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.

  • @jonne
    link
    55 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
      link
      fedilink
      15 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
        15 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
          link
          fedilink
          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.