Capitol attack and 6th of January hearings

Actually I think I'll call it an insurrection.

in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə😉n/
noun
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

It was:

1) violent
2) an uprising against an authority or government.

I have no idea what is so hard to understand here.

Further, I will continue to say that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, as that was found to be true in a court of law during a trial meant to determine that fact; a trial in which Trump was represented by a defense team, which, as you might suspect, indeed attempted to defend him from this accusation.

"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”😉 to intervene in the action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. Thecourt found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three. Anderson v. Griswold, No. 23CV32577, ¶¶241, 298(Dist. Ct., City & Cnty. of Denver, Nov. 17, 2023). "

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/su...

This finding was affirmed by a state supreme court:

[quote="again, from the link"]
•The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.Capitol on January 6, 2021,constituted an “insurrection.
•The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.
[/quote]

...and has not been reversed or even challenged since.

Lol

You can call it w/e you like but it wasn't an insurrection. And Trump wasn't there.

Who told you he had to be there to be the ringleader? You think Hitler was personally at Auschwitz for all the mass murder?

Yes, I can. But the courts can't. They have to justify it with facts, which can then be challenged by higher courts and overturned if the facts aren't there to support it.

And the courts call it an insurrection. And Trump an insurrectionist. And the higher court affirmed these facts. Explicitly.

Which means I'm right. And you're wrong.

A rare event that only occurs on days ending in Y.

The Colorado court was full of ****, just like you are.

The US supreme court agreed.

Do you admit you're joe6pack?

An armed mob with explosives storming capitol hill sounds pretty insurrectionary to me.

Reported.

The US supreme court did not rule on this fact. Only whether his being an insurrectionist would allow the state to remove him from the ballot.

Did the Colorado court provide evidence that Trump planned and organised or participated in the invasion of the Capitol? No they didn't. Therefore their conclusion that he engaged in insurrection is a total load of ****.

And lol at reporting that post. How pathetic.

The court is not the one that provides evidence. The court was presented evidence.

The court was presented with evidence of it, yes. You are not in a position to determine whether the conclusion is incorrect or not, especially since it has been affirmed by a higher court (and that you didn't even know they presented evidence).

Try following the forum rules, I guess?

Do you admit you're joe6pack?

So now we've gone from "It wasn't an insurrection" to "Trump didn't plan or organise the insurrection", okay.

Are you really so dumb that you think where he was physically at during the insurrection is important or controlling?

The first page of this thread is fun to revisit when people start denying reality.

I don't know. I may be dumb but I have yet to see any evidence that Trump planned, organised, directed or in any way participated in the invasion of the capitol. If anyone can show me that evidence please do. Until then you are all full of it.

No doubt I will probably get reported for that too but I don't care.

Pretty easy to not see something when you close your eyes and refuse to look.

Do you admit you're joe6pack?

You could just go look at the evidence presented in that case. Why haven't you?

I'll even help. You can find a summary of the proceedings, and specifically about the question of if Trump engaged in insurrection, in section V, subsection B on page 66 of the Final Order (11/17/2023) in the case Anderson v. Griswold, No. 23CV32577. It should give you an idea of what you can look for in the summary of the proceedings to find links to submitted evidence, testimony, and oral arguments, which you can easily find online.

Lol

Feel free to present the evidence here yourself, if it exists. I'm not going looking for it.

The ole "not going to look, therefore I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist" isn't quite the banana in the tailpipe you think it is.

Do you admit you're joe6pack?

Then I guess we have the answer about why you haven't seen the evidence, don't we?

Hard for him to come back, he's banned.

You are the one making the assertion that the evidence exists. It's up to you to provide proof, not me.

That's the same reason BJ won't answer your question.

That or he's busy Brian Jamesing his anatomically correct Trump doll.