• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 months ago

    They do go on to quote the dictionary again (both from the 1800s and the current version) to define what an “insurrection” is, then say:

    We have little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection.

    Also, love how they basically reference what we all saw live here:

    Moreover, contrary to President Trump’s assertion that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found—and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case—that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      God damn. Some more spice in a quote about whether or not Trump “engaged in” insurrection since he wasn’t actually in the mob:

      [I]t is not necessary to prove that the individual accused, was a direct, personal actor in the violence. If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, or countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act. Nor is even his personal presence indispensable. Though he be absent at the time of its actual perpetration, yet if he directed the act, devised or knowingly furnished the means, for carrying it into effect, instigating others to perform it, he shares their guilt. In treason there are no accessories.