So, just to be certain, when USA today keeps giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and uses words in this article like, riot, and alleged role, they’re carrying water for him right? The man has been found to have had a role andtaken part in an insurrection in multiple cases now. They should just say it.

When was he convicted of insurrection or anything related to that?

nytimes.com/…/jan-6-committee-key-findings.html

Its paywalled, but does it talk about him being convicted of insurrection?

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol outlined 17 specific findings on Monday in the executive summary of its final report. Here are the findings, with additional context.

Beginning election night and continuing through Jan. 6 and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of fraud related to the 2020 presidential election in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on Jan. 6.

Annotation: This reflects the committee’s finding that Mr. Trump’s repeated false claims that the election was rigged had both a political and financial motive. During its second hearing, the panel introduced evidence that Trump supporters donated nearly $100 million to Mr. Trump’s so-called Election Defense Fund but that the money flowed instead into a super PAC the president had created. It was not just “the big lie,” the committee said. It was also “the big rip-off.”

Knowing that he and his supporters had lost dozens of election lawsuits, and despite his own senior advisers refuting his election fraud claims and urging him to concede his election loss, Donald Trump refused to accept the lawful result of the 2020 election. Rather than honor his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome.

Annotation: Mr. Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging the results of the election and lost all but one of them. Many of the suits, the committee determined, were brought even after some of Mr. Trump’s closest aides — including his campaign manager, Bill Stepien, and his attorney general, William P. Barr — told him that there was no fraud that could have changed the outcome of the race.

Despite knowing that such an action would be illegal, and that no state had or would submit an altered electoral slate, Donald Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes during Congress’s joint session on Jan. 6.

I am aware of the facts, but again, there was no conviction of insurrection or anything related. Do you understand how the conviction is the important part, not what people claim?

Conviction is not the important part, at all.

The 14th Amendment was intended to keep former Confederates out of government. The people who wrote it had no intention of putting former Confederates on trial.

I agree, that amendment was directly talking about confederates who had done a known and agreed on insurrection.

It was also meant to apply to any future insurrections, like the one on Jan 6.

Jan 6th wasnt and insurrection, and trump would need to be convicted of an insurrection not just declared guilty by someone.

Nobody needed to be convicted in 1868, therefore Trump doesn’t need to be convicted today.

Yeah because it was literally a civil war…

The 14th Amendment applies to insurrections, not just wars. Any attempt to stop the function of government by force is an insurrection, including the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, and Jan 6.

Sounds good if it is a universally understood insurrection.

Insurrection has a legal definition, and that’s the definition that counts.

Judges are the ones responsible for deciding whether a legal definition applies, and so far all those involved said it does.

Do you see the issue with one judge or a couple judges deciding who get to run for office at their whim?