> … the sitting President got banned from almost every platform almost simultaneously

The sitting President incited a rebellion in an attempt to overturn election results in which he did not succeed.

> The sitting President incited a rebellion in an attempt to overturn election results in which he did not succeed.

In your opinion. This is a controversial take that many people disagree with and there have been precisely 0 attempts to charge him with insurrection.

That he put considerable effort into overturning the election is established beyond doubt: he repeatedly attempted to pressure various officials in states he lost, the DOJ, and the Vice President not to perform their sworn duties. His legal team filed many spurious lawsuits towards the same end and tried to concoct strategies for involving Supreme Court justices they thought owed him a favorable ruling. None of that is compatible with the oath of office he swore.

The only question is whether his actions around January 6th rise to the level of “insurrection”. He’ll claim telling his followers to match to the Capitol with instructions like "take back our country" and "fight like hell" was purely figurative, but given that there was no legal reason for them to even be there (the tallying isn’t a public survey, just officially recording what’s already happened) it’s hard to say his intention was anything but the illegal act it sounds like, and saying that wasn’t an attempted insurrection seems like you’re simply arguing that it doesn’t count if you are [fortunately] incompetent.

Why do you think hes not being charged with insurrection?

He hasn’t been charged yet but as we’ve seen with the January 6th cases federal prosecutors are very conservative about making sure they have an airtight case first, and they’re often willing to bring lower charges which have a greater chance of success rather than risk losing a bigger charge. This is especially true for charges which require proving that someone consciously intended a particular illegal outcome. One of his 4 criminal cases currently in progress covers the election tampering because the evidence for those is very clear cut and doesn’t require proving his intention:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-...

then isnt it fair to say they don’t think they have sufficient evidence to get an insurrection conviction?

Only that they haven’t brought charges yet. We know he attempted to tamper with the election and that’s an objective question of facts where e.g. call recordings suffice as evidence. Proving intent for more serious crimes might hinge on testimony by witnesses who were considering playing ball but now that Republicans have are protecting Trump are instead mulling the odds of a January 20th pardon.

> there have been precisely 0 attempts to charge him with insurrection.

To be clear, there is an ongoing federal case charging him with conspiring to subvert the results of the 2020 election. And there is an ongoing Georgia state case charging him with orchestrating a criminal enterprise to reverse Georgia's election results in 2020.

Both of those are substantially similar to GP's claim of "an attempt to overturn election results."

Which case more specifically are you talking about? Again, there are 0 insurrection charges on the table. “Insurrection” is a specific crime mind you - potentially illegal activity surrounding January 6th doesnt mean insurrection.

> Bothe of those are substantially similar to GP's claim of "an attempt to overturn election results."

That’s not the claim im replying to. This is the claim: “incite a rebellion.” If he doesnt mean insurrection then I guess we’re on the same page.

There's been an ongoing special investigation into charging Trump with election interference and or insurrection.

This is not "precisely 0 attempts to charge him with insurrection" which is a delibrately silly thing to claim.

Full on insurrection charges are a political hot potato with all manner of side issues.

Also, it only just this month (Februray, 2024) that a panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Trump is not immune from prosecution due to his position as active POTUS at the time.

He didn’t incite a rebellion. Stop spreading more lies.

> I mean, the sitting President got banned from almost every platform almost simultaneously… and yet we’re still discussing Chinese and Russian meme farms?

I don’t see why not…