Absolutely the worst president in our history of voting! I do not know if America can survive with this guy remaining president. The bad thing is, if Harris or Nancy would become president, surely America could not recover! I believe since we have found out that the substance on Bidens son's computer, and the lefthand news media covering it up the real facts, tells us this past presidential election was would have resulted in a different outcome! And on that basis alone, this country should have the election over again, to prove the real winner! I also think that, most reasonable democrats would agree, with me, and chose a candidate, who truthfully made our country Great back then!

It's mainly the difference between common language and legal language. When one wants to be understood by common people, one speaks in common language. When one wants to press a legal case, one has to use legal terminology and navigate legal ramifications.

A crowd, stirred up by Trump, tried to stop a t***sition of power to the newly elected president, because that's what Trump wanted it to do. They and he were doing a wrong, bad thing. In common language, what they did could rightly be called an "i**********n" or an "attempted i**********n". Legal language is sometimes something else.

I speak from personal experience, not about i**********ns but about common language versus legal language (and occasionally pseudo-legal language, maybe):

I was in a legal case, in a court, before a judge; I had evidence to show, and I had a constitutional right to be heard. That's how it is, in common language. The words in this little paragraph are common language.

In the language used (variously, not necessarily consistently) by my first attorney and the judges during the next few years, it was a "pseudo-legal" proceeding they were doing, "constitutional rights" did not apply because this was (at least part of the time) in "Family court"; and at least one of the judges wasn't a real judge (rather, an "administrative judge"). The word "evidence" provoked scorn in some attorneys and the first judge; and yet later my first attorney said I was a hero in my evidential presentation and that my evidence worked. My very experienced third attorney told me I had done the right thing by getting my second attorney to subpoena records as evidence (and I was glad to hear it because the second attorney, who was also a very experienced one, didn't seem to have a clue for what I was trying to do in the case -- or, perhaps having a clue, had immediately given up on it as hopeless -- it was a right thing but hopeless in the system as he understood it). The system (courts or wh**ever they want to call themselves) did approximately what I asked it to do, it just took four years to do what I had ready for them to do in two months.

For some things, a legal system is _really_needed_; and for some other things, common language is _really_needed_, and for some things, BOTH are _really_needed_.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/percentage-of-americans-who-believe-j***6-participants-should-be-held-accountable-is-growing-survey/ar-AAVggYk?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

Percentage Of Americans Who Believe J*** 6 Participants Should Be Held Accountable Is Growing: Survey

Los Angeles (Knewz) — When Public Wise and Change Research asked Americans in October how important it was for Capitol breach case suspects to be held accountable for their actions, 72.8 percent answered in the affirmative. That percentage rose to 78.1 percent when the survey was fielded anew in February.

While a 5.3 percent uptick might not seem huge, it comes from among the more fervent supporters of Donald Trump. People who just a few months ago were opining that it was not important to hold J*** 6 i**********n participants criminally responsible.

Just last week, the first J*** 6 trial concluded in Washington D.C., with a jury finding 49-year-old Texas resident Guy Raffitt guilty on all five counts. His wife Nicole promised that he would appeal the ruling, according to NPR.

The poll results changes were not quite as dramatic when it came to the matter of elected officials. In October, 33.7 percent of Americans felt those who v**ed against certifying the 2020 p**********l e******n should remain in office. In the February poll, that was down slightly to 32.2 percent. (147 Republicans v**ed against certifying the results of the 2020 e******n; 144 are still in office.)

Meanwhile, an elected official speaking at the rally on the mall before the i**********n was seen as even less of an offense, with 41.4 percent of respondents in February believing this should not be cause for removal from office. That’s actually up from 39.9 percent in October.

The poll also ran some correlations between stated opinions and a respondent’s belief in various conspiracy theories, everything from the JFK assassination to r****d v****g machines to the idea that undercover A****a members fomented the Capitol events. Not surprisingly, the higher the belief in conspiracy, generally, the higher also was the tendency for a respondent to be forgiving of J*** 6 i**********nists.

So far, more than 700 people have been charged in connection with the J*** 6 i**********n.