ADVERTISEMENT

Sedition, you commies.

22LR

Heisman Candidate
Dec 1, 2015
7,324
20,633
113
Attorney General Bill Barr Encourages Federal Prosecutors To Charge Violent Protesters With Sedition

Link is here.

The Trump administration's aggressive response to the demonstrations and riots that have broken out in U.S. cities following the police killing of George Floyd continues apace, with U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly suggesting that prosecutors charge demonstrators with sedition.

Barr, according to a story published today by The Wall Street Journal, encouraged prosecutors on a conference call last week to charge violent protestors with federal offenses wherever possible. The attorney general encouraged the use of sedition charges even in contexts when state charges would apply, reports the Journal, which spoke to several people familiar with the call.

Federal sedition law makes it a crime for two or more people to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government, and it comes with a potential penalty of 20 years in prison.

The invocation of rarely used sedition laws to go after protestors is raising alarm among civil libertarians and some legal experts.

"If you start charging those people, even if you don't get a conviction, it may make people think twice before going out to exercise their right to free speech," said Jenny Carroll, a University of Alabama law professor, to the Journal.

"Treating protest as a form of sedition won't stand up in court, but that is clearly not the point here," Somil Trivedi, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), tells Reason. "This is a tyrannical and un-American attempt to suppress demands for racial justice and an end to police violence. Independent and ethical prosecutors should reject this administration's authoritarian impulses."

So far, the federal government so far charged 200 people with violent offenses, including gun charges, related to recent protests. That includes two New York lawyers who've been charged with federal explosives charges for torching an empty police car. If convicted they could face life in prison.

Barr's reported encouragement of sedition charges follows a summer of federal agents deploying aggressive tactics against protestors.

In Washington, D.C., Barr himself ordered police to clear peaceful demonstrators out of Lafayette Square so President Donald Trump could pose in front of St. John's Episcopal Church.

In Portland, Oregon, U.S. marshals and agents under the control of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took to arresting protestors in unmarked vans. The federal courthouse building in Portland had become a target of both nonviolent and violent protests.

The ACLU of Oregon filed a lawsuit against DHS and the U.S. marshals in July, accusing them of assaulting journalists covering the Portland protests and other aggressive tactics.

Earlier this month in Washington state, a task force that includes federal agents killed Michael Reinoehl, a suspect in the fatal shooting of a Trump supporter during a Portland protest. In a subsequent interview, Trump said: "This guy was a violent criminal and the U.S. Marshals killed him…And I will tell you something: That's the way it has to be. There has to be retribution."

Both Trump and Barr have both pointed to antifa and other leftist radicals to justify an aggressive federal response to violence at protests around the country.

Left-wing groups aren't the only ones being subjected to a federal crackdown. In late August, the FBI conducted a truly absurd sting on two Boogaloo Boys (an ideologically heterodox movement that predicts a coming civil war) who attended demonstrations in Minneapolis. The feds accuse them of trying to sell weapons to Hamas.

Arson, vandalism, and other acts of rioting have accompanied many of the anti-police-brutality protests around the country. But since this violence is often adjacent to protected First Amendment activities, law enforcement's response needs to be careful, targeted, and proportionate. We should try to stop the violence and vandalism, but peaceful protesters shouldn't be unjustly punished or otherwise dissuaded from exercising their rights to free speech and assembly.

By encouraging prosecutors to be as punitive as possible, Barr appears to be taking the exact opposite approach. His suggestion that they dust off sedition laws should alarm all civil liberties advocates.
 
If he applies the law to peaceful protestors, then I agree its a gross over-reach. But if you are throwing Molotov cocktails into police precincts and courthouse buildings, then the law applies.
I’m not sure I would agree that sedition law applies in the example you give.
 
what am i missing?


that word candor
again

so far it’ll get you fired (Mccabe)

synopsis

unconstitutional fisa court reprimands ideological
& illegal executive branch
law fare hit squad

for lack of candor covering

inconceivable coup against sitting president of the united states of america

 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Attorney General Bill Barr Encourages Federal Prosecutors To Charge Violent Protesters With Sedition

Link is here.

The Trump administration's aggressive response to the demonstrations and riots that have broken out in U.S. cities following the police killing of George Floyd continues apace, with U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly suggesting that prosecutors charge demonstrators with sedition.

Barr, according to a story published today by The Wall Street Journal, encouraged prosecutors on a conference call last week to charge violent protestors with federal offenses wherever possible. The attorney general encouraged the use of sedition charges even in contexts when state charges would apply, reports the Journal, which spoke to several people familiar with the call.

Federal sedition law makes it a crime for two or more people to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government, and it comes with a potential penalty of 20 years in prison.

The invocation of rarely used sedition laws to go after protestors is raising alarm among civil libertarians and some legal experts.

"If you start charging those people, even if you don't get a conviction, it may make people think twice before going out to exercise their right to free speech," said Jenny Carroll, a University of Alabama law professor, to the Journal.

"Treating protest as a form of sedition won't stand up in court, but that is clearly not the point here," Somil Trivedi, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), tells Reason. "This is a tyrannical and un-American attempt to suppress demands for racial justice and an end to police violence. Independent and ethical prosecutors should reject this administration's authoritarian impulses."

So far, the federal government so far charged 200 people with violent offenses, including gun charges, related to recent protests. That includes two New York lawyers who've been charged with federal explosives charges for torching an empty police car. If convicted they could face life in prison.

Barr's reported encouragement of sedition charges follows a summer of federal agents deploying aggressive tactics against protestors.

In Washington, D.C., Barr himself ordered police to clear peaceful demonstrators out of Lafayette Square so President Donald Trump could pose in front of St. John's Episcopal Church.

In Portland, Oregon, U.S. marshals and agents under the control of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took to arresting protestors in unmarked vans. The federal courthouse building in Portland had become a target of both nonviolent and violent protests.

The ACLU of Oregon filed a lawsuit against DHS and the U.S. marshals in July, accusing them of assaulting journalists covering the Portland protests and other aggressive tactics.

Earlier this month in Washington state, a task force that includes federal agents killed Michael Reinoehl, a suspect in the fatal shooting of a Trump supporter during a Portland protest. In a subsequent interview, Trump said: "This guy was a violent criminal and the U.S. Marshals killed him…And I will tell you something: That's the way it has to be. There has to be retribution."

Both Trump and Barr have both pointed to antifa and other leftist radicals to justify an aggressive federal response to violence at protests around the country.

Left-wing groups aren't the only ones being subjected to a federal crackdown. In late August, the FBI conducted a truly absurd sting on two Boogaloo Boys (an ideologically heterodox movement that predicts a coming civil war) who attended demonstrations in Minneapolis. The feds accuse them of trying to sell weapons to Hamas.

Arson, vandalism, and other acts of rioting have accompanied many of the anti-police-brutality protests around the country. But since this violence is often adjacent to protected First Amendment activities, law enforcement's response needs to be careful, targeted, and proportionate. We should try to stop the violence and vandalism, but peaceful protesters shouldn't be unjustly punished or otherwise dissuaded from exercising their rights to free speech and assembly.

By encouraging prosecutors to be as punitive as possible, Barr appears to be taking the exact opposite approach. His suggestion that they dust off sedition laws should alarm all civil liberties advocates.

this guy loves his bagpipes
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Which part of firebombing government buildings fails to apply to the "destroy by force" condition of the sedition law?
For me the determining factor would be which government buildings we’re talking about. A local police precinct station would not apply, I wouldn’t think. City, county or state courthouses would not rise to the level of sedition. Federal courthouses, federal offices would hit my gray level. Overrunning the capital building, taking politicians hostage, things like that, cross the line. I have no idea if my assessment is remotely accurate, but that’s how my ignorant self sees it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
If that is what it takes to stop the burning, looting, and murder, without the government having to go in with men and guns and possibly have to injure or kill people to stop it, I am all for it. If the consequences for committing felonies while trying to destroy our government are so high you get put away, I am cool with it. You know in advance what will happen if you go from peaceful protester to felonious rioter. You know the rules in advance....play ball as you see fit...don't do the crime if can't pay the time.

First time offender on a 20 year sentence might do what, 2.5 - 5 years MAX.

Put in some big hefty fines on top for the rich white kids, I am dead serious about that, shame on the parents for raising spoiled shitheads, many live at home, they know WTH is going on.
 
If that is what it takes to stop the burning, looting, and murder, without the government having to go in with men and guns and possibly have to injure or kill people to stop it, I am all for it. If the consequences for committing felonies while trying to destroy our government are so high you get put away, I am cool with it. You know in advance what will happen if you go from peaceful protester to felonious rioter. You know the rules in advance....play ball as you see fit...don't do the crime if can't pay the time.

First time offender on a 20 year sentence might do what, 2.5 - 5 years MAX.

Put in some big hefty fines on top for the rich white kids, I am dead serious about that, shame on the parents for raising spoiled shitheads, many live at home, they know WTH is going on.
IF they can use the threat of sedition to get plea deals including prison time for these revolutionaries, go for it.
 
It's people like @Ponca Dan who will wake up one morning and wonder why he can't travel from one place to another in his town without having violent, marxist goon squads check his papers.
That’s an interesting conclusion you have drawn based on my comments about what actions I think go to the level of sedition. I wonder if you are able to outline step by step the process you employed that led you from my comments to your conclusion.
 
That’s an interesting conclusion you have drawn based on my comments about what actions I think go to the level of sedition. I wonder if you are able to outline step by step the process you employed that led you from my comments to your conclusion.

So does multiple people throwing molotov cocktails at a Federal Courthouse in Portland reach that level? This happened. Does arresting those individuals threaten peaceful protesting in any way? If the answer is no (which it is), then the whole story in the OP is more TDS-driven BS.
 
So does multiple people throwing molotov cocktails at a Federal Courthouse in Portland reach that level? This happened. Does arresting those individuals threaten peaceful protesting in any way? If the answer is no (which it is), then the whole story in the OP is more TDS-driven BS.

They poured liquid concrete in the locks hoping to lock people inside and burn police alive in Seattle. They have a picture.

 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
They poured liquid concrete in the locks hoping to lock people inside and burn police alive in Seattle. They have a picture.

There is no doubt in my mind that what you are describing is criminal activity, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. I just don’t think most of it would fall under sedition laws. That’s just my opinion. I have no idea if it is seditious (under the law) or not. Someone like JD would be the person on this board to know better than any of us.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that what you are describing is criminal activity, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. I just don’t think most of it would fall under sedition laws. That’s just my opinion. I have no idea if it is seditious (under the law) or not. Someone like JD would be the person on this board to know better than any of us.

That’s cool. I am not trying to change anyone’s opinion. My opinion is that the threat of serious prosecution could be such a deterrent that it would saves lives all around, the rioters, the police, and innocent civilians. AND, if you know how the laws will be applied then if your break them it is all on you, not LE.

My mind is made up, could careless what anyone thinks and I was not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I want people who try to lock cops up and burn them put away for a long time, could careless what they call the stupid law or how they have to do it. Situation that the threat to life, liberty, and property exceeds the rights of animals to try to murder and maim. This is just one example. Common sense to me.

We overthink so much shit not even funny.
 
Last edited:
There is no doubt in my mind that what you are describing is criminal activity, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. I just don’t think most of it would fall under sedition laws. That’s just my opinion. I have no idea if it is seditious (under the law) or not. Someone like JD would be the person on this board to know better than any of us.

But thats really not the point is it? Whether its convictable is a decision for a jury to decide. The fact is, its close enough to be prosecutable, and it clearly doesn't apply to the peaceful protestors which is the linkage your article tried to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
But thats really not the point is it? Whether its convictable is a decision for a jury to decide. The fact is, its close enough to be prosecutable, and it clearly doesn't apply to the peaceful protestors which is the linkage your article tried to make.
What article was mine?

In the din of rioting it is probably impossible for a policeman to know for sure who is being peaceful and who is not. I suspect a lot of peaceful people out exercising their rights might get caught up in a web of arrests.

My concern on this issue is the same concern I have on almost every issue: I do not want to see an increase in police power. A tyrannical government is far more dangerous to our national health than a rioting mob. My fear is peaceful people will become so fearful of rioting mobs they will agree to permit the government any authority to stamp it out, even if it means adding to the development of a police state.

IMO most of the rioting should be a local
issue, the feds should stay out of it. The exception being protecting federal property. If the people of the community voted in mayors and DA’s and police chiefs that will not live up to their duties that’s on them. We are supposed to have a relatively benign non-interventionist national government, and I, for one, would like to keep it that way. If we’ve learned nothing else we should know by now that if we cede any”unconstitutional” authority to the feds they will be hard pressed to give it back.

Today the leftists are running amok which is leading Trump loyalists to insist he do something, whether he has legal authority or not. But it sets yet another precedent, one that a leftist President in the future will surely remember when he wants to utilize the same power. I think it is best if we deny the authority from the get go.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that what you are describing is criminal activity, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. I just don’t think most of it would fall under sedition laws. That’s just my opinion. I have no idea if it is seditious (under the law) or not. Someone like JD would be the person on this board to know better than any of us.

Don't try to pull your PA AF shit on me.

I'm hip to your game.

Do your own damned research and argument. Support your own legal opinion with, you know....law.
 
Last edited:
Don't try to pull your PA AF shit on me.

I'm hip to your game.

Do your own damned research and argument. Support your own legal opinion with, you know....law.
OK, I stand corrected, and insultingly so! I guess JD is not the one who would know better than any of us.
 
Again, PA AF.

Not what I said at all, but you do you....you always do.
Don't we all do ourselves? Besides, I didn't ask you to do research and tell us what you found. I merely stated you would probably know better than any of us. How you were insulted by a compliment is puzzling. But that's OK, that's what you do. You do you...you always do.
 
Here is what frustrates me. We are a modern society with a ton laws. How is it, we are arguing how we have to go about charging people who does this shit? I mean seriously? This is a serious question? How does it come to this? We have been doing this for decades and this is seasoned people. We look like idiots.

How do average people look at this and not go WTH is wrong with these officials and get them all out?

Of all the things that have been argued over the last few months the fact this is some big legal issue concerns me the most. My gosh, there has to be a buffet line of options and no one can take the bull by the horns and if they do people are going to debate what is right while justice is delayed or never served? Shit, usually they try to throw the whole buffet line at them if they can. Prosecutors I believe are much smarter than their actions are showing.

I understand the politics and some of the nuances involved in jurisdiction, etc... But we have a really screwed up LE situation when no one agrees upon or knows in what direction to drive the vehicle in order to file “appropriate” charges and half the passengers in the vehicle seem to be ok driving the thing off the cliff.

The problem here is not how to legally do this,
much bigger issues here going on IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Don't we all do ourselves? Besides, I didn't ask you to do research and tell us what you found. I merely stated you would probably know better than any of us. How you were insulted by a compliment is puzzling. But that's OK, that's what you do. You do you...you always do.

Who said I was insulted?

You’re making shit up now.

Quote where I said I was insulted.

You’re not the only one that can this PA AF game Danno.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT