Defining insurrection. I disagree with Mr. Nelson’s analysis. To me, it is difficult to define insurrection — in a legally actionable manner — within the context of a cable news show that is primarily for entertainment.
For me, narratives presented in American courts provide guidance in understanding current events. In essence, it is a crime to willfully lie to a judge. Also, there are constitutionally tested rules of evidence and procedure.
So, as for insurrection the 14th Amendment case in Colorado provides an extremely good fact pattern and narrative. Go to: courts.state.co.us/Courts/Dis trict/Cases_of_Interest.cfm?Dis trict_ID=2. Click on Anderson v. Griswold. Click on: 9/6/2023 Verified Petition. Start on Page 13.
After reading it, notice the arguments provided, so far, by Griswold et. al. in refutation.
Hopefully, Mr. Nelson, you will see the full record filed with respect to judicial penalties actually does “expand the view” of what was a violent insurrection against the Constitution.
I agree with you about the folks who did not either attack police officers or storm the capital. The large majority of folks were peaceful, civilly disobedient protesters. However, the folks that were inside the building abiding their Article II duties were aware of only two things. Violent insurrectionists had breached the capital, and tens of thousands of folks were surrounding the Capitol. Imagine their terror at that moment.
Jay North
Ridgefield
