Apparently people don’t know that legal experts have determined that the Capitol Hill mob action wasn’t an insurrection. It just wasn’t a solid threat to the existence of the U.S. Government. Legal experts have said that it wasn’t an insurrection. I posted the federal definition of that above and will repost it here. Insurrection Act of 1807 - Wikipedia John Brown planned to start an insurrection and revolt in 1859 in comparison the Trump mob of 300 or so couldn’t be taken seriously as a real insurrectionist possibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) . The military could have erased them with a single squad, one navy seal or maybe a pair of 11 bravos that passed basic training. There are Posse Comitatus issues that would make military intervention for less than a very serious situation difficult.
Therefor I wonder how the Congress could even bring that article of impeachment against the President when it was self-evident falsehood. What was the purpose of that, and what was with the fake news that called it an insurrection ad nauseum. Today Steve Inskeep at N.P.R. interviewed a legal scholar who said that it wasn’t an insurrection and explained why. Why did the question get asked by the media so long after it should have been asked, after months of pretending the mob invasion of the capitol was an actual insurrection? Because insurrection sells better and is more inflammatory?
PDF file download on the Federal Insurrection Act https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment