....as long as we are talking about sedition ....

[playtime]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

What was spying on Trump?

Really? You're gonna bring out that old chestnut? Trump wasn't spied on, but the idiot who stole Pelosi's computer was going to try to sell it to the Russians. Sorry, but even if there were spying going on, it stayed in this country. Trying to sell a congressional computer to one of our biggest adversaries is sedition in my book.

Trump was spied on. Documents and transcripts have proven it. 0 are being held accountable.

barr would have been all over it had that happened.

he wasn't cause he couldn't cause it didn't happen.

see how that works? now put it to bed.

 

[Lastamender]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

What was spying on Trump?

Really? You're gonna bring out that old chestnut? Trump wasn't spied on, but the idiot who stole Pelosi's computer was going to try to sell it to the Russians. Sorry, but even if there were spying going on, it stayed in this country. Trying to sell a congressional computer to one of our biggest adversaries is sedition in my book.

Trump was spied on. Documents and transcripts have proven it. 0 are being held accountable.

barr would have been all over it had that happened.

he wasn't cause he couldn't cause it didn't happen.

see how that works? now put it to bed.

William Barr believes spying "did occur" on Trump campaign

The attorney general testified a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released "hopefully next week"

www.cbsnews.com

 

[playtime]

Now There's No Denying It: Obama's FBI Spied On Trump... Period

If you are conducting surveillance that is not authorized and, in fact, you lied to get the authorization, you are no longer conducting

townhall.com

Townhall
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Townhall - Media Bias Fact Check

• Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased and Questionable based on consistent one-sided reporting that always favors the right and numerous failed fact checks.

 

[playtime]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

What was spying on Trump?

Really? You're gonna bring out that old chestnut? Trump wasn't spied on, but the idiot who stole Pelosi's computer was going to try to sell it to the Russians. Sorry, but even if there were spying going on, it stayed in this country. Trying to sell a congressional computer to one of our biggest adversaries is sedition in my book.

Trump was spied on. Documents and transcripts have proven it. 0 are being held accountable.

barr would have been all over it had that happened.

he wasn't cause he couldn't cause it didn't happen.

see how that works? now put it to bed.

William Barr believes spying "did occur" on Trump campaign

The attorney general testified a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released "hopefully next week"

www.cbsnews.com

& what he said to spread the bull, & what he actually DID & could have done ... is a chasm.

fail.

 

[Lastamender]

Now There's No Denying It: Obama's FBI Spied On Trump... Period

If you are conducting surveillance that is not authorized and, in fact, you lied to get the authorization, you are no longer conducting

townhall.com

Townhall
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Townhall - Media Bias Fact Check

• Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased and Questionable based on consistent one-sided reporting that always favors the right and numerous failed fact checks.

They have the same "mixed" rating CNN does. Those fact checkers mean nothing.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Now There's No Denying It: Obama's FBI Spied On Trump... Period

If you are conducting surveillance that is not authorized and, in fact, you lied to get the authorization, you are no longer conducting

townhall.com

Really? An opinion piece by some right wing person? Like I said, give me CREDIBLE links that Trump was spied on.

 

[playtime]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

What was spying on Trump?

Really? You're gonna bring out that old chestnut? Trump wasn't spied on, but the idiot who stole Pelosi's computer was going to try to sell it to the Russians. Sorry, but even if there were spying going on, it stayed in this country. Trying to sell a congressional computer to one of our biggest adversaries is sedition in my book.

Trump was spied on. Documents and transcripts have proven it. 0 are being held accountable.

barr would have been all over it had that happened.

he wasn't cause he couldn't cause it didn't happen.

see how that works? now put it to bed.

William Barr believes spying "did occur" on Trump campaign

The attorney general testified a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released "hopefully next week"

www.cbsnews.com

your deflection, however impotent -

is duly noted.

 

[playtime]

Now There's No Denying It: Obama's FBI Spied On Trump... Period

If you are conducting surveillance that is not authorized and, in fact, you lied to get the authorization, you are no longer conducting

townhall.com

Townhall
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Townhall - Media Bias Fact Check

• Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased and Questionable based on consistent one-sided reporting that always favors the right and numerous failed fact checks.

They have the same "mixed" rating CNN does. Those fact checkers mean nothing.

why didn't ol' bill bring charges, then ...huh? huh huh HUH?

you know damn well, if he could have - he would have.

he didn't.

strike 3.

 

[Lastamender]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

What was spying on Trump?

Really? You're gonna bring out that old chestnut? Trump wasn't spied on, but the idiot who stole Pelosi's computer was going to try to sell it to the Russians. Sorry, but even if there were spying going on, it stayed in this country. Trying to sell a congressional computer to one of our biggest adversaries is sedition in my book.

Trump was spied on. Documents and transcripts have proven it. 0 are being held accountable.

barr would have been all over it had that happened.

he wasn't cause he couldn't cause it didn't happen.

see how that works? now put it to bed.

William Barr believes spying "did occur" on Trump campaign

The attorney general testified a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released "hopefully next week"

www.cbsnews.com

& what he said to spread the bull, & what he actually DID & could have done ... is a chasm.

fail.

You just admitted the corruption in the DOJ. Someone should have been indicted. The election was stolen so we know they are corrupt, but thanks anyway.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

What was spying on Trump?

Really? You're gonna bring out that old chestnut? Trump wasn't spied on, but the idiot who stole Pelosi's computer was going to try to sell it to the Russians. Sorry, but even if there were spying going on, it stayed in this country. Trying to sell a congressional computer to one of our biggest adversaries is sedition in my book.

Trump was spied on. Documents and transcripts have proven it. 0 are being held accountable.

barr would have been all over it had that happened.

he wasn't cause he couldn't cause it didn't happen.

see how that works? now put it to bed.

William Barr believes spying "did occur" on Trump campaign

The attorney general testified a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released "hopefully next week"

www.cbsnews.com

Barr "believes" that spying occurred, but never presented any credible evidence to back up his beliefs.

 

[Lastamender]

Now There's No Denying It: Obama's FBI Spied On Trump... Period

If you are conducting surveillance that is not authorized and, in fact, you lied to get the authorization, you are no longer conducting

townhall.com

Townhall
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Townhall - Media Bias Fact Check

• Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased and Questionable based on consistent one-sided reporting that always favors the right and numerous failed fact checks.

They have the same "mixed" rating CNN does. Those fact checkers mean nothing.

why didn't ol' bill bring charges, then ...huh? huh huh HUH?

you know damn well, if he could have - he would have.

he didn't.

strike 3.

View attachment 472275

He did not because he was told not to, and not by Trump. Washington DC is rotten. The election being allowed to to be stolen is conclusive proof.

 

[playtime]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

What was spying on Trump?

Really? You're gonna bring out that old chestnut? Trump wasn't spied on, but the idiot who stole Pelosi's computer was going to try to sell it to the Russians. Sorry, but even if there were spying going on, it stayed in this country. Trying to sell a congressional computer to one of our biggest adversaries is sedition in my book.

Trump was spied on. Documents and transcripts have proven it. 0 are being held accountable.

barr would have been all over it had that happened.

he wasn't cause he couldn't cause it didn't happen.

see how that works? now put it to bed.

William Barr believes spying "did occur" on Trump campaign

The attorney general testified a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released "hopefully next week"

www.cbsnews.com

& what he said to spread the bull, & what he actually DID & could have done ... is a chasm.

fail.

You just admitted the corruption in the DOJ. Someone should have been indicted. The election was stolen so we know they are corrupt, but thanks anyway.

nope. you lie.

liar liar the trump humper's pants are on fire.

 

[Lastamender]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

What was spying on Trump?

Really? You're gonna bring out that old chestnut? Trump wasn't spied on, but the idiot who stole Pelosi's computer was going to try to sell it to the Russians. Sorry, but even if there were spying going on, it stayed in this country. Trying to sell a congressional computer to one of our biggest adversaries is sedition in my book.

Trump was spied on. Documents and transcripts have proven it. 0 are being held accountable.

barr would have been all over it had that happened.

he wasn't cause he couldn't cause it didn't happen.

see how that works? now put it to bed.

William Barr believes spying "did occur" on Trump campaign

The attorney general testified a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released "hopefully next week"

www.cbsnews.com

Barr "believes" that spying occurred, but never presented any credible evidence to back up his beliefs.

Wrong. Again documents and transcripts prove it. They also show they knew Russia was a hoax in 2017. Please. The election was stolen and you are happy with criminals, who hate Americans, running the country.

I do not expect anything from you but tired rhetoric and excuses for the obvious corruption.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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)

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.

www.tampabay.com

..........................................................................................................................................

It gets curious-er and curious-er.
True that?

Are you a slave?

 

[toobfreak]

Got any proof that the election was stolen?

Jesus do any of you idiots fucking READ? I've stated that 100 times and have been trying to get together a structured debate for two months now getting just ONE of you jacked off a-holes to go one on one in showing how any of the evidence has been disproven!

 

[Concerned American]

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)

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.

www.tampabay.com

..........................................................................................................................................

It gets curious-er and curious-er.
True that?

 

[Concerned American]

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)

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.

www.tampabay.com

..........................................................................................................................................

It gets curious-er and curious-er.
True that?

Are you a slave?
View attachment 472282

If the fence, concertina, and Nat'l Guard troops are any indication, liberty is right around the corner.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Nearly three months on from that "day that will live in infamy" (sounds like an idiot child) and NOT ONE charge of sedition or insurrection. I wonder why?"

Patience, Grasshopper, patience.

Memorably: " 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,”

Some, I suppose, may say it is the new phenomena: guilt-by-selfie.
Ain't that a wonder?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He did not because he was told not to, and not by Trump.

How interesting.
Wanna name names on who it was who told him not to present all that damning evidence?

Batter up, poster 'Lastamender'.
Show the forum you got game.

 

[lennypartiv]

So......................breaking into the Capitol, destroying property and stealing computers (and threatening to sell it to Russia), isn't sedition?

So your okay with the prosecutor turning a blind eye towards a stolen election?

 

[evenflow1969]

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.

that is exactly what the oath keepers, proudboys & 3%ers were doing.

Oath Keeper planned with Proud Boys, Three Percenters before Capitol attack, prosecutors say
Katie Wedell Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY


The leader of the Florida Oath Keepers coordinated with members of two other extremist groups prior to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, federal prosecutors said in a court filing Tuesday.

The filing, arguing that Kelly Meggs should remain in jail, includes records of Facebook messages in which he discusses plans for Jan. 6 and says he is working with leaders from the Proud Boys and Three Percenters. Members of all three groups have been charged in the assault on the Capitol.

It's the first time prosecutors have presented evidence of wider coordination among extremist groups.

Oath Keeper planned with Proud Boys, Three Percenters before Capitol attack, prosecutors say

USA Today....The nation's comic book.

So I take it you did not see the Trump appointed official from the DOJ say everything thing that was in the USA Today article. I guess you were to busy being one of those moronic unreasonable people the kraken was talking about in her defense against the Dominion lawsuit.