You're viewing part of a thread.
That's a mere interpretation of what happened that would never stand up in a court of law, hence why no formal charges have been brought. It's completely speculative.
Which is exactly why we can't remove him from ballots or refer to it as an insurrection.
Remember the Iraq War? We referred to the opposition after Hussein fell as terrorists (not very accurate, very lame Zioconservative take), or as insurgents, which is accurate.
Insurgency implies some long term armed resistance. It can't refer to some impromptu riot on the police lines.
You didn't answer my question - where do you get your definition of insurrection?
Trump has already been found to have incited insurrection in court, and was disqualified from the ballot in Colorado for just that reason.
The stacking of the senate, failure of democracy and abandonment of the rule of law makes bringing federal charges pointless (see his multiple impeachments). This is a strange standard to try (and fail) to apply under the circumstances.
I suppose my definition is the one from the Oxford dictionary:
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:
J6 cannot meet such a burden since it was not an organized attempt and it certainly wasn't violent in the way that a real move to overthrow the government would be, only violent in the sense that any disorganized protest can be.
... And while some people can toss around the word insurrection, you notice that there is no serious charge against Trump on this, because there can be no charge, since he said nothing nor does any other evidence exists which show he incited anyone to any illegal act, let alone an attempt to overthrow the government. This is only possible through assumption & interpretation of what happened that it was even an 'insurrection.'