The sedition continues...

[kentuck]

Are lies and misstatements automatically seditious?

Only if they are made with the intent to tear down our government.

==============
The Google dictionary defines sedition as:

se·di·tion
/səˈdiSH(ə n/
noun: sedition; plural noun: seditions

conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

===============

I would argue that the speech and conduct of Donald J Trump is seditious.

[CincyDem]

1. And you would win that argument (IMHO) n/t

[onenote]

20. It wouldn't go anywhere in court.

The dictionary definition is irrelevant. What matters is the definition in the US Code. And that requires an effort to overthrow the government "by force".

[kentuck]

21. If not sedition, what would we call it?

Is it espionage? He seems to be working for a certain foreign country, one that is not a close ally of the United States.

Or have we reached the point where we are willing to say "there was nothing illegal or wrong" with the actions or speech of Donald J Trump?

Sometimes I think some of our laws may need a few more teeth in them?

[onenote]

22. We'd call it stupidity. But not every stupid act is a crime.

[kentuck]

41. For example?

What specifically is not a crime?

Is anything a crime if you have the money and the message machine behind you?

[wnylib]

72. What would we call it?

A bloodless (so far) coup.

[sarchasm]

71. Would the office of the Presidency constitute a "force?"

[onenote]

73. no

[rickyhall]

2. Absolutely. When Trump communicates it is seditious.

[kentuck]

8. I heard of one poll (however accurate?) that said 72 % of Republicans believed election was fraud.

It is Trump who is pushing the "fraud" stories. He is weakening our democracy and the trust that the American people had in our electoral system.

[Blue Owl]

3. Sad!tion

[Laelth]

4. Trump CAN'T commit sedition at this time.

This is HIS government (until Jan. 20). Are you suggesting that Trump has acted or spoken with the intent of overthrowing his own government?



-Laelth

[drmeow]

6. Sedition law

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

[Laelth]

13. Right now the Trump Administration IS the government of the US.

You don’t actually believe that he is trying to overthrow himself, do you?



-Laelth

[HariSeldon]

34. Actually, Trump's administration the executive part, but

The government also includes Congress (the legislature), the judiciary, and the Constitution.

[Laelth]

39. I don't think Trump is trying to overthrow either Congress or the SCOTUS.

The Constitution IS NOT the government, but I don’t think Trump’s trying to overthrow it, either.

-Laelth

[paleotn]

37. The Trump admin is PART of the US government.

Not the totality of the US government. He, Congress and the Judiciary are co-equal partners. One partner advocating for the possible violent usurpation of another partner's Constitutional powers is sedition.

[treestar]

67. Good point too

He knows he will be out soon, too, so his sabotage goes on.

[drmeow]

44. It is not the government or the administration

it is the Trump reelection campaign and Trump the candidate who is behaving in seditious ways. Now, he may be abusing the office by using it to do campaign work in this case but that is violation of yet another law (and he has been doing that for a long time). That doesn't change the argument that the Trump campaign and Trump the candidate is trying to prevent, hinder, and delay the execution of the law.

[kentuck]

46. You make an elegant distinction.

We should not confuse the "government" or the "Administration" with the Trump re-election campaign or Trump, the candidate.

[drmeow]

49. I am not an expert on election law

(or any law for that matter) but I'm pretty sure that the law makes a pretty clear distinction (hence elected officials can't request campaign contributions using their office letterhead, etc.). I think the Republicans and the Trump campaign would like very much for us to forget that those two things are different. They want it to seem like the election officials are attacking the President because that helps them.

Also, the whole E. Jean Carroll libel case is a reminder that not everything Trump does while technically President is government business.

The idea that the person is the government and everything the person does is a governmental act is very dictatorial.

[kentuck]

50. Very perceptive.

Thanks for your comments.

[drmeow]

53. I have this thread to thank

because I hadn't actually thought through it before. It was only after the suggestion that his actions aren't seditious because he is the government that I had to probe why my gut was saying "no, that's not relevant." For me it is a reminder of why this is such a slippery slope and why we are in such dangerous territory. If DUers can fall into the trap of "he IS the government," think of how easy it is for people who are not as politically savvy or who don't think about these things the way we do. Its like a constant reality check.

It will be easier when he is out of office but we can't let down our guard - even after 1/20/21!

[kentuck]

54. "Eternal vigilance" and all that stuff...

A rational person cannot say that he is not a threat to our country, and our democracy.

[drmeow]

55. Which is also a reminder

of why I come here every single day even though I don't actually post much. I have and continue to learn SO much from DU. Even when people annoy the **** out of me or I just want to scream "SHUT UP" (thank GOD for ignore), I still have to come back. It also reminds me that I don't have to listen to the Reich wing to get other perspectives and see other political viewpoints!

[Volaris]

28. Fits what those toons in Michigan did when they tried to kidnap the governor..

2 decades sounds appropriate.

[kentuck]

10. It is not "his" government.

It is the People's government.

[Laelth]

12. Yes, it's our government. It's called the Trump Administration.

And I don’t think that President Trump is saying or doing anything to encourage people to overthrow the Trump administration.

-Laelth

[kentuck]

14. Was he inciting people to rebel against the state when he tweeted "Liberate Michigan!"?

No doubt, it would be hard to prove. But, when these same people that are "incited" threaten to take over the state and execute elected officials of that state, and threaten to kidnap the Governor of the State, then it is a very serious matter.

[Laelth]

23. If your interpretation of sedition is correct ...

... then every single person who advocates for the abolition of the electoral college is guilty of sedition because the electoral college is fundamental to our SYSTEM of government.

No, sedition is calling for or acting toward the overthrow of an existing government, i.e the Trump Administration. I don’t think that Trump is trying to overthrow his own government.

Once the Biden administration comes to power, then, maybe. Then Trump’s words and acts might constitute sedition. Personally, I am opposed to sedition as a crime. It’s always political speech, and that’s highly protected by our 1st Amendment.

-Laelth

[SophieJean]

27. What would you call an attempted coup-

since that is clearly trump's intent.

[Laelth]

32. He's just filing lawsuits.

But I will grant you that his actions are closer to an “attempted coup” than they are to sedition. His administration remains “the government of the United States.” Until that changes on Jan. 20, 2021, I can’t justify accusing him of either a coup or sedition. It’s still his government. He’s not trying to overthrow himself.

-Laelth

[Volaris]

29. That's why the legal definition requires force (something beyond just speech)

[kentuck]

30. I appreciate your comments.

They are always well-reasoned.

[Laelth]

43. My pleasure. n/t

-Laelth

[treestar]

68. The Constitution can be amended

So discussing that is not sedition.

Overthrowing it would be wanting to overturn the Constitution - the whole thing, and the system of checks and balances and the state/federal power divide.

[c-rational]

45. Incorrect my dear Laelth. In my opinion when the dUmpster undermines the legitimacy of the

US government and its election laws, he is acting in a seditious manner. He is also undermining the legitimacy of the President elect.

[treestar]

66. +1

My first thought when I read that too.

[roamer65]

5. It is definitely sedition.

It is an attempt to overthrow our constitutional form of government.

The very Constitution he swore to uphold.

[spanone]

7. Overtly seditious.

[Towlie]

9. If those Open Skies jets are destroyed then that'll be an obvious act of sedition.

 
←

Air Force says no decision yet on fate of Offutt-based Open Skies jets

Air Force officials at Offutt Air Force Base and in the Pentagon told The World-Herald that no move has been made to sell or scrap two Offutt-based jets tasked with flying photo reconnaissance missions under the international Open Skies Treaty.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finalized U.S. withdrawal from the pact Sunday, six months after giving notice to the 33 other member nations, including Canada, Russia and most nations in Europe, of the planned pullout.

“United States withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies is now effective,” Pompeo said in a tweet.

The Trump administration proceeded with its plans although President-elect Joe Biden had said when he was running that the U.S. should remain in the treaty.

The Wall Street Journal — quoting an unnamed “senior U.S. official” — reported over the weekend that the Trump administration has moved to declare the two aging OC-135 aircraft that fly the mission as “excess defense articles” and will sell them or scrap them.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow amplified those claims on her program Monday, citing the Journal’s reporting.

The Open Skies Treaty at a Glance

[kentuck]

11. I think that would be strong evidence of sedition, also.

They will have to decide how they want to handle it, after the new Administration is sworn in, I suppose?

They truly need a strong and patriotic Attorney-General who believes in our Democracy and our Constitution, in my opinion.

[Volaris]

33. I thought the Senate had to approve all treaties, and changes to them?

[Pepsidog]

15. Wouldn't modern satellite technology render older spy planes obsolete?

[kentuck]

18. I'm slow today, Pepsidog. :-)

Make that analogy for me.

[Pepsidog]

24. It's not you, what was I thinking? Of course it's a bad idea. Thanks for your comment.

[kentuck]

26. Happy Holidays!

[Redleg]

16. Trump is ginning up a revolt against the next administration

as he continues to implicate the "deep state," especially the FBI and CIA in election fraud. Of course Trump's not trying to overthrow his own administration but he is trying to incite people to change our current limits on the presidency. His speech is seditious in the sense that it seeks to install him as the next president against the will of the voters. I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but I have been around and I believe many reasonable people would see Trump's language as an incitement to undermine the election, the next presidency, and to keep Trump in office. His followers would probably agree with this too.

[kentuck]

25. If he continues these types of behaviors and incitement to violence, after he leaves the WH...

...then the Justice Dept and the FBI would have no choice but to listen to his phone calls?

Criminal behavior should not be permitted by ex-Presidents or anyone else.

Much will depend on how the new AG and the FBI work together?

[pandr32]

17. And I wouldn't argue with that!

[bdamomma]

19. I agree

with your posting kentuck. Also he is an enemy of the state.

I want him gone, he is committing 2nd murder too.

[Turin_C3PO]

31. I think

his actions right now are very,very, close to sedition. Not sure it’s there yet but if and when he officially endorses political violence then it will absolutely be sedition in my mind.

[kentuck]

35. Numerous times he has called for people to "liberate" or take "the 2nd Amendment" solution...

There is little doubt but that he incites hatred and division. Is that a threat against our government?

There have been isolated incidents. Like the guy that drove to El Paso to kill all those people. It is difficult to look at it as "just politics".

[mgardener]

36. Been arguing the same thing for a week

On twitter.
Fines for sedition
Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

[kentuck]

38. Would an election be considered a "lawful authority"?

Or just a "lawful act" granted by the authority within our Constitution.

He is trying to violently suggest it is all a "fraud". Is that an act against the interests of the people, or is that simply "freedom of speech"? Those are complex questions.

[billh58]

40. I would agree that

Dump's intent is seditious, but he has played the "plausible deniability" game long enough to not actually call for an attack on our government. He plays his gullible following into dangerous confrontational positions by insinuation and double-speak: to an armed and dangerous group of criminals: "stand down, and standby," which is right up there with "Second Amendment solution," and speaking about white-supremacist murderers: "there are good people on both sides." Dog whistles to his rabid followers are his Nazi-inspired means of mind-control.

The Orange Anus-mouth is a racist bigot, and instigator of violence who uses the highest office in the land to sow seeds of division and discord to undermine Democracy and to further his own twisted goals of a right-wing fascist dictatorship where the generals swear allegiance to a dictator and not the People.

[kentuck]

42. Good points!

[Evolve Dammit]

47. He's been trying every angle to tear it down for 4 years. Yes, it's sedition and throw treason in.

[ewagner]

48. Black's Law Dictionary:

1. An agreement, communication, or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting treason or some lesser commotion against public authority

2. Advocacy aimed at inciting or producing---and likely to incite or produce---imminent lawless action.

[kentuck]

52. Thanks for that, ewagner!

If Trump is not sanctioning sedition, he is coming might close, in my opinion.

He should hope there is no violence from his grievances and unfounded charges. He might have to go before a judge?

[ewagner]

56. You're welcome Kentuck!

I think the definition strengthens your post.

[kentuck]

57. Better than pounding the table?

[onenote]

58. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant. The statute governs, not the dictionary.

18 USC §2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 USC §2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

[kentuck]

59. I would agree that US Law Statutes should take precedence over dictionary definition.

Although I think we might look at this excerpt from your comment from a different perspective?

"Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction."

[onenote]

61. Still have to prove the "by force or violence" part.

[kentuck]

62. Can there be "attempted sedition" without "force or violence"?

Like attempted burglary, attempted murder, attempted evasion, etc? The intent is inclusive in a lot of laws, I have noticed.

[onenote]

63. Nope.

Keep in mind that there is a good reason for construing the crime of sedition narrowly. For example, when millions of Americans took to the streets on January 21, 2017 urging people to "resist", it wasn't sedition, but an overly broad reading of the statute might allow someone to try to claim it was.

[kentuck]

65. Whatever it might be called?

Most security experts consider him a threat to national security. Why do they think that?

[fearnobush]

69. Isn't Barr attempting to charge protesters who vandalized and tore down confederate statues

with sedition. Not sure these acts would hold up in court. It’s not a act against the government as a whole but rather individual acts against government property that’s not even federal in most places.

[onenote]

70. You're right.It wouldn't hold up in court.

[dchill]

51. No argument from me.

[lees1975]

60. And I would agree.

We are seeing one of the glaring weaknesses of our constitution in that it seems to be powerless to allow enforcement of the law because it has been undermined by partisan politics.

[miyazaki]

64. He always was a seditionist.

Some here are hilarious, and have nothing better to do in their life that they would choose to argue this.