In case anyone asks, Trump et al. are guilty of "18 U.S. Code 2384 - Seditious conspiracy"

[berni_mccoy]

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

The 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.

Trump campaign et al. conspired (colluded) with Russia to take information from the DNC and Hillary's campaign (which we know from Don Jr.'s admissions and emails) as well as to disrupt election systems in several states (which we know from all the intelligence agencies) in order to gain Trump's commitment to prevent or delay the execution of Russian sanctions (which we know from Flynn's conversations with Russia)

It is that simple and there is enough evidence now IN PUBLIC to indict.

[Goodheart]

1. Seems a stretch.

The definition of "war" would have to be interpreted by the courts to also include cyber warfare.

[berni_mccoy]

3. war is only one of the list items in the law... there are many other items, including

taking property and disrupting systems and delaying execution of laws that are all conveniently ORed together.

[rzemanfl]

2. Hillary's campaign stuff was not "taken by force" nor was it "property of the United States." n/t

[berni_mccoy]

5. DNC, Podesta and Hillary's campaign all willingly gave up their protected information?

I don't think so.

[rzemanfl]

9. You're confusing "without consent" and "by force." If I hotwire your car and take it I didn't do it

"by force" if I hit you over the head, knock you out and take the keys out of your pocket, I took it "by force." How was the DNC, Podesta and Hillary stuff "property of the United States?"

[berni_mccoy]

12. As someone who works in cybersecurity, hacking someones information is an act of force

And it is what Russia did in exchange for getting the promise of lifting sanctions by the Trump administration.

Furthermore, Property of the US would involve the networks that these information systems ran on. Nearly all information traveling across networks in this country flows through government owned infrastructure.

[rzemanfl]

16. Getting a password at gunpoint is an act of force, guessing it is not.

So everything on the Internet, DU, the porn, eBay, Amazon, my emails and yours are "property of the United States?" Give me a break.

[berni_mccoy]

18. Pentagon disagrees with you

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43224451/ns/us_news-security/t/sources-us-decides-cyber-attack-can-be-act-war/#.WW0ptDOZM1A

"Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage by another country could constitute an act of war"

[rzemanfl]

20. Please just get a dictionary. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

22. Please just keep up with the times.

[rzemanfl]

27. I am about a year older than the 69 year-old law you cite. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

29. Your age does not give you advantage on the current applicability of the law.

[rzemanfl]

32. If all these messages are "property of the United States" we can let the government

decide that.

[bench scientist]

7. one does not have to have every condition listed.

the "or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, " seems the strongest.

[rzemanfl]

10. Where is the force? n/t

[bench scientist]

11. fair point.nt

[berni_mccoy]

13. It's not a fair point. Stealing information is an act of force.

[rzemanfl]

15. What's fair isn't part of it. You are, unfortunately, wrong.

If someone stole my wife's panties off the clothesline it would not be an act of force and computer hacking isn't either.

[berni_mccoy]

17. What's your investment in defending Trump/Russia on this?

[rzemanfl]

19. Good grief! What law school did you go to?

Oh, and bite me.

[berni_mccoy]

21. What degree in Computer Science do you have?

Because it's clear you know nothing of the topic.

[rzemanfl]

24. If this thread was about computer science you might have a point. It isn't. n/t

[Squinch]

4. Great! I'm going to memorize that. And I disagree with the above poster that it is a stretch.

[bench scientist]

6. "or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, "

seems like a good case for this.

[Squinch]

8. I'd even argue that it constitutes an effort to overthrow the Government of the US.

The legitimate government was not allowed to be elected and this sham piece of shit government was put in its place.

[rzemanfl]

14. I was addressing the argument in the OP. Again, where was the force?

In this instance if ICE has a warrant for someone I know and I lie and say he left the country, I hindered without force. If I knock the ICE guy on his ass so my acquaintance can make a break for it, that would be hindering with force.

[YCHDT]

26. Breaking into email isn't force?

[rzemanfl]

28. See the post below, which explains. n/t

[onenote]

36. Nope. And breaking into your house isn't force

Breaking into your house is burglary, which is category of theft that is distinct from robbery, which is the category that involves taking property by physical force or threat of force.

[onenote]

23. There is no taking "by force" here. Law School 101.

The law distinguishes between different types of misappropriation of property.

"Theft" (or sometimes "larceny" or "stealing&quot is the term commonly used broadly to refer to the unauthorized taking of personal property with the intent not to return it.

"Robbery" is the term used to distinguish simple theft or larceny from theft that is accomplished through the use of physical force or fear of physical force (e.g., intimidation).

When the law talks about taking property by force, it is referring to physical force committed in the presence or near presence of the person whose property is misappropriated.

Sorry, but the OP's theory won't fly.

[rzemanfl]

25. Thank you. Although it appears this is a discussion about computer science and cybersecurity. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

31. Your ignorance of the currency of applicability to the law via a new medium is showing.

[rzemanfl]

33. Whatever you think you're welcome to think. But you're wrong and I am tired of this. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

30. I've seen the theft of information lead to people's deaths

The UN considers cyberattacks "use of force". Refer to stuxnet.

Ask Skinner of the election night hack on DU was a use of force.

Just because the means of force change over time, doesn't mean the law doesn't apply.

[onenote]

35. Stuxnet was an act of sabotage.

The reason that some legal experts consider the use of the stuxnet virus to attack Iran's nuclear program to be an act of "force" was that it was an attack designed to destroy or damage property. A cyberattack that kills or injures someone or destroys or damages property can be considered an act of force.

But that's a different situation from cybertheft that does not in a proximate way endanger life or property, but rather misappropriates it (and does so, unlike traditional theft, in a way that doesn't deprive the owner of the property of that property).

[berni_mccoy]

37. It was an exchange, that is, a conspiracy

Russia hacked the election and in return for the promise to lift sanctions. Stuxnet also needed to infiltrate systems before it could do damage. We do not yet know the full damage to our election system but we do not information was purged and/or modified.

[jmg257]

34. Not seeing the connection.

Winning an elections as a goal doesn't seem to fit any of the charges listed.

Winning by affecting the opinions of voters doesn't seem to fit.

[dee135]

38. National sovereignty

Our national sovereignty is something that we ask young men and woman to give their lives to preserve and protect. For President Trump to dismiss his (and his family) conspiring with a foreign nation as an acceptable political practice is an insult to all those serving in the military and their families!