People keep talking about Trump being guilty of “insurrection”. That is a very specific charge, and no prosecuting attorney has brought this charge against Trump to any grand jury ANYWHERE, there is no indictment, the facts have not been heard in court, there has been no ruling of guilt or innocence, and there is no sentence that was ever handed down.
How many ways can anybody say “nothingburger”?
There is no definition of insurrection that you could find as a legal definition of a crime (of fomenting an insurrection, participating in one, conspiring, etc.) that is satisfied here. In my view an insurrection has to have at least some probability of succeeding. Even if it is a minute fraction of a single percent. If you participate in something (the riot or melee that occurred on J6 for example) that has absolutely no possible chance of overthrowing the government, it's not an insurrection. Its a riot, a protest, a disturbance. But it's not an insurrection.
Clearly Trump was not involved in an insurrection.
What is most disturbing about this from a legal perspective, as a procedural matter, is the proof that the trial court in Colorado accepted. It was merely reading into the record the report of the J6 Committee. No live witnesses to be questioned before a trier of fact, no confrontation of the witnesses by the defense. It is an absurdity to deny Trump an important right, like the right to be a candidate in the political process (when otherwise qualified), based on something that had none of the hallmarks of due process afforded to civil and criminal defendants in any other court in this country. It is bizarre to read into the record the conclusion of a highly biased political investigation and say that is established fact.
I hope that the Sec. of State for Maine and the Supreme Court of Colorado are severely bitch-slapped by the SCOTUS.