Trump’s legal team also tried to throw cold water on the idea in a filing earlier this week, writing that the “events of January 6 were not an ‘insurrection’ as they did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow or resist the U.S. government.”

Trump disagrees, apparently.

“They kept saying about what I said right after the insurrection,” he said outside Mar-a-Lago after arguments concluded in Washington, D.C. “I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well, we do have that well publicized viral tweet from Pelosi where she called all her supporters to DC telling them “Will be wild!” then topped that off by whipping the crowd into a frenzy by telling them they have to “fight like hell”.

    Oh, wait, that was Trump…

    • klemptor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean, I understand how the law works and everything, but from a very pragmatic perspective, how is there even a soupçon of doubt at this point? Having a trial for this really feels more like we’re asking “which side has craftier lawyers” rather than “did he actually incite an insurrection”. It seems so silly.

      (I hope this makes sense, I’m a little high.)

      • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t understand, but I’m also a little high. So I blame that

        That being said, I can’t tell you how excited I am for soupcon this year. I’m going dressed as split-pea

      • jonne
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean, the fact should be established in a trial of some kind before you could exclude someone. Otherwise you’d end up random secretaries of state excluding people they don’t like.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, the fact should be established in a trial of some kind before you could exclude someone. Otherwise you’d end up random secretaries of state excluding people they don’t like.

          Was that the case during the Civil War era when that amendment was first created? Or were people just deemed insurrectionists without a trial? Honestly asking.

          • jonne
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I have no idea, it’s an interesting question. You would assume there would need to be some kind of due process.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You would assume there would need to be some kind of due process.

              If a person has been voted in to make those decisions, makes that decision, that might be all the due process that’s needed.

              That’s why I’m asking the question I am, when that Amendment went into a place, did anyone actually have a trial before they were labeled an insurrectionist, or were court judges identifying people as insurrectionists and using that brand new amendment to punish them as such.