Judge rules 1/6 an insurrection as defined by the Constitution

dstroy

dstroy

Well-Known Member
This week’s court decision is the first case in which any judge, at any level, has ruled that the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol was an insurrection as defined by the Constitution.

www.nbcnews.com

Opinion | The 14th Amendment is bad news for Trumpworld. And we just proved it.

A state court judge ruled that New Mexico county commissioner Couy Griffin was constitutionally disqualified from office after he participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

TRAITORS!
 
Coldnasty

Coldnasty

Well-Known Member
dstroy said:
This week’s court decision is the first case in which any judge, at any level, has ruled that the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol was an insurrection as defined by the Constitution.

www.nbcnews.com

Opinion | The 14th Amendment is bad news for Trumpworld. And we just proved it.

A state court judge ruled that New Mexico county commissioner Couy Griffin was constitutionally disqualified from office after he participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

TRAITORS!
Click to expand...
Lol
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
dstroy said:
This week’s court decision is the first case in which any judge, at any level, has ruled that the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol was an insurrection as defined by the Constitution.

www.nbcnews.com

Opinion | The 14th Amendment is bad news for Trumpworld. And we just proved it.

A state court judge ruled that New Mexico county commissioner Couy Griffin was constitutionally disqualified from office after he participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

TRAITORS!
Click to expand...
I had been poo-pooing the idea that Trump could be excluded from being president even if he was convicted of insurrection. There have been other rulings that said as much. But then again, maybe he can.

from the article you posted:


The implications of today’s ruling will reverberate outside New Mexico. Because this court ruled this was an insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, those officials who, having sworn an oath to support the Constitution, participated in the insurrection, whether physically or by encouraging and inciting it, may be constitutionally disqualified from serving in state or federal office going forward. If other courts agree, that is a principle that should now be applied to other state government officials who supported or were in league with Jan. 6 insurrectionists and to national leaders who incited the attack on the Capitol. It is a principle that should be applied to former government officials, like former President Donald Trump, should they seek to enter government again.


A previous ruling said, based upon the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution, that the Constitution, not Congress had the sole power to set qualifications for a President. A law that Trump helped pass would disqualify anybody convicted of mishandling classified documents from being president. Not insurrection but mishandling classified documents. That clause would not pass a test in court because Congress wrote that law. The Constitution does not provide for that crime -- or any others -- for that matter, as a barrier for a person to hold the office of President. Except, the 14th amendment to the Constitution. It bars any person from occupying the office President if they swore to support the Constitution and he was convicted of the crime of insurrection. So, the investigations by the Select Committee in Congress and the Grand Jury Investigation on what happened on Jan 6 have importance beyond simply finding out who did what.

Now I get it. :dunce:
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Sir Napsalot said:
Imagine if Trump was a completely different person

one given to good
Click to expand...
his evil father would have disowned him and never given him a dime...he would have died poor, working a menial job his limited mental capacity would be adequate for, like spraying shoes with disinfectant at the bowling alley, and one of his siblings would have gotten the twisted parental attention that turned him into the piece of shit he is now...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
An old thread but appropriate to developments as reported on Meidas Touch.

A Jan 6 protester on trial for four non-violent charges due to her entering the Capitol Building on Jan 6 asked for a Bench trial instead of a jury trial. Maybe she thought a bench trial would give her better odds but they went from no chance to absolutely no chance, based upon what the judge said. After recounting the many signs and barriers the protester crossed, the judge said this regarding what the protester must have known when she walke up to and into the Capitol building:

"Or, to enter the realm of the fabulist, perhaps it was only when she entered the Capitol through a broken door, an emergency siren blaring, These signs undoubtedly endowed MacAndrew with the knowledge that her presence was unlawful"

I don't know what MacAndrew's lawyers claimed but whatever the story, the judge shredded it.

Regardless, the judge ruling also relates to Trump's legal problems for his actions on Jan 6.

The judge agreed with the defendant that she was acting on Trump's orders. She pointed to testimony that the defendant knew Congress was in session to certify the election and that she was acting on Trump's orders, given in his speech that day, to stop Congress from fulfilling it's role as required under the Constitution. These are statements lifted from Judge Katelly's final ruling on the matter:

"Having followed then President Trump's instructions, which were in line with her desires, The Court then finds that Defendant intended her presence to be disruptive to Congressional business."

"Nevertheless, heeding the call of former President Trump, she continued onward to "stop the steal". For her participation in the insurrection on January 6, 2021, the Court finds Danean MacAndrews GUILTY on all counts 1, 2, 3 and 4"


So, here it is. Judge Kollar-Katelly ruled that at least one protester was heeding Trump's call to enter the Capitol building to stop the steal. She ruled that Defendant participated in the insurrection on January 6. She ruled that she was doing this on Trump's instructions. This ruling breaks the "first-time" rule. People are always afraid of being the first one to say something that is bound to be controversial but after the first, the second comes quickly and then the third and then a chorus. I'm pretty sure we'll hear similar from other cases going forward.
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
An old thread but appropriate to developments as reported on Meidas Touch.

A Jan 6 protester on trial for four non-violent charges due to her entering the Capitol Building on Jan 6 asked for a Bench trial instead of a jury trial. Maybe she thought a bench trial would give her better odds but they went from no chance to absolutely no chance, based upon what the judge said. After recounting the many signs and barriers the protester crossed, the judge said this regarding what the protester must have known when she walke up to and into the Capitol building:

"Or, to enter the realm of the fabulist, perhaps it was only when she entered the Capitol through a broken door, an emergency siren blaring, These signs undoubtedly endowed MacAndrew with the knowledge that her presence was unlawful"

I don't know what MacAndrew's lawyers claimed but whatever the story, the judge shredded it.

Regardless, the judge ruling also relates to Trump's legal problems for his actions on Jan 6.

The judge agreed with the defendant that she was acting on Trump's orders. She pointed to testimony that the defendant knew Congress was in session to certify the election and that she was acting on Trump's orders, given in his speech that day, to stop Congress from fulfilling it's role as required under the Constitution.

Having followed then President Trump's instructions, which were in line with her desires, The Court then finds that Defendant intended her presence to be disruptive to Congressional business.

Nevertheless, heeding the call of former President Trump, she continued onward to "stop the steal". For her participation in the insurrection on January 6, 2021, the Court finds Danean MacAndrews GUILTY on all counts 1, 2, 3 and 4


So, here it is. Judge Kollar-Katelly ruled that at least one protester was heeding the call to enter the Capitol building to stop the steal. She ruled that Defendant participated in the insurrection on January 6. She ruled that she was doing this on Trump's instructions. This ruling breaks the "first-time" rule. People are always afraid of being the first one to say something that is bound to be controversial but after the first, the second comes quickly and then the third and then a chorus. I'm pretty sure we'll hear similar from other cases going forward.
Click to expand...
Kirschner did an episode on it. That judge needs to stop beating around the bush and tell us what she really thinks. :D
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
These and other convictions make it an easier lift to nail Trump and his cronies for seditious conspiracy and insurrection. It will pull the rug right out from under him, even if he won the GOP nomination and it would leave the republicans high and dry right before the election, if they were stupid enough to make him their nominee.


BREAKING: Four Proud Boys convicted of seditious conspiracy
99,622 views May 4, 2023 #ProudBoys #January6 #CapitolRiot
Four members of the Proud Boys, including the group's former national chairman Enrique Tarrio, have been convicted of seditious conspiracy for their actions surrounding the January 6 Capitol riot.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Tarrio convicted of seditious conspiracy

apnews.com

Proud Boys' Tarrio guilty of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy

Enrique Tarrio and three other members of the far-right extremist group have been convicted of a plot to attack the U.S. Capitol after Trump lost the 2020 presidential election.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
While magats aren't renowned for the logical thought processes, even they have to see where this is leading...How can the hired help be guilty and the boss not be? They were there following his orders. They coordinated with meadows and others in the administration. If they're guilty, so is the administration that gave them their orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top