It says “engage” in insurrection, not “convicted”, because if there is an insurrection, the courts are not able to function normally, and those engaged in insurrection are evading the normal legal process.
I absolutely do not retract my claim. But Court needs to make the determination. That determination would be a conviction. Or used in the furtherance of a conviction.
I have no judgment about whether the candidate performed an insurrection or not. If you’re asking my personal opinion I don’t like him. I don’t want him to be president.
I want the rule of law to govern the electoral system. Which means we need to work by findings and not emotions
It says “engage” in insurrection, not “convicted”, because if there is an insurrection, the courts are not able to function normally, and those engaged in insurrection are evading the normal legal process.
Sound like any candidate you know?
as a society ruled by law, I would expect a court of law to make the determination if such conduct was engaged.
That’s why courts are kicking him off the ballot for engaging in insurrection.
But some people are demanding he receive special treatment, and must not only engage in insurrection but be arrested, tried, and convicted.
The founding fathers recognized that’s not always possible in an insurrection.
Great. The rule of law works. Now it just needs to be a federal court
So do you retract your original claim that a conviction is required to “engage” in insurrection?
Do you believe DJT engaged in insurrection?
I absolutely do not retract my claim. But Court needs to make the determination. That determination would be a conviction. Or used in the furtherance of a conviction.
I have no judgment about whether the candidate performed an insurrection or not. If you’re asking my personal opinion I don’t like him. I don’t want him to be president.
I want the rule of law to govern the electoral system. Which means we need to work by findings and not emotions
Why does DJT deserve special treatment of requiring a conviction, when that’s not what the law says?
It seems most of us are reading the plain english of the law, and some people are tying themselves into pretzels to argue Trump is above the law.
Because the judicial system is how the law makes a finding of fact.