Is It OK When They Do It?

[rambot]

No one said you were "dumb". But no one was charged with the crime of Insurrection.

But I'm not arguing they were.
I'm arguing they were charged with Sedicious Conspiracy. Which is factual:
Oath Keepers leader, 10 others charged with ‘seditious conspiracy’ in Jan. 6 Capitol attack
As of that publication date, 10 were charged.

So I'm confused. It's not up for argument about whether they were charged with seditious conspiracy.
They were.
Rebellion or Insurrection | 18 U.S. Code § 2383

Insurrection refers to acts of violence, but it's not the only charge that could apply. Seditious conspiracy, for example, is an effort to overthrow the United States government. People can be charged with sedition and conspiracy even if they never carry out the planned violence.

That is a good article.
Says this too:

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES?​

The most poignant and current way we can illustrate the idea of rebellion or insurrection is the January 6 Capitol riot. Regardless of what charges were or were not brought by federal prosecutors, consider the following:

• For "vigilante" groups such as The Proud Boys, for whom there has been sufficient evidence of deliberate and coordinated efforts to descend on Washington, invade the Capitol Building, physically disrupt the electoral vote count by Congress, and potentially inflict harm upon members of Congress and the Vice President...it could be argued that leaders of The Proud Boys had committed acts qualifying for charges under U.S.C. 2383.
• For anyone providing funding or other support to these groups in coordinating their disruptive efforts...they, too, could potentially have been charged under U.S.C. 2383.
• For others who were simply in attendance at the rally that turned into a protest, who participated in the breach of the Capitol building but were swept up at the moment...while these could (and were) charged with other federal crimes, it would be difficult to convict them under 18 U.S.C. 2383 because their actions were neither organized nor coordinated, and therefore did not meet the accepted definitions of rebellion or insurrection.

 

[perplexed]

Relevant Colorada court ruling
there was an insurrection


Considering the above, and the arguments made at the Hearing and in the Parties’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court holds that an insurrection as used in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States. 241. The Court further concludes that the events on and around January 6, 2021, easily satisfy this definition of “insurrection.”

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

 

[friend of]

Seems like they were trying to intimidate

 

[Pommer]

Seems like they were trying to intimidate

Without context, I cannot understand to whom you refer; try as I might I’m still unable to read minds.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Relevant Colorada court ruling
there was an insurrection


Considering the above, and the arguments made at the Hearing and in the Parties’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court holds that an insurrection as used in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States. 241. The Court further concludes that the events on and around January 6, 2021, easily satisfy this definition of “insurrection.”

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

Relevant note: ONE state court judge opined it was an insurrection without determining the main question, which was whether Trump could be removed from the ballot. That is called "dicta" (plural, as there were many pages and associated assertions) in legal terms and it is not legal precedent. She declined to determine the main question, which is odd, as the President indeed holds an office, so he is an officeholder.

Other judges have declined on both points. This may go to the supreme Court

Note for those unaware: Dictum(singular of dicta) means:

1. An authoritative, often formal pronouncement.
2. A side remark made in a judicial opinion that is not necessary for the decision in the case and therefore is not to be regarded as establishing the law of the case or setting legal precedent.
3. A positive or judicial assertion; an authoritative saying.

Its an opinion. One at odds with other judges - hence the Supreme Court will either take it and rule, or it shall go on being an undecided issue.