Do they really need to show all that insurrection in this matter?
I mean, we have courts naming convicted criminals as "insurrectionists"...... and the effort they undertook in their attack on the Congress as "insurrection". Accordingly, with experienced judges in a serious court calling 'em 'insurrectionist'.....well, why dispute a judge who is so intimately involved with the details and nuance? Plus that judge and other judges are slap 'em in jail for 5yrs, 6yrs, 10yrs.....all cool.
So, I'm quite cool in calling all those J6 Jackasses who struck or sprayed a cop....or beat down a door or window, or pooped in a Legislator's office....calling 'em 'insurrectionist' doesn't seem all that out of order. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
You feel that way too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, not 'seize' power.
Rather, to 'maintain' power.
What they wanted was to keep the fired guy in the office.....by any means necessary.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They" didn't need to.
Nor did that assembly of J6 Jackasses have any ability to do so.
Rather, they simply wanted to prevent the newly hired guy from coming in and replacing the newly fired guy. Their goal...seemingly.... was stop the peaceful passing of power. And keep the fired guy in place.