Congress has already determined, as a matter of law, that the Jan 6 Capitol attack was an insurrection.

[pnwmom]

And the vote was overwhelming: unanimous in the Senate and 406-21 in the House.

The legal finding was part of a bill passed on August 5, 2021 authorizing Congressional Gold Medals for Capitol Police officers who had protected the Capitol during the insurrection.

Public Law 117-32
117th Congress

An Act

To award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol
Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6,
2021.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Every day, the United States Capitol Police (``Capitol
Police'') protects the U.S. Capitol, Members of Congress,
congressional staff and institutional staff, journalists, and
the visiting public.
(2) On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its
way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office
buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and
violently attacked Capitol Police officers.
(3) The sacrifice of heroes including
Capitol Police Officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood,
Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jeffrey Smith, and those
who sustained injuries, and the courage of Capitol Police
Officer Eugene Goodman, exemplify the patriotism and the
commitment of Capitol Police officers, and those of other law
enforcement agencies, to risk their lives in service of our
country.
(4) Up to seven Americans died following this violent
attack, and more than 140 law enforcement officers suffered
physical injuries, including 15 officers who were hospitalized.
(5) The desecration of the U.S. Capitol, which is the temple
of our American Democracy, and the violence targeting Congress
are horrors that will forever stain our Nation's history.
(6) On April 2, 2021
Officer William ``Billy'' Evans was killed while protecting the
North Barricade of the Capitol. Officer Evans was a
distinguished member of the First Responders Unit and an
eighteen-year veteran of the United States Capitol
Police. Also injured in that assault
was Officer Kenneth Shaver. Officer Shaver is a fifteen-year
veteran of the United States Capitol Police.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3325/text

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

[dalton99a]

2. Kick

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Gold. Gold!

Copper bottom proof of what Congress thought happened.

[GreenWave]

4. And some came with intent to kill.

[PortTack]

15. All of them did or at least were okay with it including that dim wit ashley babbit!

[LiberalFighter]

5. Vote was -- Yea 406 -- Nay 21 -- Not Voting 4

All 21 were Republicans.

Biggs (AZ)
Boebert (CO)
Cloud (TX)
Clyde (GA)
Davidson (OH)
Gaetz (FL)
Gohmert (TX)
Good (VA)
Gosar (AZ)
Greene (GA)
Harris (MD)
Hice (GA)
Massie (KY)
Miller (IL)
Moore (AL)
Norman (SC)
Perry (PA)
Rose (TN)
Rosendale (MT)
Roy (TX)
Steube (FL)

[canuckledragger]

7. And there's a few on that list that voted nay to protect their own insurrectionist bottoms.

[dpibel]

8. The pardon requesters

Not everyone on that list requested a presidential pardon, but I'd wager that every representative who requested a pardon is on that list.

[ShazzieB]

14. I'm surprised Jordan isn't on that list.

Did he abstain? It's hard to imagine him voting "aye" on this.

[AllaN01Bear]

6. kick.

[live love laugh]

9. Rebellion OR Insurrection are the terms used in the Constitution.

I think both terms should be used so as not be painted into a corner with legalese— which is what Republicans are trying to do.

[love_katz]

10. Kicked!

And, we can never forget what the mob of insurrection liars tried to do. NEVER FORGET.

[Kablooie]

11. And 2 proud boy leaders were convicted of insurrection

Seems that’s enough to legally confirm it was an insurrection.
Trump, by saying he will pardon them and still pushing the big lie continues to aid a comfort the insurrectioners.

Not that this will have any effect on the SC decision.

[Zeitghost]

27. I believe it was Seditious Conspiracy

They were convicted of.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

12. The targets of the insurrection knew it was an insurrection.

Each state that has a means of challenging who gets on the ballot should be reminded of this bill.

[BaronChocula]

13. And in a bipartisan conclusion said

Trump summoned the crowd, assembled the crowd, and lit the match.

Stink Bigly Bigly did not ALLEGEDLY do these things. He started the riot and watched it unfold for hours before stopping it. Not allegedly. He did it.

[KPN]

16. Just +++++++++++++++++++++. Attention: Jack Smith!!

[Mysterian]

17. The U.S. Corrupt Court will laugh at what elected legislators do

The U.S. Corrupt Court rules the USA, not the people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Ahem, people being hurt/dying does not make it an insurrection

The premise of the Original Post is false. Congress has not made the determination.

What made it an insurrection was that it interrupted one of the key phases of the peaceful transfer of power, which is required for democracy to work. The section excerpted does not mention that.

The justified anger at people being killed/injured because of tRump's actions does not an insurrection make.

[pnwmom]

19. That's NOT what I said. Congress made a legal FINDING that the attack was carried out by

insurrectionists. A legal finding is a determination of fact.

The fact that the attack was carried out by insurrectionists makes the attack an insurrection.

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Every day, the United States Capitol Police (``Capitol
Police'') protects the U.S. Capitol, Members of Congress,
congressional staff and institutional staff, journalists, and
the visiting public.
(2) On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its
way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office
buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and
violently attacked Capitol Police officers.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Okay, I looked at it all, but not carefully enough. Thanks for highlighting that. . . . . nt

[ancianita]

21. True. But in spirit, at least, this law connects to 18 U.S. CODE § 2383 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection

[pnwmom]

22. Right -- which is why some of the insurrectionists were convicted of the crime of insurrection. nt

[ancianita]

23. Cool. I'm not sure I read about that in justice.gov but I'll take your word for it.

[pnwmom]

24. I misspoke. It was sedition -- or seditious conspiracy -- that was the most serious charge.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jury-convicts-four-leaders-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach

Jury Convicts Four Leaders of the Proud Boys of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html#:~:text=Also%20known%20as%20%22sedition%2C%22,to%20destroy%20or%20overthrow%20it

Seditious Conspiracy and Federal Law: The Basics

The federal law against seditious conspiracy is in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384. That section of the U.S. Code deals with treason, rebellion, and similar offenses.

That section of the U.S. Code lays out a definition of sedition. Sedition is a crime involving two or more people in the United States:

To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against it,
To oppose by force the authority of the United States government,
To prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States, or
To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States.

[ancianita]

26. Thanks. More accurate. And it still falls under the insurrection law on the books as 18 U.S. CODE § 2383.

Also, re Jan 6 it's important to be aware that insurrection and rebellion aren't synonymous.

Insurrection often involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede the enforcement of federal laws.

Rebellion is generally understood as an organized, armed, and often violent resistance or opposition to established government authority or its laws.

Rebellion typically connotes a more widespread and coordinated effort than insurrection, aiming to overthrow or undermine the existing governmental structure. To prove a violation of U.S.C. 2383, the prosecution must establish the following elements:

The defendant knowingly incited, engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to a rebellion or insurrection.
The rebellion or insurrection was against the authority of the United States or its laws.
The defendant's actions were willful and intentional.

Examples of rebellion:

-- 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.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities have several federal statutes that are related to 18 U.S.C. 2383 rebellion or insurrection, including the following:

18 U.S.C. 2381 - Treason;
18 U.S.C. 2382 - Misprision of treason;
18 U.S.C. 2384 - Seditious conspiracies;
18 U.S.C. 2385 - Advocating the overthrow of Government;
18 U.S.C. 2386 - Registration of certain organizations;
18 U.S.C. 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally;
18 U.S.C. 2388 - Activities affecting armed forces during war;
18 U.S.C. 2389 - Recruiting for service against the United States;
18 U.S.C. 2390 - Enlistment to serve against the United States.

Penalties:

A conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 carries severe consequences. If you are found guilty of acts of insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. government, you could face the following:

Imprisonment for up to 10 years; and
A fine of up to $250,000 as determined by the court.
In addition, regardless of other penalties, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection

Pretty sure I'm getting carried away here, but there's a wider reading audience, so what the heck.

As for Jack Smith's criminal cases this year, it's about

[pnwmom]

28. Thanks for pulling all this together! nt

[Zeitghost]

29. I don't believe anyone has been charged

Or convicted of insurrection with regards to 1/6.

[pnwmom]

30. You're right. Read post #24 and its follow-ups for more on this. nt

[Zeitghost]

31. Ahh

I missed that. Thank you for pointing it out.

[ancianita]

32. You're right. Just conspiracy and other 18 USC crimes that are more important.

Trump's up against these charges this year.

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 -- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) -- Conspiracy to Obstruct and Official Proceeding

Count 3: 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c) (2) 2 -- Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding

Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- Conspiracy Against Rights

That last one is my personal favorite.

Convictions under §241 require that the government demonstrates that the defendant conspired to violate a constitutionally or federally protected right. The statute does not explicitly establish a requirement that defendants acted willfully under color of law, but courts have incorporated these elements in their interpretation of the law.[9]: 32–33 

A charge of conspiracy against rights does not require that the conspiracy is successful in accomplishing its goals,[10]: 35  nor does it require execution of an overt act unlike other conspiracy-related statutes.[11]

Section §241 violations are charged as felonies with the possibility of fines up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to ten years,[9]: 32–33 [8]: 485  including in circumstances where execution of an overt act would only be charged as a misdemeanor.[12]: 290 

The statute also allows for harsher penalties (including life imprisonment or the death penalty) if the conspiracy either attempts to cause or results in death, kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse.[13]: 1 

Charges of conspiracy against rights were formerly shaped by the statute's legislative intent and limited via Supreme Court decisions, such as in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876).[5][6][8]: 487  The Supreme Court determined in Cruikshank that the rights covered by the statute did not include those arising from natural law. In the decades following, the court would vary on the issue of the scope of conspiracy against rights.[3]: 914–916  The court would eventually rule in Price that §241 safeguarded rights both explicit and implicit in the Constitution.[3]: 919  Use of the statute expanded in the 20th century, and §241 is now a key component of civil rights enforcement and has been used in prosecutions of law enforcement misconduct, hate crimes, and witness tampering, as well as in prosecutions of human trafficking prior to the adoption of human trafficking conspiracy statutes.[5][6][11][14]: 626 

The law has long been invoked in federal prosecutions of federal elections offenses, concerning abrogation of the right to vote, but has been more recently applied to state or local elections with federal components, as well as by some courts in elections solely at the state or local level.[8]: 483  While the Supreme Court has held that the right to vote in state and local elections is constitutionally protected, it has not explicitly ruled on the applicability of §241 to such elections.[8]: 487 

Charges of conspiracy against rights concerning federal election offenses cover activities subverting the integrity of federal elections and do not require direct action towards an individual voter. Election conspiracies prosecuted under conspiracy against rights can be classified as either public schemes (where public officials commit a §241 violation under color of law) or private schemes (where conspirators impinge on the ability for voters to vote).

While charges under the statute can be brought forth for any public scheme, federal prosecution of private schemes require that the conspiracy was targeted at a specific federal contest or affected such a contest.[10]: 36–37  Federal prosecutors have brought the charge of conspiracy against rights in cases involving ballot stuffing, disfranchisement, the destruction of ballots, voter fraud, and interference of the accurate counting of votes.[10]: 34–35 ...

Common law intent requirement
In Screws v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a conviction under a related statute, 18 U.S.C. §242, required proof of the defendant's specific intent to deprive the victim of a constitutional right.[16] In United States v. Guest, the Supreme Court read this same requirement into §241, the conspiracy statute....[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_against_rights

[TomDaisy]

33. .

[Alice Kramden]

25. K&R n/t

[rwild1967]

34. Where in the test does it say "insurrection"?

Understand, I'm not doubting that it does, but I read it and didn't see it. I want it to, but I also don't wanna fall for anything that isn't as advertised.

[pnwmom]

35. The relevant passage is under FINDINGS:

"a mob of insurrectionists . . . attacked the Capitol police.... "

The mob members were "insurrectionists" carrying out their attack on the Capitol police. That makes their attack an insurrection.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Every day, the United States Capitol Police (``Capitol
Police'') protects the U.S. Capitol, Members of Congress,
congressional staff and institutional staff, journalists, and
the visiting public.
(2) On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its
way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office
buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and
violently attacked Capitol Police officers.

[malaise]

36. A great OP

Rec

[SouthernDem4ever]

37. now if only we can get that through the dodo heads of those still in congress

who still think breaking the law is ok.

[onenote]

38. Sorry, but statutory "Findings" do not have the force of law.

Indeed, even in interpreting the statute to which they are appended, the courts often deem them irrelevant.

There's a reason that the findings in a statute authorizing medals to the Capitol Police Officers wasn't mentioned in the Colorado court's extensive discussion of whether J6 was an "insurrection". The same reason that DOJ hasn't relied on those findings as the basis for charging anyone with "insurrection." It's because those findings are essentially meaningless as a matter of law.

[pnwmom]

40. The Republicans who voted against it thought it did.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/558620-21-republicans-vote-against-awarding-medals-to-police-who-defended-capitol-on/

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who voted against both versions of the bill, said Tuesday that he’s concerned its use of the term “insurrectionists” to describe the mob that stormed the Capitol could impact ongoing court cases. He rejected the notion that the Jan. 6 attack amounted to an insurrection — which Merriam-Webster defines as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.”

“I think if we call that an insurrection, it could have a bearing on their case that I don’t think would be good,” Massie said.

[onenote]

42. Meaningless.

What an individual member thinks or doesn't think doesn't determine whether a finding has the force of law. That's first year law school stuff.

I'm curious -- do you think that the Colorado plaintiffs and the DOJ are guilty of malpractice for not relying on the medals statute?

[pnwmom]

43. Where did I use the word "force"? The word "insurrectionist" is literally in the findings

that the Congress voted to approve. Congress was offered a sanitized version of the law, but chose this one.

Here's another quote from a Republican who was afraid of the weight this finding could carry in a trial.

https://rollcall.com/2021/03/17/house-passes-bill-to-award-congressional-gold-medals-to-capitol-dc-police/

Rep. Thomas Massie told CQ Roll Call he voted against the bill because it used the term “insurrection” and the implication codifying that description of Jan. 6 could have on prosecutions of individuals in the Capitol that day.

“If we give weight to the word ‘insurrection’ that then that comes up in somebody’s prosecution, so that’s a concern of mine,” the Kentucky Republican said.

[onenote]

45. Let's be clear: no competent prosecutor would argue that the finding in the medals statute

means that Congress has determined "as a matter of law" that J6 was an "insurrection". And no one should give an ounce of weight to the views of Massie, who isn't a lawyer, on what a court might think. As previously noted, neither the Colorado case nor the DOJ in its numerous prosecutions, have relied on or cited the medals statute. I'm going to go with their competence over Massie's nonsense.

[Susan Calvin]

39. Well lookie here!

My Congresscritter, Troy Nehls, voted yea.

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021161

[BobTheSubgenius]

41. Worst. Tourists. Ever.

[CountAllVotes]

44. K&R

LOCK TFG up NOW!

Dangerous freak on the loose!

& recommend.

[republianmushroom]

46. Bet the supreme court changes it.