* Educate * Engage * Reform *  

The “insurrection piece” in the LC Sun

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Peter
You are making some stretch assumptions, starting with the fact that Trump is guilty. Wishful thinking doesn’t apply. In addition, nor you or I know the contents of the documents found. Again all hearsay. Or if it is truely an “active” investigation, why are there so many leaks from the keepers of the documents (DOJ)? Last leak was trump had nuclear launch codes….
The SS is supposed to protect the former president. So let’s assume they were doing their job, the documents, regardless of what they were, were probably safe. Unless trump had these documents laying around at the breakfast table, chances are they were probably protected.
And the worst part is the hypocrisy. All I know is what was reported, but let’s assume Hillary was in fact in possession . Of classified e mails in an unsecured server, she got of pretty light.
If trump in fact broke the law, he should pay the consequences. Just like Hillary.
Do you really believe Biden didn’t know about the raid in advance ? Do you believe Biden never discussed business dealing with his son as he has often denied ? Time will tell….
We can search for. A definitions to suit our objective. I am certainly no legal expert but insurrection is a good term to use to demonize. https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insurrection/ I don’t recall anyone trying to take possession or overthrow of the constituted government .

“Insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It is a violent revolt against an oppressive authority. Insurrection is different from riots and offenses connected with mob violence. In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government whereas riots and offenses connected with mob violence are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.

The following is a case law defining Insurrection:

Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa”

Thnx

JD Garcia
575-449-5821

hi!
Thanks for your email!First of all, I have no idea whether Biden discussed Hunter’s business deals with him. Hunter sounds like a piece of work, and a sad story, and no doubt traded on the fact that his father was VP, rather the way George H.W. Bush’s son, George W. Bush, basically traded on his father’s status. The younger Bush had a little energy company that kept getting in financial trouble but being bailed out by folks that likely wanted to curry favor with his father, including, I recall, the Government of Bahrain. No other reason Bahrain would invest to prop up a small company like that. Did it affect the senior Bush’s policy-making? I hope not.So I’m guessing Joe loved his troubled son and was unhappy at how the kid was using Joe’s position for profit, but I can’t claim to know. It sure appears that Hunter’s associations and income didn’t influence Biden.
By the way, do you feel the same way about Trump’s son-in-law helping out Saudi Arabia while Trump was in office, then receiving a huge investment from Saudi Arabia in his start-up venture capital company right afterward? To me, that stinks worse than Hunter Biden and more strongly suggests a quid-pro-quo.
With the documents, of course you’re right that it’s hearsay. I have not seen the documents, any more than you or I has seen many of the documents or heard many of the reported statements by politicians that we discuss and write about. I hadn’t heard the one about nuclear launch codes. Which he might have kept, to feel big, but who cares, since i’d imagine the codes wouldn’t have been changed when he left. So I “know” very little. However, given Garland’s reluctance to prosecute Trump, because it would look political, I’d bet you $100 (or, say, supper at a good restaurant in town) that if we ever find out more definitely, it will prove that Trump had material that could be valuable to a foreign country and that contain information it would be against the U.S. interest to disclose. Whether he kept such stuff for the obvious logical reason, or because it made him feel important, I can hardly know.
My guess would be that Biden didn’t know, and wasn’t told directly, but that his office had some understanding that such an action was possible; but I can’t claim to know.
I can, however, reason. With Trump, I can reason, from the inconsistent and somewhat stupid responses (mentioned in column) Trump and his people made, including swearing that all the material had been given back and that Trump had mafically waved a wand to declassify it all, that Trump knew he had a problem. He’s as credible as the guy whose dog bites you who says, “It wasn’t my dog, he didn’t bite you, and he wouldn’t have bitten you if you hadn’t kicked him, and you’re making it up because you want to sue me for money.”
I’d guess the SS was one source for the information that elicited the search warrant from a judge, but that’s just a guess.
My memory of the Hillary thing is that emails were stored on an improper server, and that the prior Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had told her that was more secure than using the DOD server. I also hadn’t seen any documents of the significance of what Trump allegedly had. It’s pretty clear that disclosure by the FBI of that issue influenced the 2016 Presidential Election, though I can’t say whether or not it determined the result.
We agree that “if Trump broke the law he should pay the consequences.” However, even many who consider him guilty do not want to see a president or former president prosecuted. I would not want to see him prosecuted lightly.
As to insurrection, the quote you cite is certainly one court’s definition, and one very generous to defendants; there are others that are less so; but wouldn’t you agree that at a moment when the Congress is certifying the Presidential Election results (which show Biden as the winner and which dozens of different courts, including Trump-appointed judges, found Trump’s challenges not only invalid but so loony as to be arguably subject his lawyers to disciplinary actions, so that legally Biden won, whether one likes that or not), to enter the Capitol violently with the intent to use violence or threats of violence to prevent certification and keep Trump in office illegally, qualifies as insurrection? Remember, they were threatening to hang the vice-president for doing his legal duty. If you doubt that, be honest about how you’d feel if: (a) in 2017, Black Lives Matter protesters took over the Capitol, injuring or killing cops and threatening to hang Joe Biden if he certified Trump’s election, (b) if their violence did prevent certification, and cause Joe Biden to refuse certification, and (c) either the Congress voted to certify Hillary’s election or the Supreme Court decided Barack Obama should stay in office until the results of a new, non-fraudulent election.
On the insurrection issue, it’ll be interesting to see how the Griffin case is viewed by appellate state courts and perhaps ultimately federal courts strongly influenced by Trump.
On balance, I think my column will stand the test of time, and seem reasonable and appropriate in the light of whatever facts we learn in future. So far, most or all of them have. But we’ll see.
Have a good day!
– peter

Weekly Action Alert