I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am criticising the words coming out of it. You've twice claimed the events at the US capitol incited by Trump weren't an insurrection. I showed you the definition of insurrection and bolded the part that led to the conviction of some of the participants who were convicted, including the one who smashed in the window using a shield taken from a police officer. Among those convictions were seditious conspiracy.
Now, I understand the relationship between sedition and insurrection and also that conspiracy involves more than one person, and also that there are laws that define legal boundaries and limitations to making those claims and risks to bringing charges within courts. Do you have any clue? I doubt it. I do know my IQ precicely and that it has three figures. I suspect yours has two.
Okay, so Seditious Conspiracy, yep
some people got prosecuted for that 100%.
But, how does that account to insurrection?
Lets say one person tries to stop the government and storms the capitol building and makes it down the hallway, under your interpretation of the wording, that means there was an "insurrection".
In my view that was always going to be a failed attempt with 0% chance of success, so in my interpretation there has to be a level of success present, which there was 0 on that day.
It shows by how many prosecutions there have been, the small amount of prosecutions of illegal participants shows there was a low number of people involved in the illegal activity.
Thus in my interpretation of the word "insurrection" there was never that threshold of possibility met.
Again, I don't care so I will stop responding to this little word you lefties cling onto like a thong in a offshore typhoon.
