Trump’s legal team also tried to throw cold water on the idea in a filing earlier this week, writing that the “events of January 6 were not an ‘insurrection’ as they did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow or resist the U.S. government.”

Trump disagrees, apparently.

“They kept saying about what I said right after the insurrection,” he said outside Mar-a-Lago after arguments concluded in Washington, D.C. “I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      We should, because it’s the brain that has to beat Trump. We don’t have any better options, unfortunately.

        • fitgse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          2 years ago

          I really thought in 2016 Bernie would splinter the democrats and we’d have a true left party. I also thought trump would create a new party on the right and the republicans would go back to being republicans. Can you imagine a 4 party system!

          To my surprise, the trump dragged the republicans even further to the right, and the democrats moved even more center-right to appease ex-republicans. So the whole nation just moved right, which is sad.

        • Neato@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          What better options? What names are well known to people? What people that are well known can overcome incumbency bias? Do any have literal decades of experience in congress and the white house?

          I would have preferred Bernie but throwing out names only a small percentage of the electorate will know is a fools gamble. And the DNC using marketing to get them well know would have been a huge waste of times and resources to build someone up when there’s already a good candidate sitting in the oval office. You’re not going to throw out a sitting President unless he’s WILDLY unpopular.

          • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Barack Obama wasn’t very well known when he ran for president t. And he won twice.

            I think the point is that both the Dems and GOP are pigeon-holing themselves by only allowing one candidate to run. Why does it have to be that way? So what if there are 10 dems and 22 GOP to choose from? Or whatever.

            Make them actually have to work for it and let the American people decide. Scrap the first past the post rule and ditch the electoral college. Give the people their voices back. The way it works right now does not work. It’s high time everyone just admits to it.

          • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Gather every D senator and congressman into a giant circle and toss a stone into the air. Whoever it hits is likely better.

            • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Granted, the odds are in your favor, but there are definitely some much worse options in that crowd.

              Are any of them running? Actually, forget that. Anyone currently running is probably a moron.

              Do they have the name recognition and wide appeal? Can they raise the money and give a good speech? Can they argue with a madman and win? Are any of them leaders, and if so, where the fuck have they been?

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            A friend of mine suggested Michelle Obama and I was like… That could actually have been a realistic option 🤔

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Maybe he decides to step down. I think the people are pretty well set on voting either Trump or [person against Trump]

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 years ago

          Nah, I don’t think Harris has the charisma to rally the party. Biden needs to survive the election, and then he can step down after beating Trump if needed.

          Don’t get me wrong, I will vote for just about anybody over Trump, but I think it’s going to be a close race.

            • Nudding@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 years ago

              Everyone rally around the genocide, record oil extraction and arming of the border! Congratulations you saved America from Trump! Lol.

      • Nudding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sounds like y’all need to start over if this is the pinnacle of 250 years of political evolution.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m worried about both. Neither should be president. Trump never should have been. Having 70 and 80+ year old presidents that couldn’t program a damned TV remote is just a showcase of how terrible our plutocracy has become.

    • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes, because he’s currently the president. There are more important things than some has-been Cheeto monster shouting at clouds, like the genocide the current sitting president is actively abetting.

        • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yeah, that’s definitely what I meant. I’d love another four years of Trump. /s

          How 'bout you just vote for the candidate that might put more than lip service towards stopping this generation’s Li’l Hitler? Here’s a hint: you won’t find them in either of the major parties.

            • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              He trolls every thread

              Says the person with over 3 times as many comments as me.

              A quick look in my history shows this is the second thread I’ve ever participated in in this community. Why lie? How do you benefit? Lemmy has no account Karma. Do you get some sort of satisfaction out of riling up the other dummies against the common enemy of nuance and understanding? Or are you just so offended by non-extremists invading your echo chamber that you have to lash out?

              The world isn’t black and white. There are at least 50 shades of gray. Probably more. You should try taking off your cool-guy sunglasses and looking around unfiltered. You might like what you see.

            • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              That’s not my job. My job as a citizen is to vote for the candidate I believe deserves the position, regardless of party affiliation.

              The only reason Democrats and Republicans rose to the top is thay they once held the most generic, inoffensive views that people from the less popular “third” parties could support when it eventually became clear they didn’t have chance at winning. That’s no longer the case, so why continue voting like it is? Change has to start somewhere, and it sure as hell isn’t going to come from someone who benefits from maintaining the status quo.

              If everybody voted with hope and optimism rather than despair and cynicism, we might have more variety than blue dick vs red asshole.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Biden isn’t abetting any genocide harder than Xi though. That guy (Xi) loves genocides and you can’t disagree or you’re propagandized.

  • ryper@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    2 years ago

    If Nancy Pelosi caused the insurrection why didn’t your people try to charge her instead of focusing on Hunter Biden?

  • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The Narcissist’s Prayer

    That didn’t happen.
    And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
    And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
    And if it is, that’s not my fault. <- We are now here
    And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
    And if I did, you deserved it.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        2 years ago

        He’s on trial for the January 6th insurrection. Specifically: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

        The two in the middle are going to be very hard to defend against considering he admits it was an insurrection.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I agree he’s guilty on all charges, but he wasn’t charged with insurrection. He should have been charged with insurrection and seditious conspiracy.

            • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              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 USC § 2383

              If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

              — 18 USC § 2384

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.

    Those first two words are doing some hard work fending off a slander suit.

  • Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 years ago

    So the people who were Antifa and MAGA patriots who went to the Capital to peacefully cause an insurrection that was and wasn’t a false flag setup by the FBI and “globalists” and are going to prison because of the actions they did and didn’t do on Jan 6 were all being led by… Pelosi?

      • norbert@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 years ago

        No need to keep track, just say whatever you want to say in the moment. Your followers don’t care and the media certainly isn’t going to call you on it.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes, but also he loves them and thinks they’re very special.

      Does that mean he loves Nanci Pelosi by extension?

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    Well, we do have that well publicized viral tweet from Pelosi where she called all her supporters to DC telling them “Will be wild!” then topped that off by whipping the crowd into a frenzy by telling them they have to “fight like hell”.

    Oh, wait, that was Trump…

    • klemptor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I mean, I understand how the law works and everything, but from a very pragmatic perspective, how is there even a soupçon of doubt at this point? Having a trial for this really feels more like we’re asking “which side has craftier lawyers” rather than “did he actually incite an insurrection”. It seems so silly.

      (I hope this makes sense, I’m a little high.)

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    That’s RIGHT! January 6th was OBVIOUSLY an Insurrection plotted by Nancy Pelosi to send FBI and Antifa into the Capitol to STOP the certification of their chosen Candidate because that’s the ONLY way to make Grab Her By The Pussy look BAD! But it also WASN’T an Insurrection and all those people in jail are PRISONERS OF WAR that need to be released! Unless they are Antifa or FBI which they AREN’T even though it was ONLY FBI and Antifa committing the Insurrection that was NOT an Insurrection!

  • sepi@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    His stupid mouth is like how Darth Vader was supposed to bring balance to the force in Star Wars Ep. 6

  • Dragomus@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    I have the impression the case before the supreme court is being pushed in the wrong direction … It should be about Trump being an insurrectionist (and consequently not able to be re-elected). This would give a clear cut answer and stops everything good, or bad.

    Not the current argument of if states are allowed to ban anyone from the ballot. Where the supreme court can wiggle it’s answer and blame individual States for blocking the democratic process. Whatever the answer will be here things will limp onwards with more and more court cases.

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t even understand why this is a issue of contention. The states already have complete, constitutionally granted controlnof how they run their elections, including who is allowed to be on the ballot, that generally being the pervue of the individual Secretarys of State, but each state has its own rules on it.

      It was laid out this way to dissuade federal interference and potential corruption.

      I’m with you, this is theatrics, stalling.

      And Idk about you but the inability of our elected to enforce our law really makes me lose my last two shits about the law. Justice delayed is justice denied. when peaceful means of justice are out of reach, then violent ones are not only inevitable, but logical.

      If you can’t be famous, you can ALWAYS be infamous.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    Can he say that again in front of the Supreme Court Justices? I bet he doesn’t have the balls!

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      He can say whatever he wants and those fuckers will still rule in his favour. The Supreme Court is very much part of the insurrection.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday pertaining to whether states can throw Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballots if they determine he violated the 14th Amendment — which essentially disqualifies insurrectionists from holding office.

    Trump’s legal team also tried to throw cold water on the idea in a filing earlier this week, writing that the “events of January 6 were not an ‘insurrection’ as they did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow or resist the U.S. government.”

    There’s zero evidence she had anything to do with the attack on the Capitol, and it’s flat-out absurd to think she would have been incentivized in any way to marshal a mob of people waving Trump flags to disrupt the certification of a fellow Democrat’s election win.

    “No matter what unhinged lies Trump spews about the insurrection he instigated, as numerous independent fact-checkers have confirmed, Speaker Pelosi did not plan her own assassination,” spokesperson Aaron Bennett said in a comment to Rolling Stone.

    Republicans in Congress — totally in thrall to Trump’s now-years-long push to rewrite reality of what happened around the 2020 election — are doing what they can to tamp down the idea the former president did anything wrong.

    “When Joe Biden was inaugurated, and this entire Capitol complex was surrounded with 30,000 National Guard troops, none of you stood there and called that an insurrection,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told reporters, referring to the security measures put in place after Jan. 6.


    The original article contains 631 words, the summary contains 244 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      none of you stood there and called that an insurrection,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

      STFU, Margarine Three Names

    • iquanyin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      last year i read an article by a neurologist who made the case that trump has dementia. it was pretty well supported by both his own observations and those of others. i was convinced.