The issue with the ruling in Colorado is that Trump has not (yet) been convicted of insurrection or treason so the court is basing their findings on an accusation. Even the Colorado Chief Justice was in dissent of the majority opinion (which was 4-3). I think this will very likely get thrown out by the US Supreme Court. In fact, now the MAGAts are using this as an unironic excuse to cry about how the court is trying to undermine the democratic process. This just feeds into their playbook to obfuscate, deflect, deny, lie and cheat. Their idiot supporters eat it up like it's a Denny's Grandslam served on a dirty, old National Enquirer at 3am after a Monster Truck show.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
The issue with the ruling in Colorado is that Trump has not (yet) been convicted of insurrection or treason so the court is basing their findings on an accusation.
The court itself evaluated the claim and found it true.. The constitution doesn't say that someone has to have been convicted of it in a criminal trial, and the courts evaluating if the condition has been met seems to be the proper level.
But I'm sure that's the thing the SCOTUS will use to overturn the ruling.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
The court itself evaluated the claim and found it true.. The constitution doesn't say that someone has to have been convicted of it in a criminal trial, and the courts evaluating if the condition has been met seems to be the proper level.
But I'm sure that's the thing the SCOTUS will use to overturn the ruling.
Their evaluation was quick and, it could be argued, not very thorough. I personally believe that it was insurrection and treason. However, I worry about the precedent these sorts of rulings have. At the end of the day, it's the rule of law that will keep Trump and his gang of merry fascists from destroying the country. The rule of law needs to be upheld even when the absence of a fair process is hurting bad actors.
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
so she's still harping about election fraud and grifting people into donating money, while her lawyers call it "imaginative expression or rhetorical hyperbole" at court? Not surprised, but still ... wow. These people really have no shame.
so she's still harping about election fraud and grifting people into donating money, while her lawyers call it "imaginative expression or rhetorical hyperbole" at court? Not surprised, but still ... wow. These people really have no shame.
She knows the election wasn’t stolen but she’ll continue the grift until the money dries up.
Their evaluation was quick and, it could be argued, not very thorough. I personally believe that it was insurrection and treason. However, I worry about the precedent these sorts of rulings have. At the end of the day, it's the rule of law that will keep Trump and his gang of merry fascists from destroying the country. The rule of law needs to be upheld even when the absence of a fair process is hurting bad actors.
That's fair. It's just amazing that there's options to protect the country in place but there's fear of using them because someone else will abuse them in retaliation.
Ideally a SCOTUS ruling would make it clearer on how the amendment would actually be used, but I'll bet they won't even do that much.
Not that it matters much, Trump doesn't need Colorado's electors, and I doubt there's a state that would mirror this that take away EC votes from Trump.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I think Trump is a pig but the Colorado decision is a terrible legal mistake and an awful precedence that hopefully will be overturned and likely will be overturned. This can only lead to Tit for Tat reprisals and further law fair. The idea that a democratic appointed court can remove someone off of ballot without due process is pretty silly to me
I think Trump is a pig but the Colorado decision is a terrible legal mistake and an awful precedence that hopefully will be overturned and likely will be overturned. This can only lead to Tit for Tat reprisals and further law fair. The idea that a democratic appointed court can remove someone off of ballot without due process is pretty silly to me
the idea you can try and overturn democracy but when you eff it up get a mulligan and try again 4 years later is absurd
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Their evaluation was quick and, it could be argued, not very thorough. I personally believe that it was insurrection and treason. However, I worry about the precedent these sorts of rulings have. At the end of the day, it's the rule of law that will keep Trump and his gang of merry fascists from destroying the country. The rule of law needs to be upheld even when the absence of a fair process is hurting bad actors.
Here is the full text from the decision regarding the two questions: "What is an insurrection?" and "Did Donald Trump 'engage in' an insurrection?"
Spoiler!
2. “Insurrection” ¶179 Dictionaries (both old and new), the district court’s order, and the briefing by the parties and the amici curiae suggest several definitions of the word “insurrection.” ¶180 For example, Noah Webster’s dictionary from 1860 defined “insurrection” as: A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state. It is equivalent to SEDITION, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from REBELLION, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one, or to place the country under another jurisdiction. Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 613 (1860); accord John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of 97 the United States of America and of the Several States to the American Union (6th ed. 1856), available at https://wzukusers.storage.googleapis.com/user 32960741/documents/5ad525c314331myoR8FY/1856_bouvier_6.pdf [https:// perma.cc/PXK4-M75N] (defining “insurrection” as “[a] rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government”). ¶181 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “insurrection” as “an act or instance of revolting against civil or political authority or against an established government” or “an act or instance of rising up physically.” Insurrection, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002). ¶182 In light of these and other proffered definitions, the district court concluded that “an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.” Anderson, ¶ 240. ¶183 Finally, we note that at oral argument, President Trump’s counsel, while not providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of related conduct. See The Brig Amy Warwick (The Prize Cases), 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 666 (1862) (“Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government.”); Case of Davis, 7 F. Cas. 63, 96 (C.C.D. Va. 98 1871) (No. 3,621a) (“Although treason by levying war, in a case of civil war, may involve insurrection or rebellion, and they are usually its first stages, they do not necessarily reach to the actual levying of war.”); 77 C.J.S. Riot; Insurrection § 36, Westlaw (database updated August 2023) (“Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offenses connected with mob violence by the fact that, in insurrection, there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.”). But we part company with him when he goes one step further. No authority supports the position taken by President Trump’s counsel at oral argument that insurrectionary conduct must involve a particular length of time or geographic location. ¶184 Although we acknowledge that these definitions vary and some are arguably broader than others, for purposes of deciding this case, we need not adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word “insurrection.” Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of “insurrection” for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country. 99 The required force or threat of force need not involve bloodshed, nor must the dimensions of the effort be so substantial as to ensure probable success. In re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828, 830 (N.D. Ill. 1894). Moreover, although those involved must act in a concerted way, they need not be highly organized at the insurrection’s inception. See Home Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Davila, 212 F.2d 731, 736 (1st Cir. 1954) (“[A]t its inception an insurrection may be a pretty loosely organized affair. . . . It may start as a sudden surprise attack upon the civil authorities of a community with incidental destruction of property by fire or pillage, even before the military forces of the constituted government have been alerted and mobilized into action to suppress the insurrection.”). ¶185 The question thus becomes whether the evidence before the district court sufficiently established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. 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. ¶186 It is undisputed that a large group of people forcibly entered the Capitol and that this action was so formidable that the law enforcement officers onsite could not control it. Moreover, contrary to President Trump’s assertion that no evidence 100 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. See Anderson, ¶ 155. The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol’s premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers’ batons and riot shields and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol. Id. at ¶¶ 156–57. The fact that actual and threatened force was used that day cannot reasonably be denied. ¶187 Substantial evidence in the record further established that this use of force was concerted and public. As the district court found, with ample record support, “The mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose . . . . They marched through the [Capitol] building chanting in a manner that made clear they were seeking to inflict violence against members of Congress and Vice President Pence.” Id. at ¶ 243. And upon breaching the Capitol, the mob immediately pursued its intended target—the certification of the presidential election—and reached the House and Senate chambers within minutes of entering the building. Id. at ¶ 153. 101 ¶188 Finally, substantial evidence in the record showed that the mob’s unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the Twelfth Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election; that is, to preclude Congress from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power. As noted above, soon after breaching the Capitol, the mob reached the House and Senate chambers, where the certification process was ongoing. Id. This breach caused both the House and the Senate to adjourn, halting the electoral certification process. In addition, much of the mob’s ire—which included threats of physical violence—was directed at Vice President Pence, who, in his role as President of the Senate, was constitutionally tasked with carrying out the electoral count. Id. at ¶¶ 163, 179–80; see U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 4; id. at art. II, § 1, cl. 3. As discussed more fully below, these actions were the product of President Trump’s conduct in singling out Vice President Pence for refusing President Trump’s demand that the Vice President decline to carry out his constitutional duties. Anderson, ¶¶ 148, 170, 172–73. ¶189 In short, the record amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. Under any viable 102 definition, this constituted an insurrection, and thus we will proceed to consider whether President Trump “engaged in” this insurrection. 3. “Engaged In” ¶190 Dictionaries, historical evidence, and case law all shed light on the meaning of “engaged in,” as that phrase is used in Section Three. ¶191 Noah Webster’s dictionary from 1860 defined “engage” as “to embark in an affair.” Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 696 (1860). Similarly, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “engage” as “to begin and carry on an enterprise” or “to take part” or “participate.” Engage, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002). And Merriam-Webster defines “engage” as including both “to induce to participate” and “to do or take part in something.” Engage, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engage 4XSB]. [https://perma.cc/7JDM ¶192 Attorney General Stanbery’s opinions on the meaning of “engage,” which he issued at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was being debated, are in accord with these historical and modern definitions. Attorney General Stanbery opined that a person may “engage” in insurrection or rebellion “without having actually levied war or taken arms.” Stanbery I, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. at 161. Thus, in Attorney General Stanbery’s view, when individuals acting in their official capacities act “in 103 the furtherance of the common unlawful purpose” or do “any overt act for the purpose of promoting the rebellion,” they have “engaged” in insurrection or rebellion for Section Three disqualification purposes. Id. at 161–62; see also Stanbery II, 12 Op. Att’y. Gen. at 204 (defining “engaging in rebellion” to require “an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose”). Accordingly, “[d]isloyal sentiments, opinions, or sympathies would not disqualify; but when a person has, by speech or by writing, incited others to engage in rebellion, [h]e must come under the disqualification.” Stanbery II, 12 Op. Att’y. Gen. at 205; accord Stanbery I, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. at 164. ¶193 Turning to case law construing the meaning of “engaged in” for purposes of Section Three, although we have found little precedent directly on point, cases concerning treason that had been decided by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified provide some insight into how the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment would have understood the term “engaged in.” For example, in Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75, 126 (1807), Chief Justice Marshall explained that “if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.” In other words, an individual need not directly 104 participate in the overt act of levying war or insurrection for the law to hold him accountable as if he had: [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. In re Charge to Grand Jury-Treason, 30 F. Cas. 1047, 1048 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851). ¶194 We find the foregoing definitions and authorities to be generally consistent, and we believe that the definition adopted and applied by the district court is supported by the plain meaning of the term “engaged in,” as well as by the historical authorities discussed above. Accordingly, like the district court, we conclude that “engaged in” requires “an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose.” Anderson, ¶ 254. ¶195 In so concluding, we hasten to add that we do not read “engaged in” so broadly as to subsume mere silence in the face of insurrection or mere acquiescence therein, at least absent an affirmative duty to act. Rather, as Attorney General Stanbery observed, “The force of the term to engage carries the idea of active rather than passive conduct, and of voluntary rather than compulsory action.” Stanbery I, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. at 161; see also Baude & Paulsen, supra (manuscript at 67) (noting that “passive acquiescence, resigned acceptance, 105 silence, or inaction is not typically enough to have ‘engaged in’ insurrection or rebellion . . . [unless] a person possesses an affirmative duty to speak or act”). ¶196 The question remains whether the record supported the district court’s finding that President Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection by acting overtly and voluntarily with the intent of aiding or furthering the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose. Again, mindful of our applicable standard of review, we conclude that it did, and we proceed to a necessarily detailed discussion of the evidence to show why this is so. ¶197 Substantial evidence in the record showed that even before the November 2020 general election, President Trump was laying the groundwork for a claim that the election was rigged. For example, at an August 17, 2020 campaign rally, he said that “the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” Anderson, ¶ 88. Moreover, when asked at a September 23, 2020 press briefing whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election, President Trump refused to do so. Id. at ¶ 90. ¶198 President Trump then lost the election, and despite the facts that his advisors repeatedly advised him that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud and that no evidence showed that he himself believed the election was wrought with fraud, President Trump ramped up his claims that the election was stolen from him and undertook efforts to prevent the certification of the election 106 results. For example, in a December 13, 2020 tweet, he stated, “Swing States that have found massive VOTER FRAUD, which is all of them, CANNOT LEGALLY CERTIFY these votes as complete & correct without committing a severely punishable crime.” Id. at ¶ 101. And President Trump sought to overturn the election results by directly exerting pressure on Republican officeholders in various states. Id. at ¶ 103. ¶199 On this point, and relevant to President Trump’s intent in this case, many of the state officials targeted by President Trump’s efforts were subjected to a barrage of harassment and violent threats by his supporters. Id. at ¶ 104. President Trump was well aware of these threats, particularly after Georgia election official Gabriel Sterling issued a public warning to President Trump to “stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence” or “[s]omeone’s going to get killed.” Id. President Trump responded by retweeting a video of Sterling’s press conference with a message repeating the very rhetoric that Sterling warned would result in violence. Id. at ¶ 105. ¶200 And President Trump continued to fan the flames of his supporters’ ire, which he had ignited, with ongoing false assertions of election fraud, propelling the “Stop the Steal” movement and cross-country rallies leading up to January 6. Id. at ¶ 106. Specifically, between Election Day 2020 and January 6, Stop the Steal organizers held dozens of rallies around the country, proliferating President 107 Trump’s election disinformation and recruiting attendees, including members of violent extremist groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters, QAnon conspiracy theorists, and white nationalists, to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6. Id. at ¶ 107. ¶201 Stop the Steal leaders also joined two “Million MAGA Marches” in Washington, D.C. on November 14, 2020, and December 12, 2020. Id. at ¶ 108. Again, as relevant to President Trump’s intent here, after the November rally turned violent, President Trump acknowledged the violence but justified it as self defense against “ANTIFA SCUM.” Id. at ¶ 109. ¶202 With full knowledge of these sometimes-violent events, President Trump sent the following tweet on December 19, 2020, urging his supporters to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6: “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6. Be there, will be wild!” Id. at ¶ 112. ¶203 At this point, the record established that President Trump’s “plan” was that when Congress met to certify the election results on January 6, Vice President Pence could reject the true electors who voted for President Biden and certify a slate of fake electors supporting President Trump or he could return the slates to the states for further proceedings. Id. at ¶ 113. ¶204 Far right extremists and militias such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters viewed President Trump’s December 19, 2020 tweet as a 108 “call to arms,” and they began to plot activities to disrupt the January 6 joint session of Congress. Id. at ¶ 117. In the meantime, President Trump repeated his invitation to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6 at least twelve times. Id. at ¶ 118. ¶205 On December 26, 2020, President Trump tweeted: If a Democrat Presidential Candidate had an Election Rigged & Stolen, with proof of such acts at a level never seen before, the Democrat Senators would consider it an act of war, and fight to the death. Mitch [McConnell] & the Republicans do NOTHING, just want to let it pass. NO FIGHT! Id. at ¶ 121. ¶206 And on January 1, 2021, President Trump retweeted a post from Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the scheduled January 6 March for Trump, that stated, “The calvary [sic] is coming, Mr. President! JANUARY 6 |Washington, D.C.” President Trump added to his retweet, “A great honor!” Id. at ¶ 119. ¶207 The foregoing evidence established that President Trump’s messages were a call to his supporters to fight and that his supporters responded to that call. Further supporting such a conclusion was the fact that multiple federal agencies, including the Secret Service, identified significant threats of violence in the days leading up to January 6. Id. at ¶ 123. These threats were made openly online, and they were widely reported in the press. Id. Agency threat assessments thus stated 109 that domestic violent extremists planned for violence on January 6, with weapons including firearms and enough ammunition to “win a small war.” Id. ¶208 Along the same lines, the Federal Bureau of Investigation received many tips regarding the potential for violence on January 6. Id. at ¶ 124. One tip said: They think they will have a large enough group to march into DC armed and will outnumber the police so they can’t be stopped . . . . They believe that since the election was “stolen” it’s their constitutional right to overtake the government and during this coup no U.S. laws apply. Their plan is to literally kill. Please, please take this tip seriously and investigate further. Id. ¶209 The record reflects that President Trump had reason to know of the potential for violence on January 6. As President, he oversaw the agencies reporting the foregoing threats. Id. at ¶ 123. In addition, Katrina Pierson, a senior advisor to both of President Trump’s presidential campaigns, testified, on behalf of President Trump, that at a January 5, 2021 meeting, President Trump chose the speakers for the January 6 event at which he, too, would speak (avoiding at least some extremist speakers) and that he knew that radical political extremists were going to be in Washington, D.C. on January 6 and would likely attend his speech. Id. at ¶¶ 48, 126. ¶210 January 6 arrived, and in the early morning, President Trump tweeted, “If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even 110 fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which it must be). Mike can send it back!” Id. at ¶ 127. He followed this tweet later that morning with another that said, “All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!” Id. ¶211 These tweets had the obvious effect of putting a significant target on Vice President Pence’s back, focusing President Trump’s supporters on the Vice President’s role in overseeing the counting of the electoral votes and certifying the 2020 presidential election to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. Id. at ¶¶ 128, 291. ¶212 At about this same time, tens of thousands of President Trump’s supporters began gathering around the Ellipse for his speech. Id. at ¶ 129. To enter the Ellipse itself, attendees were required to pass through magnetometers. Id. at ¶ 130. Notably, from the approximately 28,000 attendees who passed through these security checkpoints, the Secret Service confiscated hundreds of weapons and other prohibited items, including knives or blades, pepper spray, brass knuckles, tasers, body armor, gas masks, and batons or blunt instruments. Id. at ¶¶ 130–31. Approximately 25,000 additional attendees remained outside the Secret Service perimeter, thus avoiding the magnetometers. Id. at ¶ 132. ¶213 President Trump then gave a speech in which he literally exhorted his supporters to fight at the Capitol. Among other things, he told the crowd: 111 • “We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s capital for one very, very basic reason: to save our democracy.” Id. at ¶ 135. • “Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder.” Id. • “Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you . . . .” Id. • “[W]e’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.” Id. • “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.” Id. • “This the most corrupt election in the history, maybe of the world. . . . This is not just a matter of domestic politics—this is a matter of national security.” Id. • “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Id. ¶214 Unsurprisingly, the crowd at the Ellipse reacted to President Trump’s words with calls for violence. Indeed, after President Trump instructed his supporters to march to the Capitol, members of the crowd shouted, “[S]torm the capitol!”; “[I]nvade the Capitol Building!”; and “[T]ake the Capitol!” Id. at ¶ 141. And before he had even concluded his speech, President Trump’s supporters followed his instructions. Id. at ¶ 146. The crowd marched to the Capitol, many carrying 112 Revolutionary War flags and Confederate battle flags; quickly breached the building; and immediately advanced to the House and Senate chambers to carry out their mission of blocking the certification of the 2020 presidential election. Id. at ¶¶ 146–53. ¶215 By 1:21 p.m., President Trump was informed that the Capitol was under attack. Id. at ¶ 169. Rather than taking action to end the siege, however, approximately one hour later, at 2:24 p.m., he tweeted, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!” Id. at ¶ 170. ¶216 This tweet was read over a bullhorn to the crowd at the Capitol, and produced further violence, necessitating the evacuation of Vice President Pence from his Senate office to a more secure location to ensure his physical safety. Id. at ¶¶ 171–75. ¶217 President Trump’s next public communications were two tweets sent at 2:38 p.m. and 3:13 p.m., encouraging the mob to “remain peaceful” and to “[s]tay peaceful” (obviously, the mob was not at all peaceful), but neither tweet condemned the violence nor asked the mob to disperse. Id. at ¶ 178 (alteration in original). 113 ¶218 Throughout these several hours, President Trump ignored pleas to intervene and instead called on Senators, urging them to help delay the electoral count, which is what the mob, upon President Trump’s exhortations, was also trying to achieve. Id. at ¶ 180. And President Trump took no action to put an end to the violence. To the contrary, as mentioned above, when told that the mob was chanting, “Hang Mike Pence,” President Trump responded that perhaps the Vice President deserved to be hanged. Id. President Trump also rejected pleas from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, imploring him to tell his supporters to leave the Capitol, stating, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” Id. ¶219 Finally, at 4:17 p.m., President Trump released a video urging the mob “to go home now.” Id. at ¶ 186. Even then, he did not condemn the mob’s actions. Id. at ¶ 187. Instead, he sympathized with those who had violently overtaken the Capitol, telling them that he knew their pain. Id. at ¶¶ 186–87. He told them that he loved them and that they were “very special.” Id. at ¶ 186. And he repeated his false claim that the election had been stolen notwithstanding his “landslide” victory, thereby further endorsing the mob’s effort to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Id. at ¶¶ 186–87. ¶220 A short while later, President Trump reiterated this supportive message to the mob by justifying its actions, tweeting at 6:01 p.m., “These are the things and 114 events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace.” Id. at ¶ 189. President Trump concluded by encouraging the country to “[r]emember this day forever!” Id. ¶221 We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection. President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power. ¶222 We disagree with President Trump’s contentions that the record does not support a finding that he engaged in an insurrection because (1) “engage” does not include “incite,” and (2) he did not have the requisite intent to aid or further the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose. ¶223 As our detailed recitation of the evidence shows, President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection. Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully 115 underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection. ¶224 Moreover, the record amply demonstrates that President Trump fully intended to—and did—aid or further the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power in this country. He exhorted them to fight to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election. He personally took action to try to stop the certification. And for many hours, he and his supporters succeeded in halting that process. ¶225 For these reasons, we conclude that the record fully supports the district court’s finding that President Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three.
The formatting gets a little wonky, but if you want to call 19 pages, (14%) of the decision "quick and not very thorough" that's your prerogative.
