Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I think you maybe need to read the article, and some of the academic commentary linked from it, before you make confident assertions about the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution. 
It *isn’t* clear cut - that’s why the court is looking at it. |
Election interference aside, as I’m not 100% up to speed with that and what he wanted Pence to do….but whatever it was Pence didn’t do it anyway.
But looking directly at the events of Jan 6th. Any reasonable person would conclude that it was not an insurrection, it was at best a disturbance, at worst a riot……..but nothing on the scale of BLM.
It wasn’t a coup, there was no organisation or direction or planned outcome.
If you want to prosecute Trump I am 100% sure with a good constitutional lawyer you could argue that it meets the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution but that doesn’t mean it was, and just highlights what your end game is.
You don’t want Trump on the ballot, that’s fine. It’s not up to us.
But a very large % of Americans do, and as far as I can tell there’s no reason why shouldn’t be.
True Democracy is electing whoever you choose, and if electing Trump is so abhorrent that you must override democracy to ensure it doesn’t happen, you have to ask yourself how much you’re really invested in democracy.