Which U.S. Govt Body Legally Determines if an INSURRECTION Occurred or Not.

Thursday, December 21, 2023

The Media, Democrats, and even some Judges have labeled the U.S. Capitol Protest/Riot of January 6, 2021 as an "INSURRECTION". But...

For all the Democrats’ talk of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot being an “insurrection,” it’s important to remember that not one person involved in the riot has been charged with that crime.

More: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

-AND-

The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are misunderstood, and the failure to correct the record could be damaging to both America’s future and its justice system.

Words have to have meaning, and the continuous mislabeling of the U.S. Capitol breach as an “insurrection” is an example of how a false narrative can gain currency and cause dangerous injustice.

More at: www.wsj.com...

For LEGAL and U.S. HISTORY reasons, some U.S. Government authority must rule that the U.S. Capitol event of January 6, 2023 WAS an INSURRECTION, or WAS NOT an INSURRECTION.

WHICH U.S. GOVERNMENT BODY WOULD RENDER THIS DETERMINATION?

The determination needs to be made quickly, because people are being removed from jobs, and made ineligible to run for office, due to employers and officials improperly labeling JOHN or JANE DOE as "insurrectionists", for being at the U.S. Capitol building on 1/6/2021. (Or asking people to March Peacefully to the Capitol building.)

-WeMustCare

a reply to: WeMustCare

Biden called it an insurrection.

He also calls his oatmeal, Gary.

Who appointed Jack Smith?

Honestly it's a good question and one that may be answered shortly. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is pretty vague on how it's enforced. Other aspects of the 14th Amendment specify they're enforced by Congress.

On the other hand, the Constitution is very clear that the States are granted autonomy on how they run their elections.

a reply to: WeMustCare

I DONT KNOW but has your caps lock got a mind of ITS OWN

I ask this of you mutilple times yet you never answer, no doubt my post will get removed for being off topic, but it seems since Trump does this more frequently so do you, is it a sign of affection you have for him? or do you feel it somehow makes you point more valid

Just asking out of curiosity

a reply to: UpIsNowDown2

Glad we’re focused on the important things here. Caps lock is way more important than law and order.

originally posted by: Myhandle
Who appointed Jack Smith?

Apparently Garland did…..and now some law professors are claiming that Smith’s appointment in illegal.
And they have filed a brief to present the case to the SC.
We all know that all of this stinks to high heaven.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese has presented arguments to the Supreme Court that they should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s requests because he was unconstitutionally appointed in the first place.

Meese, along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, filed a friend-of-the-court brief Wednesday to present the case that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith — a private citizen — is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

"Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," the brief states.

"Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos," they argued.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: Myhandle
Who appointed Jack Smith?

Furthermore, how many congress members confirmed him?


*DINGDING*

a reply to: RazorV66

Would that be the sense Ed Meese that resigned in disgrace?

The regulations that guide the appointment of special counsels state that should come from outside the government. If anything, Durham and Weiss are the ones who aren't valid special counsels.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66

Would that be the sense Ed Meese that resigned in disgrace?

The regulations that guide the appointment of special counsels state that should come from outside the government. If anything, Durham and Weiss are the ones who aren't valid special counsels.

Whatever, I don’t claim to be a lawyer.
Read the story.

a reply to: JinMI

The whole point of special counsels is that they exist outside the government system. This was a direct response to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66

Would that be the sense Ed Meese that resigned in disgrace?

The regulations that guide the appointment of special counsels state that should come from outside the government. If anything, Durham and Weiss are the ones who aren't valid special counsels.

Constitution > Regulations.

It is all so dystopian, 1984'ish. The Ministry of Truth has declared it an 'insurrection, and By Any Means Necessary the 'authorities will crush anyone that disagrees.
Just look at this example...

It is all so surreal, what just a decade or so ago would have been quickly exposed for the propaganda and blatant lies it in reality is, is now basically unchallenged and used as a basis to gain further power.

Amazing how Orwell, Huxley, Rand etc...saw this coming.

a reply to: RazorV66

Instead of reading biased articles maybe you should read the actual laws and regulations that relate to the topic in question.

originally posted by: Myhandle
Who appointed Jack Smith?

Merrick Garland, likely unconstitutionally.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66

Instead of reading biased articles maybe you should read the actual laws and regulations that relate to the topic in question.

So you are claiming once again that you know more than those guys?

Have you ever filed a brief to bring something in front of the SC?

They obviously must have an inkling of how the law works being law professors.


Edit - You are always so quick to dismiss something like this when if it doesn’t fit your narrative aaaand try to tell me to read the law?

I don’t give a sh!t about how the law is written, there are smarter people like Meese and his pals to figure that out.

a reply to: JinMI

So you agree that all charges against Hunter should be dropped as they were brought forth by a special counsel?

a reply to: WeMustCare

Obviously, not everyone that showed up to Trump's "Stop the Steal Rally" were there to conspire to violently rebel against the electoral count and hinder its happening. But some did, and admitted to it in court, or were found guilty in court, based on the evidence and their actions, and were convicted of "sedition" and "seditious conspiracy".

Trump's own words have made his engagement, and his part in it public.

a reply to: RazorV66

I'm claiming that there's nearly 250 years of precedence establishing the authority of special counsels.

Do you believe that the impeachment of Clinton should be revoked as it was the result of an investigation done by a special counsel?

a reply to: Threadbarer

I'm claiming that there's nearly 250 years of precedence establishing the authority of special counsels.

How many times has a president been brought on charges in that 250 year history?

Your precedents went out the window guy...