Can Insurrection Be Justified?

@mott-the-hoople said
election interference is what it is…it is backfiring though. A lot of voters have had the law used against them too

Running for President doesn't give you a pass for any criminal activity you have committed beforehand.

@no1marauder said
Actually we're doing what you asked i.e. trying to explain to you what the prosecutor's reasoning was.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

I indeed do not like the answer, because you give no basis for such an answer. Are you and vivify in the room, where these negotiations and strategies are worked out? This is the first I’ve heard about it.
So how have you found out that this IS their strategy? If u r just surmising, please say so. Sonhouse is the only poster allowed to surmise, to know why people do things.

@averagejoe1 said
I indeed do not like the answer, because you give no basis for such an answer. Are you and vivify in the room, where these negotiations and strategies are worked out? This is the first I’ve heard about it.
So how have you found out that this IS their strategy? If u r just surmising, please say so. Sonhouse is the only poster allowed to surmise, to know why people do things.

Don't ask a question that calls for surmise then.

@no1marauder said
Running for President doesn't give you a pass for any criminal activity you have committed beforehand.

who said it does?

you have a habit of giving answers to questions no one asked...

@mott-the-hoople said
who said it does?

you have a habit of giving answers to questions no one asked...

You did when you called charging someone with a crime "election interference" just because that person is running for President.

@averagejoe1 said
I indeed do not like the answer, because you give no basis for such an answer. Are you and vivify in the room, where these negotiations and strategies are worked out? This is the first I’ve heard about it.
So how have you found out that this IS their strategy?

https://news.yahoo.com/why-jack-smith-didnt-charge-163343456.html

Why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting an insurrection

When the Jan. 6 House committee formally referred Trump for criminal charges last year, insurrection was one of the counts included. It would allege that Trump was directly involved in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. But including that charge would’ve complicated the case and been harder to prove than the broader conspiracy charges

@averagejoe1 said
I indeed do not like the answer, because you give no basis for such an answer.

Aren't you the one who constantly complains how you hate posting links and citing your source? Post after post from you are baseless assertions that are often proven completely false.

Now you complain about "basis"? Me and No1Maurader arguably use more links and cite more sources than anyone else on this forum....and then YOU of all people hypocritically allege our posts have no basis? And oh yeah: No1 is lawyer commenting about law.

Why are you like this?

@no1marauder said
Don't ask a question that calls for surmise then.

😲n Page 1, 4th from the bottom, I ask you and Vivify how you have proven to us that what you say is true. What is your source. That is not to ask you to surmise, you are ALREADY surmising.
Surely you, or at least Vivify can get the difference. So y'all have told us all the secrecy in charging Trump for a crime which carries a longer prison sentence, but you do NOT answer my question as to h
how you know that.
Please do not surmise. Only Sonhouse gets to surmise, he even knows what Trump is thinking about before he wakens in the AM.
So, what is the answer?

@averagejoe1 said
😲n Page 1, 4th from the bottom, I ask you and Vivify how you have proven to us that what you say is true. What is your source. That is not to ask you to surmise, you are ALREADY surmising.
Surely you, or at least Vivify can get the difference. So y'all have told us all the secrecy in charging Trump for a crime which carries a longer prison sentence, but you do ...[text shortened]... he even knows what Trump is thinking about before he wakens in the AM.
So, what is the answer?

Your question was:

AJ: If it was an insurrection, why will not the prosecutor find this to be the case?

This is just a stupid way to ask why the prosecutor decided to charge A but not B. That requires a "surmise". So that's what we did based on the best evidence available.

So stop crying about it.

@vivify said
Aren't you the one who constantly complains how you hate posting links and citing your source? Post after post from you are baseless assertions that are often proven completely false.

Now you complain about "basis"? Me and No1Maurader arguably use more links and cite more sources than anyone else on this forum....and then YOU of all people hypocritically allege our posts have no basis? And oh yeah: No1 is lawyer commenting about law.

Why are you like this?

Well, check out the 'Biden lies in the news thread'. 7 up from the bottom page 2, I think. JJ brings a simple point about the lies of Joe. Fun reading, and linked.

Stay with me here. Marauder writes back with a link about how there is some finance expert who has found Biden's finances, when he was VP, to be in order. I think I will find one that says Biden went to church every Sunday. Jesus, no pun intended.
Marauder ignored JJ, and sends a random link, and you are on MY ass about your link-concerns? And for the record, note on this very thread I have read a Marauder link. And i did several links recently, so I am as innocent as Joe Biden.

@averagejoe1 said
Well, check out the 'Biden lies in the news thread'. 7 up from the bottom page 2, I think. JJ brings a simple point about the lies of Joe. Fun reading, and linked.

Stay with me here. Marauder writes back with a link about how there is some finance expert who has found Biden's finances, when he was VP, to be in order. I think I will find one that says Biden went t ...[text shortened]... d I have read a Marauder link. And i did several links recently, so I am as innocent as Joe Biden.

No, you idiot, if you had even bothered to check the link given in that OP, you'd know that Hannity was complaining about the impropriety of Joe sending e-mails to a certain person who he described as a "business partner" of Hunter's when that person wound up being Joe's bookkeeper.

@vivify said
Aren't you the one who constantly complains how you hate posting links and citing your source? Post after post from you are baseless assertions that are often proven completely false.

Now you complain about "basis"? Me and No1Maurader arguably use more links and cite more sources than anyone else on this forum....and then YOU of all people hypocritically allege our posts have no basis? And oh yeah: No1 is lawyer commenting about law.

Why are you like this?

Is Mott a lawyer? How about Sue? how do you know who the lawyers are? Interesting.
I use and read links when appropriate, though I know the debate world quite well, have judged them, and computers and links on stage i feel a bit slimy about. I like to be more like Trump, on his feet, like when he answers questions for an hour standing in front of the helicopter. You and Marauder, on the other hand, need notes (computer and links) like Biden uses, along with his streaming remarks written by someone else, god knows who...., which dilutes the hell our of free thinking on the
Forum. I think they should be banned by Russ.
I resent that you think my assertions are baseless. I challenge you to show me one, or dream up another one, and see if I can base my answer.
You guys NEVER answer my questions. Sonhouse ignores me on the men racing the little girls at the swim meet, for example/\.
Here is a fresh idea. Ask me a question, I will answer it with links. To save you a hassle, if you ask do I like Trump, I will say no. I want him as president though. Maybe another issue?

As to false, yes, I have missed a few factoids, I am only batting about 96% right now. No one is perfect. Like you. I forget your last mistake.

@no1marauder said
You did when you called charging someone with a crime "election interference" just because that person is running for President.

idiot

@vivify said
https://news.yahoo.com/why-jack-smith-didnt-charge-163343456.html

Why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting an insurrection

When the Jan. 6 House committee formally referred Trump for criminal charges last year, insurrection was one of the counts included. It would allege that Trump was directly involved in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. But ...[text shortened]... e would’ve complicated the case and been harder to prove than the broader conspiracy charges

😂

@vivify said
Jan 6th was an insurrection. That's not debatable.

Jesus Christ was an insurrectionist. That's not debatable.
Should we demonize Jesus too?