January 6th Protest/Stolen Election Thread (Was: Trump Nuts Storm the Capitol)

[dot]

so wait. you wanted the Supreme Court to rule.

I don't recall this thought.

We find that the Judge was wrong in banning Trump from the ballot, but we agree with them on the finding that Trump participated in an insurrection and that part still stands??

If they don't rule on it, how are you going to spin that it was refuted? That's the laughable question.

[Animal]

so wait. you wanted the Supreme Court to rule.

I don't recall this thought.

We find that the Judge was wrong in banning Trump from the ballot, but we agree with them on the finding that Trump participated in an insurrection and that part still stands??

If they don't rule on it, how are you going to spin that it was refuted? That's the laughable question.

they only made one ruling. they "reversed it". now if you need to pick and choose which part they reversed and which part they upheld, then you just do you. meanwhile the rest of us will know they reversed the decision. period.

[dot]

they only made one ruling. they "reversed it". now if you need to pick and choose which part they reversed and which part they upheld, then you just do you. meanwhile the rest of us will know they reversed the decision. period.

Thanks again for proving you don't know what you're talking about. Educate. Yourself.

They ruled states can't enforce the Constitution's disqualification clause, that only Congress can do that via legislation, a flawed opinion as it's self executing otherwise. For example, Congress doesn't have to make a law that rules Barack Obama or George W. Bush can no longer run for president, they're disqualified from running again for a third term. But moving on to what was ruled on and what wasn't, I've already shown you what Trump's side's brief requested of the court. And you've shown what the Supreme Court did and did not rule on. It's black and white. They were asked to rule on the factual finding from the lower court that found Trump incited insurrection. They chose not to. The finding stands.

[necronomous]

As fact, but has not been charged with an insurrection or treason. A corrupt court gave a shitty opinion. Whoopty doo

A finding of fact that you have not been able to refute. Let's see if your other defending red M&Ms do any better than your bad faith attempts.

Jeezus H. Christ. This is me starting right here: Lets talk about the texts that occurred on and around January 6th.

You're still just asking questions with no discussion and refusing to begin. You have the two definitions of insurrection, you have the facts revealed as well as the plots behind the scenes exposed. There is literally nothing preventing you from addressing any of it, but you're still wanting to set parameters. Think of it like this, hack. You're going on 3 months late to the party. Catch up.

1 red of bad faith down.

put what ever lipstick you need on that pig. the high court struck down the kangaroo decision. struck it down. meaning they basically said that the colorado judge was a dumb ass.

Unanimously.

And once again, someone didn't do the reading assignment. Supreme Court struck down states being able to remove a candidate from the ballot, they did not rule on whether he did not incite an insurrection despite begging from Trump to do so. The factual finding stands. Refute it or admit you can't.

2 reds of bad faith down. I wonder what the broken records will say next.

And yet he's still not in jail because he wasn't charged with insurrection.

[Animal]

the supreme court reversed the court finding in Colorado. Can someone else please explain that to poor dumb drooling Dot.

[CHEEZY17]

the supreme court reversed the court finding in Colorado. Can someone else please explain that to poor dumb drooling Dot.

Dodgin' Dot has found his little nugget that he thinks is gold and nothing else matters.

[Antknot]

the supreme court reversed the court finding in Colorado. Can someone else please explain that to poor dumb drooling Dot.

Dodgin' Dot has found his little nugget that he thinks is gold and nothing else matters.

You misspelled Iron pyrite

[CHEEZY17]

the supreme court reversed the court finding in Colorado. Can someone else please explain that to poor dumb drooling Dot.

Dodgin' Dot has found his little nugget that he thinks is gold and nothing else matters.

You misspelled Iron pyrite

Pretty much. His gold nuggets arent as great as he seems to think they are.

[dot]

And yet he's still not in jail because he wasn't charged with insurrection.

And as we've proven before, charges filed does not equate the crime being committed. So you have a long way to go to refuting that factual finding, Red.

the supreme court reversed the court finding in Colorado. Can someone else please explain that to poor dumb drooling Dot.

Dodgin' Dot has found his little nugget that he thinks is gold and nothing else matters.

I'm not the one having to ignore the Trump request for a finding of fact to be refuted only for that request to be ignored.

[necronomous]

And yet he's still not in jail because he wasn't charged with insurrection.

And as we've proven before, charges filed does not equate the crime being committed. So you have a long way to go to refuting that factual finding, Red.

the supreme court reversed the court finding in Colorado. Can someone else please explain that to poor dumb drooling Dot.

Dodgin' Dot has found his little nugget that he thinks is gold and nothing else matters.

I'm not the one having to ignore the Trump request for a finding of fact to be refuted only for that request to be ignored.

So he didn't commit the crime. As I said. What you're saying is there was a definite insurrection, but no one is actually getting charged for it, instead we are just going to say they did it and we know for a fact they did it, but somehow we can't prove they did it to say the actually committed an insurrection. But they definitely did. For a fact. You just can't prove it enough to charge them. Which means it's not a fact. Got it. You're full of shit. Just say that next time.

[Animal]

to be fair. dot is a known retard.

[dot]

So he didn't commit the crime.

That's not what the factual finding still unrefuted said.

As I said. What you're saying is there was a definite insurrection, but no one is actually getting charged for it, instead we are just going to say they did it and we know for a fact they did it, but somehow we can't prove they did it to say the actually committed an insurrection. But they definitely did. For a fact. You just can't prove it enough to charge them. Which means it's not a fact. Got it. You're full of shit. Just say that next time.

Yet another person who is going to deny reality. You're more than welcome to prove insurrection did not happen on January 6, the definition(s) are well established after these past 3 months and unchallenged as to their accuracy. The facts and plots behind the scenes are well known. And since it's been several weeks, I guess bad faith actors have to be reminded that charges filed does not change the fact that a crime was committed. For example, subpoenas defied were not charged. Does that mean the subpoenas were never defied? No, it still happened. So if you're going to argue insurrection was not incited, you're going to have to prove insurrection never happened.

to be fair. dot is a known retard.

Says the mental midget who didn't and still doesn't know how fraud works.

[necronomous]

So he didn't commit the crime.

That's not what the factual finding still unrefuted said.

As I said. What you're saying is there was a definite insurrection, but no one is actually getting charged for it, instead we are just going to say they did it and we know for a fact they did it, but somehow we can't prove they did it to say the actually committed an insurrection. But they definitely did. For a fact. You just can't prove it enough to charge them. Which means it's not a fact. Got it. You're full of shit. Just say that next time.

Yet another person who is going to deny reality. You're more than welcome to prove insurrection did not happen on January 6, the definition(s) are well established after these past 3 months and unchallenged as to their accuracy. The facts and plots behind the scenes are well known. And since it's been several weeks, I guess bad faith actors have to be reminded that charges filed does not change the fact that a crime was committed. For example, subpoenas defied were not charged. Does that mean the subpoenas were never defied? No, it still happened. So if you're going to argue insurrection was not incited, you're going to have to prove insurrection never happened.

to be fair. dot is a known retard.

Says the mental midget who didn't and still doesn't know how fraud works.

That's not how it works. You don't prove a negative you dipshit, you have to prove it did. If it did, great, put people in jail. But NOONE has been jailed for insurrection. None.you are full of shit.

[CHEEZY17]

Dodgin' Dot thinks he understand "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
His real beef is with them since after their 3 year long investigation of the "facts of that day" they decided "insurrection" didnt fit.
He either has facts that they dont know about or he thinks they are simply bad at their job.

[Antknot]

[dot]

That's not how it works. You don't prove a negative you dipshit, you have to prove it did.

Which is what the case did. Factual finding. Still unrefuted. Hell, even Trump says it was an insurrection, as noted previously.

If it did, great, put people in jail. But NOONE has been jailed for insurrection. None.you are full of shit.

I'm not the one that can't refute the facts or the ruling. You're gonna have to do better than that, Both Sides™. But I will note the funny irony about proving something happened when you ducked out of proving the corruption you alleged.

Dodgin' Dot thinks he understand "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
His real beef is with them since after their 3 year long investigation of the "facts of that day" they decided "insurrection" didnt fit.
He either has facts that they dont know about or he thinks they are simply bad at their job.

And yet, you still can't argue against the facts of the insurrection. It's not a matter of understanding the insurrection better than the DOJ nor is it me, a layman, trying to tell anyone there how to do their job. It's simply a matter of stating what happened, because bad faith partisan hacks like the ones here will misrepresent then ignore what he and they did and vote for him to do it again. The insurrection, the attempted voter fraud, the fake electors, the attempted overturning of the election to install the loser, all the plots and schemes such as the fake Biden accusations and the Ukraine blackmail attempt along the way to enable this outcome, and the usual suspects here are willing to ignore the entire tapestry it weaves because even a fascist Republican is better than a Democrat in office. Your words, not mine. How's that for your big picture?

[CHEEZY17]

That's not how it works. You don't prove a negative you dipshit, you have to prove it did.

Which is what the case did. Factual finding. Still unrefuted. Hell, even Trump says it was an insurrection, as noted previously.

If it did, great, put people in jail. But NOONE has been jailed for insurrection. None.you are full of shit.

I'm not the one that can't refute the facts or the ruling. You're gonna have to do better than that, Both Sides™. But I will note the funny irony about proving something happened when you ducked out of proving the corruption you alleged.

Dodgin' Dot thinks he understand "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
His real beef is with them since after their 3 year long investigation of the "facts of that day" they decided "insurrection" didnt fit.
He either has facts that they dont know about or he thinks they are simply bad at their job.

And yet, you still can't argue against the facts of the insurrection. It's not a matter of understanding the insurrection better than the DOJ nor is it me, a layman, trying to tell anyone there how to do their job. It's simply a matter of stating what happened, because bad faith partisan hacks like the ones here will misrepresent then ignore what he and they did and vote for him to do it again. The insurrection, the attempted voter fraud, the fake electors, the attempted overturning of the election to install the loser, all the plots and schemes such as the fake Biden accusations and the Ukraine blackmail attempt along the way to enable this outcome, and the usual suspects here are willing to ignore the entire tapestry it weaves because even a fascist Republican is better than a Democrat in office. Your words, not mine. How's that for your big picture?

First youre back at your disingenuousness again, I see. I never said anything about a fascist because I believe in a free society with less government control unlike the Democrats. YOU inserted the "fascist" opinion bit, not me, hack, because yes, as bad as Trump is he is still better than the alternative. Thats not me saying it homeschool: its poll after poll after poll. Seethe harder.
The facts have already been argued, discussed and tackled by legal professionals. They know what happened better than you. They know the definition better than you. They understand the "facts of that day" better than you. They are legal professionals that literally do this for a living and they simply disagree with your findings. Thems the facts, bud. Again your beef is with them as we are simply agreeing with their findings. It is YOU that is at odds with the legal professionals that have access to the same information, and more, than you do. Until you can reconcile that fact all of your blathering is really just pablum.

[necronomous]

That's not how it works. You don't prove a negative you dipshit, you have to prove it did.

Which is what the case did. Factual finding. Still unrefuted. Hell, even Trump says it was an insurrection, as noted previously.

If it did, great, put people in jail. But NOONE has been jailed for insurrection. None.you are full of shit.

I'm not the one that can't refute the facts or the ruling. You're gonna have to do better than that, Both Sides™. But I will note the funny irony about proving something happened when you ducked out of proving the corruption you alleged.

Dodgin' Dot thinks he understand "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
His real beef is with them since after their 3 year long investigation of the "facts of that day" they decided "insurrection" didnt fit.
He either has facts that they dont know about or he thinks they are simply bad at their job.

And yet, you still can't argue against the facts of the insurrection. It's not a matter of understanding the insurrection better than the DOJ nor is it me, a layman, trying to tell anyone there how to do their job. It's simply a matter of stating what happened, because bad faith partisan hacks like the ones here will misrepresent then ignore what he and they did and vote for him to do it again. The insurrection, the attempted voter fraud, the fake electors, the attempted overturning of the election to install the loser, all the plots and schemes such as the fake Biden accusations and the Ukraine blackmail attempt along the way to enable this outcome, and the usual suspects here are willing to ignore the entire tapestry it weaves because even a fascist Republican is better than a Democrat in office. Your words, not mine. How's that for your big picture?

Then he should be in jail, but he's not, and you can't answer why. You also can't answer why, no one else is in jail for insurrection. Great talk.

[CHEEZY17]

That's not how it works. You don't prove a negative you dipshit, you have to prove it did.

Which is what the case did. Factual finding. Still unrefuted. Hell, even Trump says it was an insurrection, as noted previously.

If it did, great, put people in jail. But NOONE has been jailed for insurrection. None.you are full of shit.

I'm not the one that can't refute the facts or the ruling. You're gonna have to do better than that, Both Sides™. But I will note the funny irony about proving something happened when you ducked out of proving the corruption you alleged.

Dodgin' Dot thinks he understand "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
His real beef is with them since after their 3 year long investigation of the "facts of that day" they decided "insurrection" didnt fit.
He either has facts that they dont know about or he thinks they are simply bad at their job.

And yet, you still can't argue against the facts of the insurrection. It's not a matter of understanding the insurrection better than the DOJ nor is it me, a layman, trying to tell anyone there how to do their job. It's simply a matter of stating what happened, because bad faith partisan hacks like the ones here will misrepresent then ignore what he and they did and vote for him to do it again. The insurrection, the attempted voter fraud, the fake electors, the attempted overturning of the election to install the loser, all the plots and schemes such as the fake Biden accusations and the Ukraine blackmail attempt along the way to enable this outcome, and the usual suspects here are willing to ignore the entire tapestry it weaves because even a fascist Republican is better than a Democrat in office. Your words, not mine. How's that for your big picture?

Then he should be in jail, but he's not, and you can't answer why. You also can't answer why, no one else is in jail for insurrection. Great talk.

Dodgin' Dot will say one of these two things:
Some bullshit about the charges
or
Hes not the prosecutor

Both of those conveniently ignore that if his conclusion/opinion is so air tight and undeniable the professional legal authorities would have reached the exact same conclusion. As most people that arent diehard Dims understand, if the DOJ thought it was an insurrection and could prove an insurrection then all of those hundreds of cases would have been for insurrection.

[necronomous]

That's not how it works. You don't prove a negative you dipshit, you have to prove it did.

Which is what the case did. Factual finding. Still unrefuted. Hell, even Trump says it was an insurrection, as noted previously.

If it did, great, put people in jail. But NOONE has been jailed for insurrection. None.you are full of shit.

I'm not the one that can't refute the facts or the ruling. You're gonna have to do better than that, Both Sides™. But I will note the funny irony about proving something happened when you ducked out of proving the corruption you alleged.

Dodgin' Dot thinks he understand "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
His real beef is with them since after their 3 year long investigation of the "facts of that day" they decided "insurrection" didnt fit.
He either has facts that they dont know about or he thinks they are simply bad at their job.

And yet, you still can't argue against the facts of the insurrection. It's not a matter of understanding the insurrection better than the DOJ nor is it me, a layman, trying to tell anyone there how to do their job. It's simply a matter of stating what happened, because bad faith partisan hacks like the ones here will misrepresent then ignore what he and they did and vote for him to do it again. The insurrection, the attempted voter fraud, the fake electors, the attempted overturning of the election to install the loser, all the plots and schemes such as the fake Biden accusations and the Ukraine blackmail attempt along the way to enable this outcome, and the usual suspects here are willing to ignore the entire tapestry it weaves because even a fascist Republican is better than a Democrat in office. Your words, not mine. How's that for your big picture?

Then he should be in jail, but he's not, and you can't answer why. You also can't answer why, no one else is in jail for insurrection. Great talk.

Dodgin' Dot will say one of these two things:
Some bullshit about the charges
or
Hes not the prosecutor

Both of those conveniently ignore that if his conclusion/opinion is so air tight and undeniable the professional legal authorities would have reached the exact same conclusion. As most people that arent diehard Dims understand, if the DOJ thought it was an insurrection and could prove an insurrection then all of those hundreds of cases would have been for insurrection.

And somehow magically, they weren't. I mean it's not magic, just common sense, but you know, magic.

[dot]

First youre back at your disingenuousness again, I see. I never said anything about a fascist

You didn't have to, you are already on record as being for Trump. Trump is fascism, but you already know that. Disingenuous indeed.

because I believe in a free society with less government control unlike the Democrats. YOU inserted the "fascist" opinion bit, not me, hack, because yes, as bad as Trump is he is still better than the alternative.

Except you don't. Because you will vote for the option that will not do any of your less government control. Your free society with less government control is a farce. Your party will enact more government control over private lives, look no further than abortion or adult material restrictions for proof of concept put into action. Disingenuous partisan hack.

Then he should be in jail, but he's not, and you can't answer why. You also can't answer why, no one else is in jail for insurrection. Great talk.

I'm not the one in charge, but if you have an objection to the factual finding of what he incited on January 6, by all means, refute it with facts.

Dodgin' Dot will say one of these two things:
Some bullshit about the charges
or
Hes not the prosecutor

Because disingenuous partisan hacks will only argue whether charges were filed, not about the actions which is the discussion. And when you are challenged on your claims that no such crime took place, you will go full circular logic and claim because no one is in jail for said crime that means it wasn't committed. As usual, because you don't have the balls to prove your apologist's excuse, you use your cowardice as evidence to absolve your criminal conman idol. Here's a crazy idea, if you think it's not an insurrection, then prove it. You have the definition, two of them, to work with, you know what was done both in public and behind closed doors. Instead of months long dodging, man up and prove what you allege. But if you couldn't do it over the course of a year for Joe Biden's alleged crimes, it's clear you won't do it to absolve Trump either.

Both of those conveniently ignore that if his conclusion/opinion is so air tight and undeniable the professional legal authorities would have reached the exact same conclusion.

What's actually being conveniently ignored is the assertion by cons that if a crime is not charged, that does not mean it never happened. And that is what you as a con have been terrified to address. For months now.

As most people that arent diehard Dims understand, if the DOJ thought it was an insurrection and could prove an insurrection then all of those hundreds of cases would have been for insurrection.

And yet, someone can't even begin to discuss how it is not an insurrection. You'll dance around it for going on 3 months, but you still haven't pulled the trigger and engaged.

And somehow magically, they weren't. I mean it's not magic, just common sense, but you know, magic.

Subpoenas were defied. Defying said subpoenas was not charged. Did the defying of subpoenas never happen? Common sense is clearly not going to be listed as one of either of y'all's strengths.

[CHEEZY17]

The facts have already been argued, discussed and tackled by legal professionals. They know what happened better than you. They know the definition better than you. They understand the "facts of that day" better than you. They are legal professionals that literally do this for a living and they simply disagree with your findings. Thems the facts, bud. Again your beef is with them as we are simply agreeing with their findings. It is YOU that is at odds with the legal professionals that have access to the same information, and more, than you do. Until you can reconcile that fact all of your blathering is really just pablum.

But alas, here is me yet again attempting to discuss the "facts" and "actions" of that day:

Just calling your bluff, retard, and in the process proving you dont actually want to discuss the "facts of the day".
Just admit that when given multiple opportunities to "discuss the facts of that day" you continually deflect and fail.
OK, you dont like the texts? How about phone calls? Lets discuss them. E-mails maybe? We could discuss those if you'd like. So the texts "didnt actually happen"? Are they not a part of "the facts of that day"?
Personally, I like the videos of that day. They really tell quite a story. What did you think about the videos? Some showed some real violence during the protest while others were comically peaceful. Lets discuss your thoughts on them. I dont know how you get more into the "facts of that day" then by actual videos of the protest. In case youre not aware, this is how a discussion starts. Thanks. Tick tock.

[dot]

The facts have already been argued, discussed and tackled by legal professionals.

Copout, dodge, take your pick of your favorite terms but if you're still not going to discuss it out of fear, then thanks for admitting what I've been saying. You will not engage and will dance around it like a coward.

They know what happened better than you. They know the definition better than you. They understand the "facts of that day" better than you. They are legal professionals that literally do this for a living and they simply disagree with your findings. Thems the facts, bud. Again your beef is with them as we are simply agreeing with their findings. It is YOU that is at odds with the legal professionals that have access to the same information, and more, than you do. Until you can reconcile that fact all of your blathering is really just pablum.

Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. Still dodging the issue which is what took place that day, was orchestrated that day, was incited that day. Thanks for admitting what I've been saying. You will not engage and will dance around it like a coward.

But alas, here is me yet again attempting to discuss the "facts" and "actions" of that day:

Just calling your bluff, retard, and in the process proving you dont actually want to discuss the "facts of the day".
Just admit that when given multiple opportunities to "discuss the facts of that day" you continually deflect and fail.
OK, you dont like the texts? How about phone calls? Lets discuss them. E-mails maybe? We could discuss those if you'd like. So the texts "didnt actually happen"? Are they not a part of "the facts of that day"?
Personally, I like the videos of that day. They really tell quite a story. What did you think about the videos? Some showed some real violence during the protest while others were comically peaceful. Lets discuss your thoughts on them. I dont know how you get more into the "facts of that day" then by actual videos of the protest. In case youre not aware, this is how a discussion starts. Thanks. Tick tock.

Yet again, no one else needs parameters to dive into this, only you are piddling around it. Stop asking what do you want to talk about and talk about it, you have almost 3 months of back and forth to catch up on. Among those posts you have the definition(s) of insurrection, you already know the facts of the day and the plots revealed pertaining to the insurrection. Prove insurrection doesn't fit, that it wasn't an insurrection, or prove the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your apologist's excuse is wrong. Thanks for admitting what I've been saying. You will not engage and will dance around it like a coward.

[CHEEZY17]

The facts have already been argued, discussed and tackled by legal professionals.

Copout, dodge, take your pick of your favorite terms but if you're still not going to discuss it out of fear, then thanks for admitting what I've been saying. You will not engage and will dance around it like a coward.

They know what happened better than you. They know the definition better than you. They understand the "facts of that day" better than you. They are legal professionals that literally do this for a living and they simply disagree with your findings. Thems the facts, bud. Again your beef is with them as we are simply agreeing with their findings. It is YOU that is at odds with the legal professionals that have access to the same information, and more, than you do. Until you can reconcile that fact all of your blathering is really just pablum.

Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. Still dodging the issue which is what took place that day, was orchestrated that day, was incited that day. Thanks for admitting what I've been saying. You will not engage and will dance around it like a coward.

But alas, here is me yet again attempting to discuss the "facts" and "actions" of that day:

Just calling your bluff, retard, and in the process proving you dont actually want to discuss the "facts of the day".
Just admit that when given multiple opportunities to "discuss the facts of that day" you continually deflect and fail.
OK, you dont like the texts? How about phone calls? Lets discuss them. E-mails maybe? We could discuss those if you'd like. So the texts "didnt actually happen"? Are they not a part of "the facts of that day"?
Personally, I like the videos of that day. They really tell quite a story. What did you think about the videos? Some showed some real violence during the protest while others were comically peaceful. Lets discuss your thoughts on them. I dont know how you get more into the "facts of that day" then by actual videos of the protest. In case youre not aware, this is how a discussion starts. Thanks. Tick tock.

Yet again, no one else needs parameters to dive into this, only you are piddling around it. Stop asking what do you want to talk about and talk about it, you have almost 3 months of back and forth to catch up on. Among those posts you have the definition(s) of insurrection, you already know the facts of the day and the plots revealed pertaining to the insurrection. Prove insurrection doesn't fit, that it wasn't an insurrection, or prove the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your apologist's excuse is wrong. Thanks for admitting what I've been saying. You will not engage and will dance around it like a coward.

Yet, I've made multiple attempts you retard. Ive tried. You deflect and say I dont want to talk about it when that is exactly what I've tried to do. Here, I'll start the conversation again:
Lets talk about the videos. Hundreds of hours of video were taken that day. I believe most of it has been made available to the public. Many of the videos show some levels of violence while many others are comically peaceful showing police walking with and acting as tour guides through the building. What would you like to discuss about these videos? Do you have anything to add to the known information? This is me starting the conversation yet again. In what world is this me trying to NOT have a conversation? I am telling you right here and now: Lets talk about the videos. YOU are the one trying to put "parameters" on this as I require none. We can talk about the texts, the videos, the emails, the investigations etc. Its totally your call. What would you like to discuss? Thats as open as it can get, bud.

[dot]

Yet, I've made multiple attempts you retard. Ive tried.

No, you haven't, because you want to discuss parameters to start. Rather than just begin, you're still prancing around the subject like you're setting ground rules. Begin already.

You deflect and say I dont want to talk about it when that is exactly what I've tried to do.

No one else needed to establish subjects or aspects to talk about the insurrection, only you. For almost 3 months it's been like this with you. Just do it already, pull the trigger. Prove insurrection doesn't fit, that it wasn't an insurrection, or prove the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your apologist's excuse is wrong.