During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, on whether the January 6 Capitol attack constituted an insurrection. Mitchell argued that it was a riot, not an insurrection, and that Trump did not engage in any act that could be characterized as an insurrection. Jackson pressed on the distinction between insurrection and riot, highlighting Trump's argument that presidents are not officers of the United States as per the 14th Amendment. The debate centered on the constitutional definition of insurrection and its application to the events of January 6, with conflicting views presented by Trump's lawyer and Justice Jackson.
Trump's lawyers said in a filing this week that Jan. 6 did not constitute an insurrection. Trump on Thursday: "I think it was an insurrection." 🤔 https://t.co/NQGwIJrMKB https://t.co/yu1NjXMFMo
🇺🇸TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: “THIS WAS A RIOT, NOT AN INSURRECTION” “This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in section three.” Source: C-SPAN https://t.co/IPsqUgo9e5
MAGA: Only an idiot would call it an insurrection Trump: I think it was an insurrection https://t.co/w9pmjQPOby https://t.co/CCu7rD9V7u
🇺🇸SCOTUS: “THIS WAS A RIOT, NOT AN INSURRECTION” Trump’s attorney: “This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in section three.” Source: C-SPAN https://t.co/R0ZXM3RzKG
Trump's lawyer: “It was not an insurrection.” Trump: “It was an insurrection.” https://t.co/mbadl2vjUf
Donald Trump's attorney Jonathan Mitchell told the Supreme Court Thursday that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was not an insurrection. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Mitchell's argument. Read more: https://t.co/2Lkv8uHwPH https://t.co/HHasqv0HH7
Trump: I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi. https://t.co/I3AMOSymjG
Trump’s lawyer: “This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal ... But it did not qualify as insurrection, as that term is used in Section 3.” — Trump's attorney, when Justice Jackson questions whether he concedes January 6th was an insurrection https://t.co/CYISq6Ekqr
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushes back on Donald Trump’s lawyer on what is considered an insurrection under the Constitution, and questions his argument that Trump can't be disqualified without an insurrection conviction. https://t.co/fena7Pz87q
Ketanji Brown Jackson Challenges Trump Attorney to Explain Why January 6 Wasn't an Insurrection https://t.co/PZMNDkX8In
Justice Jackson: "So, your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?" Jonathan Mitchell: "We didn't conceded that it's an effort to overthrow the government either...this was a riot. It was not an insurrection." https://t.co/8lJG2P5ghT
It took an hour for a SCOTUS justice to ask Donald Trump's lawyer whether what Trump did on Jan. 6 was an insurrection. His lawyer said that what happened was “a riot, not an insurrection,” an argument they have repeated in lower courts. Live updates: https://t.co/rgxydnTtBy https://t.co/pM0CiICYYg
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson’s final question for Trump’s lawyer honed in on whether the former president concedes that the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack was an insurrection. Follow live: https://t.co/727dvE0M37 https://t.co/8tE3egHR7c
United States Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gets Trump’s own lawyer to concede that #January6th was a “violent” “criminal” “riot” — a far cry from MAGA insistence that J6 was “political discourse” with Rep. Stefanik now calling perpetrators she hid from “hostages.” https://t.co/5brS4eobH8
Trump lawyer: "We never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was insurrection. What we said is that President Trump did not engage in any act that can be plausibly be characterized as an insurrection." Ketanji Brown Jackson is not happy. https://t.co/yVuyi6J2VD
Justice Jackson: "So, your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?" Jonathan Mitchell: "We didn't conceded that it's an effort to overthrow the government either...this was a a riot. It was not an insurrection." https://t.co/dq7gEX9au5
So Trump's attorney claims before the #SupremeCourt that Jan. 6th wasn't an insurrection but rather a riot. What baloney- so, if it had succeeded would it then be considered an insurrection? https://t.co/f19rqZCtGQ https://t.co/HWTd78pY3A
KBJ: what's your argument that Trump didn't commit insurrection? Trump lawyer: "There needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government." KBJ: "So a chaotic effort wouldn't count." Then Trump lawyer says 1/6 "was a riot; it was not an insurrection."
"This was a a riot; it was not an insurrection," Jonathan Mitchell, the Trump lawyer, tells Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Trump's lawyer at SCOTUS: "This was a riot, it was not an insurrection"
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson zeroed in on Trump’s argument that presidents are not an "officer of the United States" – the language used in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in determining who can be disqualified for insurrection. Follow live: https://t.co/slGhrClqan https://t.co/J9ENA5kAMj
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushes Trump’s lawyer (and gets him to admit that being an insurrectionist is not 'categorical'): "I'm trying to understand the distinction between the provision in the Constitution that relates to disqualification on the basis of insurrection…