The effort to frame Trump with charges of insurrection were always intended.  This effort to bar him from the ballots was always intended.  To charge him with every crime they could think of.  To use every tool within the DOJ, FBI, IRS to attack him.
               
               He ran on "Drain the Swamp"... he fought and fired heads of the CIA, FBI, etc. the establishment is like a living organism, Trump attacked it, exposed it, belittled it, it should be no surprise they would go to such lengths to be rid of him.
               
               How do I come to such conclusions?
               
               Common sense and listening to those who are in a position to know helps.
               
               For instance, taking into account what Steven Sund has to say about Jan 6, he was the Chief of the United States Capitol Police at that time:
               
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVCrd35ceMk
               
               So when Mr. Sund is talking about the irregularities, the 'radio silence' from the FBI and DHS regarding that event, the lack of co-ordination and preparation with the NG, that is a very large Red Flag.
               
               Anyone who has had a significant amount of time with the Police or in the Military, especially dealing with intelligence, inter-agency co-ordination, etc. knows there should have been, if anything, extra-ordinary amounts of intercommunication with the Police Chief prior to that event, regarding that day.
               
               That the FBI was silent?
               
               That gives a lot of credibility to those who say there were a large number of agents in that crowd instigating the violence and efforts of forced entry.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  On this you and I agree.
                  
                  Here is Ted Cruz during a hearing at the capital about January 6 where the FBI remained silent.
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHbu6YQ7BOU&t=2s
                  
                  Here is Clay Higgins during a congressional hearing about January 6
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUtVlXweqM
                  
                  Andy Biggs also asked the FBI director about the FBI's role in January 6
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4UKH0MJGvA

                  replyreport
               2. 78

                  Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "You have to understand that this was a planned occurrence, what occurred on Jan 6 you could say was an "inside job"."
                  
                  Seriously?

                  replyreport
            2. 80

               Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

               The U.S. Senate o acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection.  Jack Smith did not charge Trump with insurrection. He certainly has all the information that the Jan 6th committee found. It is curious how the Colorado Judge ruled Trump was guilty of committing an insurrection.  Sarah B. Wallace of the Denver District Court claimed  Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Wallace wrote.  https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/17 … p-lawsuit/
               
               This in my view stands out as being odd at best. It will look like the Supreme Court Of The United States will rule in Trump's favor. It appears that the plan to label Trump an insurrectionist failed in the Senate, as well as at the federal level with the Jack Smiths case... Not sure why this Denver judge made the claim.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  It's interesting to note that arguments at the  Supreme Court last week focused less on whether there was an insurrection and more on technical questions about whether states may enforce the ban. The court seems to be in search of a way to settle this case without making any sort of judgment in terms of insurrection. 
                  
                  Kavanaugh said the term "insurrection" "jumps out" of Section 3, but only questioned what it means, who enforces it and what kind of process is needed.
                  
                  He focused on 19th century case, In Re. Griffin , which  involved a defendant’s challenge to a criminal conviction based on the fact that the judge in the case had fought for the Confederacy. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was writing for an appeals court, ruled in 1869 that the “insurrectionist ban” could not be enforced against the judge unless Congress first passed a law.
                  
                  I think they're going to kick the can down the road. If Trump loses in November, case closed.  If he wins  it could prompt a fight over whether Congress must enforce it. Trump’s eligibility could be legally challenged again  when electoral votes are counted next January.
                  
                  "If the court says only that states cannot enforce (the ban) against presidential candidates, that is not the same as saying that Trump is eligible to serve,” said Magliocca, who backed the Colorado voters challenging Trump. “The court would be taking no view on that question. And that means that if Trump wins, people will feel free to go to Congress on January 6, 2025, and ask them to declare him ineligible.”
                  
                  By dodging the question of Trump's ballot eligibility, they would be setting up a battle in our nonfunctioning Congress.
                  
                  https://rollcall.com/2024/02/07/supreme … -congress/

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                     By GOP logic, those charged with burglary and looting were not involved in a riot since they weren't charged with rioting.  As if ignoring the numerous convictions for seditious conspiracy does not equate to insurrection.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                        The analogy you presented, suggesting that the GOP's logic dictates that individuals charged with burglary and looting were not involved in a riot simply because they weren't charged with rioting, is inherently flawed and unrealistic. Firstly, it oversimplifies the legal process by disregarding the specific nature of charges and the evidence supporting them. Legal charges are intricately tied to individual actions and the evidence gathered in connection with those actions. Just because someone is charged with burglary or looting does not automatically absolve them of involvement in a riot, as each charge is based on distinct criteria and evidence.
                        
                        In my view, your analogy fails to acknowledge the nuanced differences between charges such as burglary, looting, sedition, and insurrection. These offenses have distinct legal definitions and requirements for prosecution.  I could assume that charges that were leveled at those charged due to committing crimes on Jan 6th were charged with the appropriate crimes due to evidence. I would also assume no committed insurrection.
                        
                        "While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government."
                        https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/w … overnment.
                        
                        I feel attributing a singular logic to an entire political party, such as the GOP, is overly simplistic and disregards the diversity of opinions and perspectives within the party. It's unreasonable to reduce complex legal decisions solely to partisan motivations, as legal proceedings are governed by established laws and principles rather than political affiliations.

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                           The legal definition of seditious conspiracy (not sedition, as you changed the wording to suit your own flawed argument):  If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
                           
                           'I would also assume no committed insurrection.'  Again, with all the elements of an insurrection being charged by various crimes - the violence against government employees, at the nation's Capitol, during the ceremony that transfers power from one administration to another - why anyone would assume that no one committed insurrection, especially when many were convicted of seditious conspiracy is just a straight up denial of the facts and abject reality, in my opinion.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                              I will agree to disagree, and give you the last word on this one.

                              replyreport
                        2. 76

                           Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                           There were a few bad apples, I don't know who they belonged to, Proud Boys or who-ever, that may have hoped or planned to attack in some fashion on Jan 6th.
                           
                           Instead of apprehending them, prior to their efforts on Jan 6th, as is normally done when you want to prevent a serious crime from occurring, it appears as that not only were these bad apples allowed to act out as they had planned, they were aided in these efforts on Jan 6 by agents within the crowd.
                           
                           To add even more confusion to the chaos of that event, it has been shown that there were people who had previously been identified to be Antifa, in the crowd, pretending to be Trump supporters.
                           
                           It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that those people in DC, who  impeached Trump twice, who created false accusations of Russian collusion so the FBI could investigate anyone associated with him, who fought everything his Administration attempted to do, would ensure this event unfolded so that it could be used to bring about the charge of insurrection we are dealing with today.
                           
                           There are a great many individuals, within DC and without, that believe the ends justify the means, not just with Trump, but with the reshaping of America and the world, their politics, their agendas have little in common with America of old... Liberty, Free Speech, Opportunity... do not mesh with Climate Change Ideology, Equity, Open Society efforts.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                              As always great food for thought...  Many in Washington feel the ends justify the means.  This house of cards is collapsing at this point.  Can't imagine what's next. I keep thinking about Xi/Putin meeting
                              
                              "Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together,” Xi told Putin as he stood at the door of the Kremlin to bid him farewell.
                              
                              The Russian president responded: “I agree.”  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/2 … en-for-100
                              
                              And we have a senile president sitting in the Whaite House... OMG

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                                 'Great food for thought?'  They are conspiracy theories devoid of actual reality.  Russian collusion was proven beyond a doubt between Trump's Campaign and Russia - the numerous meeting times and locations between Trump's Campaign Chair and Russian Intelligence were listed in a bipartisan Senate Report on Russian Election Interference.  Antifa and the FBI were behind January 6th?  I can no longer take anything seriously from someone who would make those claims.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                                    My comment regarding Ken's perspective was intended for him directly. I expressed my concerns about the current state of affairs, particularly in Washington where some believe the ends justify the means, leading to a precarious situation akin to a collapsing house of cards. The uncertainty of what comes next is unsettling, especially when considering the recent meeting between Xi and Putin, which has significant implications.
                                    
                                    It seems, however, that you've focused more on criticizing my comment rather than engaging with its substance or addressing the issues at hand. This comes across as a personal slight, first towards my perspective and then towards Ken's.
                                    
                                    I want to make it clear that I hold Ken in high regard. His contributions are noteworthy, characterized by thorough research and intellectual depth. Dismissing his insights or mine for appreciating his thoughts is not conducive to meaningful conversation.
                                    
                                    I don't have true any interest in who or what you "take seriously".

                                    replyreport
                              2. 68

                                 Miebakagh57posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 Good heavens!

                                 replyreport
                           2. 68

                              Miebakagh57posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                              Truth spoken.

                              replyreport
                  2. 80

                     Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                     I think the court will hand the decision down in the next month or so.

                     replyreport
               2. 78

                  Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  It didn't "fail in the Senate". The GOP had the majority at the time. What did anyone expect to happen?

                  replyreport
            3. 85

               Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               Start at page 90, or read the whole thing.  It's very informative.  It was very easy to find using a basic google search.
               
               https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile … 0Order.pdf

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  I can't take you serious.
                  
                  This is funny.
                  
                  This is not a trial concerning insurrection.  It is about keeping President Donald Trump off the ballot.  The case being decided has nothing to do with insurrection but uses it as evidence.
                  
                  That is a court's biased opinion.   
                  
                  You can do better.

                  replyreport
3. 80

   Sharlee01posted 2 months ago

   Thump has never faced indictment for insurrection, nor has anyone arrested for participating in the January 6th protest been charged with insurrection.   
   
   "In December, the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 recommended that the Justice Department charge Mr. Trump with several federal crimes, including inciting insurrection — a count that would have directly placed the blame for the attack on Mr. Trump’s shoulders. But Mr. Smith’s prosecutors did not include that charge in the indictment."
   https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/p … lence.html
   
   "The Colorado case is the first where the plaintiffs succeeded. After a weeklong hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one." https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurr … cal%20one.
   
   "The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot"   "WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems poised to reject attempts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot, with conservative and liberal justices in apparent agreement in a case that puts them at the heart of a presidential election.
   
   A definitive ruling for Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president, would largely end efforts in Colorado, Maine and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot."   https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour … 4ff3d03f37

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I think the obsession with trying to say President Donald Trump committed insurrection is a sick obsession with the left.
      
      It is also further proof that TDS is a real mental condition.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

         From my perspective, both the left-leaning factions and the Democratic party have thrown every accusation possible at Trump, yet none have proven effective. Their relentless obsession with him has only served to portray them as desperate, corrupt, and frankly, somewhat ridiculous.
         
         What's even more amusing, in my opinion, is that they seem to lack any substantial offerings for the American people. It's evident in the polls. They're backing a candidate who appears to be experiencing cognitive decline, lacks likability, and has presided over significant failures that will likely cement his legacy as one of the worst presidents in history.
         
         Indeed, TDS appears to persist, but from my perspective, those afflicted by it are increasingly becoming a minority.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I think a better word to use there is expose.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

               Very much exposed.

               replyreport
         2. 91

            peoplepower73posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            There are two factors at work here.  If one were to look at it strictly from the definition of the word insurrection, Jan. 6 was definitely one. Do the states have the right to remove him from their ballots?  That will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.  But it looks like they are leaning towards they do not have that right. 
            
            
            An insurrection is a violent uprising against an authority or government. It occurs when a large group of people takes action to rebel or resist the rulers of their country, often with the aim of removing them from office.
            
            The term describes organized and usually forceful acts of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority. The events of January 6, 2021, when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol after attending a Trump-headlined “Stop the Steal” rally, have sparked ongoing debate over whether to label it as an insurrection. The interpretation of those events varies, with some considering the crowd violent and others resisting that attribution.
            
            The distinction between “rally goers” and “insurrectionists” has significant implications for how law enforcement and courts respond to such events
            
            https://time.com/6137604/history-insurrection-jan-6/
            
            https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti … surrection
            
            https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurrection-politics

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               The fact that we're still arguing about whether January 6 was an insurrection puts on full display the detachment from reality within the MAGA cult.

               replyreport
            2. 80

               Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

               My perspective has evolved after witnessing the aftermath of January 6th, where numerous individuals faced legal consequences for their involvement, yet none were formally charged with insurrection. Despite the undeniable chaos and violence that occurred within the Capitol, the absence of insurrection charges from the government's actions speaks volumes. Even notable figures like Jack Smith, who faced a plethora of accusations, notably omitted insurrection from the list.
               
               This raises questions about the validity of claims implicating Trump in an insurrectionary act. If there was substantial evidence, one would expect the government to pursue such charges. Instead, it appears that the notion of Trump's involvement in an insurrection has been perpetuated primarily by certain media narratives, echoing repeatedly until it became ingrained in public discourse.
               
               Thus far we have the above facts I have offered.  Not sure why anyone would feel it fair or even logical to accuse Trump of insurrection, due to our law enforcement did not.

               replyreport
            3. 76

               Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               That is what many in the MSM, and on the Left, desperately want to make Jan 6th out to be.
               
               Despite the high probability of FBI agents trying to make it appear so, that is not what happened.  That was, at worst, a riot that got out of hand.  Not a planned effort to by the President to overthrow the government... certainly not the intention of 99.9% of those in attendance, if, there were any at all with that mindset.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  'High probability?'  So that seems like an admission that it's a conspiracy theory devoid of any proof that would stand up in a court of law.
                  
                  And still waiting for anyone to explain the numerous convictions for seditious conspiracy.  Or even acknowledge what that means.  Let alone to acknowledge that this attack, by the supporters of the losing candidate, happened at the very moment Congress was to certify his loss and transfer power to the next administration.

                  replyreport
               2. 91

                  peoplepower73posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Without Trump, would there have been a rally and mobs storming of the Capitol causing damage to people and government property on Jan. 6?
                  
                  To prove individual insurrection, federal prosecutors would need to demonstrate that individuals went to the Capitol building with the intent of overthrowing our government. While some involved on January 6 may eventually face insurrection charges, the government is cautious and wants a rock-solid argument in favor of insurrection.
                  
                  It’s important to note that even without intent, those who entered the Capitol are criminally liable for their actions. For instance, if someone smashed a window to break through, their intent becomes less relevant; they are still liable for a crime. The Department of Justice has charged 725 people in connection with January 6, with various offenses such as assaulting officers, entering restricted areas, and obstructing official proceedings,
                  .
                  According to the Department of Justice, here are the number of charges in connection with Jan 6; more than 225 have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers; 640 have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted area; 275 also face charges of obstructing, impeding or influencing an official proceeding.
                  
                  Without Trump and his rally, do you think all those people would still be criminally charged?

                  replyreport
4. 68

   Miebakagh57posted 2 months ago

   Its the decision of the United States Supreme Count whether Trump incited insurrection that matter much.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Mie: The Supreme Court hasn't heard the case yet. But the oath the president takes says "I  swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." If he was involved in an effort to overthrow a legitimate election he did not uphold the Constitution. Eventually, the court will decide - unless he gets re-elected first and dismisses all the charges against him. Right now there are 91.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Miebakagh57posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         The USA Supreme Court has decide. Trump can run for the Presidency.                                   Seems Congress can go in tandem with the SC?

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Actually, they only ruled that states could not be the ones to disqualify him.  That it had to be Congress.

            replyreport