The Colorado Supreme Court made a historic ruling against former President Trump using a Civil War era constitutional amendment, but that isn't stopping his 2024 momentum.
I did. My point is it is defined in law. In my opinion Trump didn’t violate the law.
ETA: are you confused where there is a law that defines the elements but the article says it’s not defined? The elements define what it is and case law.
The page you linked to contains this sentence; “While the term “insurrection” is not explicitly defined by federal law…” which is almost exactly the sentence I wrote that you are somehow trying to refute with text that agrees with me.
So just to clarify, it’s your opinion that there was no insurrection, but you don’t deny sedition, and you don’t deny there was a violation of the electoral count act?
Edit: I guess I am confused because I can’t find an explicit definition in federal law, and the link you gave says there is no explicit definition in federal law, but you are telling me there is an explicit definition while failing to provide it.
Simply saying “here are the elements” is not actual definition, nor is pointing to case law.
This reminds me too much of Clinton and the meaning of “is”. He was semantically correct maybe, but still intentionally misleading, and still a snake.
They have a law that has it in the title. That means below is what you have to do to have an insurrection. That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition, it’s self defining by the elements. That’s how law works.
It’s uncommon to define every word. You define the word by the elements of the crime.
" …have a law that has it in the title. That means below is what you have to do to have an insurrection. That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition, it’s self defining by the elements…"
Bro what are you even arguing? I said there no explicit definition, you tried to prove me wrong by posting a link to a page that said there’s no explicit definition, now youre saying both things at once: “That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition,…”
Is it the word " explicit" that is giving you trouble? It means “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” This is really important in law - to be super clear and not leave things open to interpretation. That’s all I was saying. While you may think the meaning is self evident, other people can come to different conclusions, and this can lead to big problems. So insurrection is not defined clearly in a way that leaves no room for confusion or doubt. It will be up to a judge to decide if it is even relevant. That’s all I was saying. I don’t think you actually disagree with me.
It seems you didn’t read the text that you posted a link to. Maybe you should read it.
I did. My point is it is defined in law. In my opinion Trump didn’t violate the law.
ETA: are you confused where there is a law that defines the elements but the article says it’s not defined? The elements define what it is and case law.
The page you linked to contains this sentence; “While the term “insurrection” is not explicitly defined by federal law…” which is almost exactly the sentence I wrote that you are somehow trying to refute with text that agrees with me.
So just to clarify, it’s your opinion that there was no insurrection, but you don’t deny sedition, and you don’t deny there was a violation of the electoral count act?
Edit: I guess I am confused because I can’t find an explicit definition in federal law, and the link you gave says there is no explicit definition in federal law, but you are telling me there is an explicit definition while failing to provide it.
Simply saying “here are the elements” is not actual definition, nor is pointing to case law. This reminds me too much of Clinton and the meaning of “is”. He was semantically correct maybe, but still intentionally misleading, and still a snake.
They have a law that has it in the title. That means below is what you have to do to have an insurrection. That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition, it’s self defining by the elements. That’s how law works.
It’s uncommon to define every word. You define the word by the elements of the crime.
" …have a law that has it in the title. That means below is what you have to do to have an insurrection. That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition, it’s self defining by the elements…"
Bro what are you even arguing? I said there no explicit definition, you tried to prove me wrong by posting a link to a page that said there’s no explicit definition, now youre saying both things at once: “That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition,…”
Is it the word " explicit" that is giving you trouble? It means “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” This is really important in law - to be super clear and not leave things open to interpretation. That’s all I was saying. While you may think the meaning is self evident, other people can come to different conclusions, and this can lead to big problems. So insurrection is not defined clearly in a way that leaves no room for confusion or doubt. It will be up to a judge to decide if it is even relevant. That’s all I was saying. I don’t think you actually disagree with me.
I don’t think there was sedition or an insurrection.
I have not read the electoral count act. As such I have no opinion on it.