Mitchell: "This was a riot. It was not an insurrection." Huh? I think he just hung his client.

[ificandream]

That's more than Trump has ever said. He never called it a riot. Unreal!

[TwilightZone]

1. There's a huge difference here between a riot and an insurrection.

If it's not an insurrection, there's no case for removal. Claiming it was a riot is harmless.

[Walleye]

4. Trump had already refused to cooperate in the transition process. It was an insurrection

[TwilightZone]

8. That's not my point.

The OP intimated that calling it a riot is a bad thing for Trump.

It's clearly not. If he was able to successful argue that, Trump wins.

[ificandream]

11. But the riot led to the insurrection.

It wasn't a riot on its own.

[TwilightZone]

15. Still missing the point.

The attorney's goal here is to argue that it was a riot and not an insurrection. We all know it was an insurrection, but if he was able to convincingly argue otherwise and the SC ruled it wasn't an insurrection (and, instead, a riot, though that's irrelevant), there's no longer any case for ineligibility.

No insurrection = no case. That's what he's trying to argue.

[NYC Liberal]

16. It was part of the insurrection.

The insurrection was a broad plot that included multiple schemes. Disrupting the electoral vote count (the riot) was one part. There was also the fake elector scheme and pressuring state officials to change results (Georgia).

[FalloutShelter]

33. Exactly

Not a spontaneous riot. They had fake electors lined up… they were about to abduct the VP.
That is not a riot, they is a PLAN.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. tRump organized a "wild" riot to engineer insurrection by suspension of EC ballot counting. . . . nt

[TwilightZone]

26. That's not the point.

We all know it was an insurrection. But if he could argue that it was, instead, "just" a riot, there's no case.

Insurrection is the key here, because that's what's in the 14th. It doesn't say Trump can be disqualified if he was involved in a riot. That's the key difference.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. Doesn't matter what you call it. It was part of his insurrection. Not the only part. . . nt

[TwilightZone]

30. What we think it was is irrelevant.

Why does no one seem to understand that?

We can quite correctly call it an insurrection all we want, but if SCOTUS decides it's not, our opinions don't mean shit.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. Oh course. :eyes: So you want me to not comment? Because my "opinion don't mean shit"?

We know how the Court operates. They do not consult DU. So what? You think we don't know that?

Why do you keep objecting to people expressing their opinion in this thread?

[edhopper]

25. If Trump caused

or promoted the riot, with the intent to stop the certification of the legitimate Government, it's an insurrection, even if not all the rioters were in on it.

Storming the Bastille was also a riot.

[TwilightZone]

28. I'm not sure why everyone is missing the point.

We all know it was an insurrection. Our opinions, however, don't matter here.

Trump's attorney is trying to make a semantic point that this wasn't an insurrection, it was just a riot.

The interpretation is at the center of this case. If he was able to successful argue that it was "just" a riot, there's no case, because the 14th doesn't say Trump can be disqualified for engaging in a riot.

It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is how the event is defined by SCOTUS.

It may not even matter, because Colorado already found that Trump engaged in an insurrection. The question is whether or not SCOTUS will reconsider that fact. They shouldn't but that doesn't mean they won't.

https://democraticunderground.com/100218663070#post12

[edhopper]

35. We get that

but we all see the weak word games that Trump's attorney is playing for what they are.
And the reason why they were rioting cannot be disregarded by anyone.

[Walleye]

2. OK not an insurrection, then why was the mob there in the first place?

I think their own characterization, “stop the steal” says it all

[GuppyGal]

3. But it was a riot trying to break into ...no breaking into the capital building on the day the election is certified.

I see no difference

[TwilightZone]

9. The difference is fairly obvious.

If it's not an insurrection (and, instead, a riot), Trump can't be disqualified for involvement in an insurrection. That's where the attorney is trying to go with this.

[GuppyGal]

23. OK but what I'm saying is that it was both nt

[imanamerican63]

5. It was an insurrection and and a riot, but are two different things!

Trump perpetrated the insurrection which started a riot!

[Scrivener7]

6. An attempt to replace the electoral votes was part of the procedure. Or is that not being considered in

this hearing?

(That's not snark. I'm wondering if that is being treated as a different consideration. Even when we all know it shouldn't be.)

[Historic NY]

7. The goal of the riot?

Is the same as what? [

link:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot|

[senseandsensibility]

10. Bingo

Exactly.

[Ocelot II]

12. It doesn't matter. Appellate courts don't reconsider findings of fact.

Their job is only to consider legal issues and whether the lower courts decided them correctly. The trial court in Colorado found as a matter of fact that there was an insurrection and that Trump instigated or participated in it. If Mitchell wants to call it a riot, it doesn't matter because the facts of this case have already been decided - and one of those facts was that there was an insurrection. Maybe you could call it an insurrection in the form of a riot, but even the dictionary definition makes it pretty clear: An insurrection is "an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects." The reason for the "riot" wasn't to loot the Capitol (although there was some of that) or even to protest the result of the election; it was a violent attempt to prevent Congress - a governing authority - from completing the procedure for the transfer or power to a new administration. Mitchell can go shit in his hat.

[TwilightZone]

19. Interesting.

Clearly, if they ruled that it wasn't an insurrection (and, instead, a riot or whatever, though that's irrelevant), there's no case, but if they aren't looking at the finding of fact from the lower court, the distinction the attorney is trying to make is meaningless.

[Ocelot II]

20. I think one of the sticky issues in this case - and there are several -

is that hypothetically each state could have its own definition of insurrection, and candidates could be rejected or accepted in different states under different standards. But isn't that what federalism is? Didn't Dobbs hold that the states can come up with their own standards for whether and when abortions can be performed? But what's stickier here is that a candidate for national office would be subject to different standards in different states. This is not as easy a case as a lot of people seem to think it is.

[TwilightZone]

22. Agreed.

I agree with all of that. The conservatives on SCOTUS have made it clear that states should have extremely wide latitude in determining how their elections are run (including essentially ignoring such things as the Voting Rights Act), and this would seem to fit neatly into that, though the 14th complicates matters, because it introduces the possibility (depending on interpretation) of standards at the federal level and not just the state law/statute/election rules one.

I've kind of laughed whenever a pundit has issued a proclamation that this is a simple issue with a simple solution. Even legal and constitutional experts have made those claims. That's just not the case here, particularly when SCOTUS conservatives have their own agenda.

And, as you said, and as I've often commented, even the interpretation of what constitutes an insurrection is up for debate, as well as the jurisdiction of that interpretation. That part has been largely ignored in a lot of the discussion. It's right in the middle of it all.

[JohnSJ]

34. I think the problem some may be missing is that is the argument trump's attorney's are making.

An insurrection means an attempted overthrow of the government, while a riot does not necessarily mean that.

[Torchlight]

13. Justice Brown's rejoinder was incisive.

Along the lines of, "what's the relevant difference between a riot and an insurrection if the goals remain the same?"

[Emile]

14. Orchestrating a riot is also against the oath of office.

[Goodheart]

17. I think it's a reasonable defense.

Though I don't agree with it.

[TwilightZone]

18. It's a key point.

If the SC ruled there was no insurrection, there's no case.

As Ocelot II noted above, however, if they don't reconsider the facts of the lower court's ruling (one of which was that it was an insurrection), the argument doesn't matter.

[Goodheart]

32. Yep... they're there to consider matters of law, not matters of fact.

[ificandream]

21. I think a key point here is that Trump has never called it even a riot.

In his speech before the Capitol on that day, Trump told the rioters to "fight like hell." There's really only one thing he was hoping to accomplish there. He won't admit it, of course.

[kentuck]

29. The difference between "riot" and "insurrection" is in their intent.

An "insurrection" has the intent of overthrowing the government institutions and rules. A "riot" is nothing more than spontaneous violence, not necessarily intending to overthrow the government or any institution.