Chillicothe
Platinum Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 10,157
- 6,512
- 938
This is a follow-along thread to that excellent thread offered by the poster Toto.
(This one: Sedition Tracker sedition)
But what my avatar here offers is the fact-checker organization affiliated with the Tampa Times ---Politifact.
They published this piece yesterday:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could Jan. 6 rioters be charged with sedition?
PolitiFact: It seems likely, since there is significant evidence that they planned to interrupt the execution of a law.
By PolitiFact 3/24/2021
"In recent years, it’s been rare to see prosecutors file sedition charges. But there are signs that participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot could face such charges in the coming months.
Michael R. Sherwin, the federal prosecutor who until recently led the Justice Department’s investigation into the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that some of the participants could soon face sedition-related charges.
“I personally believe the evidence is trending toward that, and probably meets those elements,” Sherwin said in an interview broadcast March 21. “I believe the facts do support those charges. And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that.”
Legal experts told PolitiFact they generally agreed with Sherwin’s assessment that a sedition prosecution could be appropriate for the attack on the Capitol, given what was happening in the building that day, and the trail of evidence the participants left behind.
We wanted to dive into what that means.
Sedition broadly refers to anti-government conduct. It’s important to recognize that there are two major varieties, which are often confused.
One type of sedition involves anti-government speech. Prosecutions for this type of sedition have a controversial history, with critics saying the government unfairly targeted constitutionally protected political dissent. This variety of sedition is often referred to as “seditious libel.”
The other type of sedition involves anti-government acts, rather than just speech. Prosecutions of this type are much more rare historically, but this is the category that would most likely apply to the events of Jan. 6.
Seditious conspiracy
The kind of sedition that could be an issue in the Jan. 6 legal fallout involves acts, not just speech.
Under current federal law, a seditious conspiracy is defined as two or more persons conspiring to do one of two things by force. One is to overthrow the Government of the United States. The other is “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The law comes with a fine or imprisonment up to 20 years, or both.
Experts said a prosecution for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government would be plausible, but challenging.
However, there’s another provision of the law available to prosecutors — conspiring to interfere with the execution of a law — that would be an easier vehicle for Jan. 6-related prosecutions, since the rioters who entered the Capitol were there as lawmakers were carrying out their constitutional duty to officially count the electoral votes for president.
“I believe there will be strong, prosecutable cases under the federal seditious conspiracy statute,” said Rodney A. Smolla, dean of Widener University’s Delaware Law School.
The rioters “clearly wanted to shut down by force the execution of the law then being voted upon in Congress,” said James Robenalt, a lawyer with an expertise in political crises. The law “doesn’t get much more squarely on point.”
To make a conspiracy case, prosecutors would have to prove intent and the existence of a concrete agreement among the participants. This is always a challenge for prosecutors, experts said, but in this case, they may have an advantage.
Many participants in the storming of the Capitol “left a documentary record on email, social media or videos which would provide clear evidence of an agreement,” said Carlton Larson, a law professor at the University of California-Davis. Some of them were members of specific anti-government groups or militias.
For their part, the defendants in a seditious conspiracy case are likely to raise First Amendment claims, and “argue they are being prosecuted for protected activities: advocating overthrow of government in the abstract, or engaging in political protest,” said Timothy Zick, a law professor at the College of William & Mary.
But experts said that if a tangible agreement is proven, a First Amendment defense would likely be weak.
“Conspiracy is not speech,” Stone said. “If you agree to rob a bank with someone else, you don’t get First Amendment protection” for your discussions."
(ps...underlining by my avatar)
www.tampabay.com
..........................................................................................................................................
It gets curious-er and curious-er.
True that?
(This one: Sedition Tracker sedition)
But what my avatar here offers is the fact-checker organization affiliated with the Tampa Times ---Politifact.
They published this piece yesterday:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could Jan. 6 rioters be charged with sedition?
PolitiFact: It seems likely, since there is significant evidence that they planned to interrupt the execution of a law.
By PolitiFact 3/24/2021
"In recent years, it’s been rare to see prosecutors file sedition charges. But there are signs that participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot could face such charges in the coming months.
Michael R. Sherwin, the federal prosecutor who until recently led the Justice Department’s investigation into the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that some of the participants could soon face sedition-related charges.
“I personally believe the evidence is trending toward that, and probably meets those elements,” Sherwin said in an interview broadcast March 21. “I believe the facts do support those charges. And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that.”
Legal experts told PolitiFact they generally agreed with Sherwin’s assessment that a sedition prosecution could be appropriate for the attack on the Capitol, given what was happening in the building that day, and the trail of evidence the participants left behind.
We wanted to dive into what that means.
Sedition broadly refers to anti-government conduct. It’s important to recognize that there are two major varieties, which are often confused.
One type of sedition involves anti-government speech. Prosecutions for this type of sedition have a controversial history, with critics saying the government unfairly targeted constitutionally protected political dissent. This variety of sedition is often referred to as “seditious libel.”
The other type of sedition involves anti-government acts, rather than just speech. Prosecutions of this type are much more rare historically, but this is the category that would most likely apply to the events of Jan. 6.
Seditious conspiracy
The kind of sedition that could be an issue in the Jan. 6 legal fallout involves acts, not just speech.
Under current federal law, a seditious conspiracy is defined as two or more persons conspiring to do one of two things by force. One is to overthrow the Government of the United States. The other is “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The law comes with a fine or imprisonment up to 20 years, or both.
Experts said a prosecution for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government would be plausible, but challenging.
However, there’s another provision of the law available to prosecutors — conspiring to interfere with the execution of a law — that would be an easier vehicle for Jan. 6-related prosecutions, since the rioters who entered the Capitol were there as lawmakers were carrying out their constitutional duty to officially count the electoral votes for president.
“I believe there will be strong, prosecutable cases under the federal seditious conspiracy statute,” said Rodney A. Smolla, dean of Widener University’s Delaware Law School.
The rioters “clearly wanted to shut down by force the execution of the law then being voted upon in Congress,” said James Robenalt, a lawyer with an expertise in political crises. The law “doesn’t get much more squarely on point.”
To make a conspiracy case, prosecutors would have to prove intent and the existence of a concrete agreement among the participants. This is always a challenge for prosecutors, experts said, but in this case, they may have an advantage.
Many participants in the storming of the Capitol “left a documentary record on email, social media or videos which would provide clear evidence of an agreement,” said Carlton Larson, a law professor at the University of California-Davis. Some of them were members of specific anti-government groups or militias.
For their part, the defendants in a seditious conspiracy case are likely to raise First Amendment claims, and “argue they are being prosecuted for protected activities: advocating overthrow of government in the abstract, or engaging in political protest,” said Timothy Zick, a law professor at the College of William & Mary.
But experts said that if a tangible agreement is proven, a First Amendment defense would likely be weak.
“Conspiracy is not speech,” Stone said. “If you agree to rob a bank with someone else, you don’t get First Amendment protection” for your discussions."
(ps...underlining by my avatar)
Could Jan. 6 rioters be charged with sedition?
PolitiFact: It seems likely, since there is significant evidence that they planned to interrupt the execution of a law.
..........................................................................................................................................
It gets curious-er and curious-er.
True that?
