Is inciting riots against the U.S. government, treason?

[Lastamender]

Is inciting riots against the U.S. government, treason?
There’s no doubt that President Donald Trump did incite his followers to riot.
Respectfully, Supposn

What happened to Trump bought those people to DC. They already had a purpose. Trump did nothing but say make yourselves heard. The Congress did not hear them. The election should have been investigated by Congress and certification should have been delayed until that happened. Congress had done it before.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So your thought is that the guys in riot helmets, flak jackets and military fatigues were going to riot anyway and Trump just happened to be giving a speech...they stopped and listened and then went on about their rioting?

No one at the riot was at Trumps speech RETARD, the riot started before the speech.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is inciting riots against the U.S. government, treason?
There’s no doubt that President Donald Trump did incite his followers to riot.
Respectfully, Supposn

How did he do that? Let me guess! You watch CNN or MSDNC all the time!

 

[scruffy]

No, treason has been decided to mean giving aid to an enemy. An insurrection doesn't fall in that catagory. For one thing a formal state of war has ro exist for treason to be possible.

Agreed. There has to be a declared enemy, and there isn't one.

 

[Supposn]

No, treason has been decided to mean giving aid to an enemy. An insurrection doesn't fall in that catagory. For one thing a formal state of war has ro exist for treason to be possible.

Forkup, you're correct. Specifically refer to:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
... Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
////////////////////
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
... Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

[forkup]

Forkup, you're correct. Specifically refer to:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
... Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
////////////////////
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
... Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The OP asked a direct question, I answered it directly to the best of my ability. I think when you describe something avoiding hyperbole when the hyperbole is also incorrect is good practice.

I have to say though. I don't personally think that calling something an insurrection but not treason makes what happened all that much more palatable. Or for that matter less dangerous. In fact, in my opinion, people have committed actual treason and done way less damage to the country as a whole than what happened throughout this last presidential election.

 

[Supposn]

How did he do that, [i.e. incite his followers to riot]? Let me guess! You watch CNN or MSDNC all the time!

Admiral Rockwell Tory, excerpted from two of my posts within the thread, “ Public hearings regarding the insurrection riots have begun too soon. | US Message Board ? Political Discussion Forum “. Some of the rioters when pleaded guilty to lesser charges, stated they acted upon Donald Trump's wishes and urgings.
Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////
Sunsettommy, you may or may not be correct. I would suppose that most of those that pleaded guilty January 6th rioters had been threatened with the charge of insurrection; it's a more difficult charge to prove in court. Paranoia, ignorance, stupidity are not crimes. …
///////////////
I would have preferred the congressional committee would continue gathering testimony and affidavits but had not held any public hearings until the Department of Justice had cleared or filed charges against Donald Trump and his associates within and outside of the White House.

The house committee could continuously share all testimony, affidavits with the FBI. That sharing would somewhat hinder, (but not certainly prevent) any following administration or congressional sessions" efforts to “hide evidence under the rug” prior to elections. ...

 

[forkup]

Paranoia, ignorance, stupidity are not crimes.

Intent indeed has meaning in court. However, at what point does ignorance becomes willful? I've been on this board for years and what strikes me is that it, isn't so much a difference in ideology but a genuine refusal of even considering the other's point of view.

I would have preferred the congressional committee would continue gathering testimony and affidavits but had not held any public hearings until the Department of Justice had cleared or filed charges against Donald Trump and his associates within and outside of the White House.

The problem with that is practical. In a few months, it is midterms. The reality of the situation is, that if the Republicans win, the moment they take over, any congressional investigation is stopped regardless of the department of justice. And while the department of justice might be capable of dealing with the legal ramifications of what happened. (Something I don't think likely considering they aren't just considering those.) They are wholly incapable of dealing with political ramifications. For that you need congress.

The house committee could continuously share all testimony, affidavits with the FBI. That sharing would somewhat hinder, (but not certainly prevent) any following administration or congressional sessions" efforts to “hide evidence under the rug” prior to elections.

Wouldn't it? The FBI would refer to the DOJ, who would indict at wich point they would share the available evidence with the defense counsel. I also want to point out that the FBI can get all the information the committee has gathered by showing probable cause. Why would they need the information congress has gathered?

It seems to me that you solely consider this from a legal point of view. In my opinion that is less important than the political ramifications. Wether or not people get charged with actual crimes is less important than wether or not the possibility of this happening again is minimized. The DOJ is simply not the vehicle to do the latter because it by necessity handles only a very narrow question.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, excerpted from two of my posts within the thread, “ Public hearings regarding the insurrection riots have begun too soon. | US Message Board ? Political Discussion Forum “. Some of the rioters when pleaded guilty to lesser charges, stated they acted upon Donald Trump's wishes and urgings.
Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////
Sunsettommy, you may or may not be correct. I would suppose that most of those that pleaded guilty January 6th rioters had been threatened with the charge of insurrection; it's a more difficult charge to prove in court. Paranoia, ignorance, stupidity are not crimes. …
///////////////
I would have preferred the congressional committee would continue gathering testimony and affidavits but had not held any public hearings until the Department of Justice had cleared or filed charges against Donald Trump and his associates within and outside of the White House.

The house committee could continuously share all testimony, affidavits with the FBI. That sharing would somewhat hinder, (but not certainly prevent) any following administration or congressional sessions" efforts to “hide evidence under the rug” prior to elections. ...

How did Trump do that? Did he send them a note, email, personal phone call, fax, etc.?

They pleaded with what the prosecution wanted them to say.

There have been zero charges of insurrection.

 

[Supposn]

... It seems to me that you, [i.e. Supposn] solely consider this from a legal point of view. In my opinion that is less important than the political ramifications. Wether or not people get charged with actual crimes is less important than wether or not the possibility of this happening again is minimized. The DOJ is simply not the vehicle to do the latter because it by necessity handles only a very narrow question.

Meister, Toobfreak, Lastamender, Retired GY Sgt, Admiral Rockwell Tory, Forkup, after the 2022 general elections, while still president, Donald Trump claimed his presidency had been “stolen”.


IMO (if he didn't then know his claims were false), he certainly continued to deliberately ignore what many of his own associates and congressional Republicans who told him his contentions were not based upon facts and were not correct. , he continued to deliberately ignore all evidence and contrary to his false contentions.


The majority of U.S. voters voted against Trump and believe his contentions are completely false.


While still in office, Trump did urge his followers to march to the Capitol Building and protest against the certification of the state's electors;


Trump and his White House associates did nothing that might have halted or reduced the extent of the seditious rioting mob's activities, but Trump and some of his associates did to some extents prevented any federal activity that could have reduced the mob's criminal activities.

Ignorance and stupidity are detrimental to individuals and their nations' societies, but they're not in themselves crimes. The question that should be asked is to what extent did Donald Trump and his associates within and outside of the White House commit any crimes?

IMO, certainly to some extents they urged and supported the criminal January 6th mob, and that was a seditious mob.

It will be unjust if the U.S. Justice Department, (i.e.USJD) fails to clear or indict Donald Trump and some of his associates within and outside of the White House of any crimes they committed; or if the USJD offers or permits them to plea-bargain down the severity of those indictments; because such injustices would more enable such crimes to again occur in our nation's future.

It would be unjust if the USJD provided Donald Trump and his associates any greater considerations denied to lesser well connected or lesser wealthy participants of the January 6th riots. Respectfully. Supposn

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Meister, Toobfreak, Lastamender, Retired GY Sgt, Admiral Rockwell Tory, Forkup, after the 2022 general elections, while still president, Donald Trump claimed his presidency had been “stolen”.


IMO (if he didn't then know his claims were false), he certainly continued to deliberately ignore what many of his own associates and congressional Republicans who told him his contentions were not based upon facts and were not correct. , he continued to deliberately ignore all evidence and contrary to his false contentions.


The majority of U.S. voters voted against Trump and believe his contentions are completely false.


While still in office, Trump did urge his followers to march to the Capitol Building and protest against the certification of the state's electors;


Trump and his White House associates did nothing that might have halted or reduced the extent of the seditious rioting mob's activities, but Trump and some of his associates did to some extents prevented any federal activity that could have reduced the mob's criminal activities.

Ignorance and stupidity are detrimental to individuals and their nations' societies, but they're not in themselves crimes. The question that should be asked is to what extent did Donald Trump and his associates within and outside of the White House commit any crimes?

IMO, certainly to some extents they urged and supported the criminal January 6th mob, and that was a seditious mob.

It will be unjust if the U.S. Justice Department, (i.e.USJD) fails to clear or indict Donald Trump and some of his associates within and outside of the White House of any crimes they committed; or if the USJD offers or permits them to plea-bargain down the severity of those indictments; because such injustices would more enable such crimes to again occur in our nation's future.

It would be unjust if the USJD provided Donald Trump and his associates any greater considerations denied to lesser well connected or lesser wealthy participants of the January 6th riots. Respectfully. Supposn

Lies, lies and misinformation! The "riot' started while Trump was still at the White House. During his speech he urged the people to protest peacefully at the Capitol. After he knew of the riot, how do you (or anyone else for that matter) propose that he should have stopped it?

 

[Supposn]

Lies, lies and misinformation! The "riot' started while Trump was still at the White House. During his speech he urged the people to protest peacefully at the Capitol. After he knew of the riot, how do you (or anyone else for that matter) propose that he should have stopped it?

Admiral Rockwell Tory, you're correct, the mob started gathering near the Capitol Building hours before and Trump began his speech at about noon.
When the results of 2022 general elections were broadcasted, President Donald Trump began disseminating his wishful face-saving lie. Participants of January sixth's seditious riot were those sufficiently foolish and ignorant to accept Trump's unsubstantiated great lie.

Trump was aware of the riot, and rather than sincerely trying to stop it, he directly and indirectly hindered additional federal and state police or militia from coming the assistance of those besieged at the Capitol Building. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, you're correct, the mob started gathering near the Capitol Building hours before and Trump began his speech at about noon.
When the results of 2022 general elections were broadcasted, President Donald Trump began disseminating his wishful face-saving lie. Participants of January sixth's seditious riot were those sufficiently foolish and ignorant to accept Trump's unsubstantiated great lie.

Trump was aware of the riot, and rather than sincerely trying to stop it, he directly and indirectly hindered additional federal and state police or militia from coming the assistance of those besieged at the Capitol Building. Respectfully, Supposn

Respectfully, the Democrats stole the election. He had every right to do what he did, none of which was illegal. Your naivete is astounding! Are you a Trump-hating liberal?

Your highlighted statement is a bald-faced lie! Where did you come up with that large, steaming pile of male bovine excrement?

Trump offered the National Guard, but Nasty Pelousey and Mayor Bowwow turned him down days before January 6th.

Newsflash: There is no state police in DC, because it is not ... wait for it, a state!

What grade are you going to be in this fall at your middle school?

I'm just supposn you understand my post.

 

[Supposn]

Respectfully, the Democrats stole the election. He had every right to do what he did, none of which was illegal. Your naivete is astounding! Are you a Trump-hating liberal?

Your highlighted statement is a bald-faced lie! Where did you come up with that large, steaming pile of male bovine excrement?

Trump offered the National Guard, but Nasty Pelousey and Mayor Bowwow turned him down days before January 6th.

Newsflash: There is no state police in DC, because it is not ... wait for it, a state!

What grade are you going to be in this fall at your middle school?

I'm just supposn you understand my post.

Admiral Rockwell Tory, referring to Who called in the National Guard in DC, US Capital Building | wusa9.com : “... both Northam [i.e. governor of Virginia] and Hogan [, i.e. governor of Maryland] also have sent state police troopers to DC to help law enforcement with the violence. ...”.

Also referring to What is the difference between the U.S. Army, the National Guard and the State Guard? – Open Source Your Mind :
"… Each state has their own National Guard, and technically it is the state’s military, not the federal military. The National Guard can be called by the Governor of the State, or by the President of the United States. … National Guard troops are dual enrolled in the state military and the federal military as reserves …”.

Respectfully, Supposing

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, referring to Who called in the National Guard in DC, US Capital Building | wusa9.com : “... both Northam [i.e. governor of Virginia] and Hogan [, i.e. governor of Maryland] also have sent state police troopers to DC to help law enforcement with the violence. ...”.

Also referring to What is the difference between the U.S. Army, the National Guard and the State Guard? – Open Source Your Mind :
"… Each state has their own National Guard, and technically it is the state’s military, not the federal military. The National Guard can be called by the Governor of the State, or by the President of the United States. … National Guard troops are dual enrolled in the state military and the federal military as reserves …”.

Respectfully, Supposing

The state troopers were not sent until AFTER the incident was over. The governor's decisions were made on the afternoon of January 6th, 2021 after the riot was OVER!

Your second paragraph does not apply to anything I said. I was an officer in the Navy and then worked for the DoD and Army as a civilian. My son-in-law is in the Air National Guard and my daughter is an active duty Captain in the Army. Every member of my extended family with the exception of my wife and oldest daughter are veterans. Most of my employees when I worked for the Army had ties to the National Guard. I am well familiar with these organizations. You are apparently NOT!

Please stop "supposn" and use some facts.

 

[Supposn]

Lies, lies and misinformation! The "riot' started while Trump was still at the White House. During his speech he urged the people to protest peacefully at the Capitol. After he knew of the riot, how do you (or anyone else for that matter) propose that he should have stopped it?

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the White House is extremely well informed. If the president's associate within or outside of the White House do not inform him of anything, it's updated information deliberately being kept from him.

That could be be due to those in the White House conspiring against the president, but more likely it's due to his associates being aware of the president not desiring to do or have any action done on his administration's behalf with regard to the situation. President Trump did not actually wish to halt or reduce the extent of the riot, but after waiting until the afternoon when he addressed a crowd, it would have been an embarrassment for him not to say rioters should disperse. Trump's motive was to not leave his fingerprints where the rioters touched anything. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... Newsflash: There is no state police in DC, because it is not ... wait for it, a state! ,,,


Admiral Rockwell Tory, there were no state's or federal national guard units prior to much later, because the White House and the president did not, after the riot had begun, wish them to be there then. But it would have been to his greater embarrassment if the rioters were permitted to continue beyond the later hours of January sixth. Respectfully, Supposing

 

[Supposn]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the majority of U.S. 2022 voters elected Joseph Biden supporters; their choices were the majority of 2022 Presidential Electoral College's electors, and they choose Biden to now be our president.
There's no sustained federal Court verdict agreeing with Trump's unsubstantiated great “stolen election” lie. I'm not aware of any such substantiated state verdicts. Election votes are accounted for by official in all of the states; almost all of those officials are affiliated with one or the other of the two major national political parties.

I would suppose that the greater proportion of 2022 election officials also officiated in 2018 when the majority of 2022 electors that were certified did choose Donald Trump to be president. Trump claims that the 2018 elections were fair, but the 2022 elections were corrupted and you among the sufficiently foolish and ignorant that believe Donald Trump.

 

[Supposn]

How did Trump do that, [i.e. let it be known that he was encouraging his follower to act uncivilly or illegally] ? Did he send them a note, email, personal phone call, fax, etc.?
They pleaded with what the prosecution wanted them to say. There have been zero charges of insurrection.

Admiral Rockwell Tory, you believe those rioters who were charged with lesser than sedition against the USA and stated that they believe they were acting in support of President Trump and his wishes had no logical cause to hold such beliefs? Even those that did not plead guilty, made those statements just to please their prosecutors?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the White House is extremely well informed. If the president's associate within or outside of the White House do not inform him of anything, it's updated information deliberately being kept from him.

That could be be due to those in the White House conspiring against the president, but more likely it's due to his associates being aware of the president not desiring to do or have any action done on his administration's behalf with regard to the situation. President Trump did not actually wish to halt or reduce the extent of the riot, but after waiting until the afternoon when he addressed a crowd, it would have been an embarrassment for him not to say rioters should disperse. Trump's motive was to not leave his fingerprints where the rioters touched anything. Respectfully, Supposn

What is your point? I never said anything of the sort! Can you read for comprehension?

So you admit he had nothing to do with the riot? If so, why are you contradicting your previous posts?