The Supreme Court should rule on whether Trump engaged in insurrection. How is that defined? That's the crux of the issue. The 14th amendment is self-executing, like not being of age. Who knows how the supreme court would rule, but that seems to be the hangup. Do you have to be criminally charged and found guilty to have been found to have engaged in insurrection? (Impeachment is not a criminal ruling and even more prone to politics than our shitty Supreme Court). And if so, how do you go about prosecuting a former president who claims they're immune and using every tool to avoid prosecution? That's another wrinkle - the supreme court and other courts aren't just deciding this particular case - we're dealing with how we handle this situation in the future if we elect a derelict, mentally incompetent dimwit who decides he's also immune from losing elections and decides "F*** what the voters said, I'm not leaving. Where's my Roy Cohn?"
The problem is, common sense is out the window. It was easy to charge and prosecute the average MAGA maggot and find them guilty of sedition and insurrection. Trump is arguing on two levels that he didn't engage in insurrection, and is immune from prosecution anyways. Its the same excuse he gives about everything. Will you run your business as president? "I don't think I will but I could if I wanted to."
What really irks me to end is Trump using what he's guilty of, to argue in his defense. I want to say the election was stolen, so I need to attempt to steal it to make my claims have merit. That's all this song and dance is about, and it also bugs me to see him take advantage of every legal avenue, loophole, appeal, filing, argument, excuse, etc. that is afforded to him under our flawed but robust justice system as he attacks it and tries to dismantle it just because he's a sore f******g loser.
