General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm sorry, but I don't see the frivolous lawsuit to overturn the election as sedition
It's a bad lawsuit. It's a bad understanding of democracy. It's bad faith and bad for democracy. But I don't see that it crosses the line of sedition.
It doesn't constitute a rebellion or a call for rebellion to question the means of conducting an election. Given Republican propensity to suppress votes, questioning how a vote was conducted is the last thing we want to establish as a precedent for being seditious or disloyal.
Yes, Republicans are mostly quislings and bad faith actors in democracy, and that's a danger to the republic. We've seen the damage it does to the country. But we shouldn't be party to the criminalization of politics--a tool that the next "Trump" (and there will be a next) will gladly use if it's left as a standing precedent.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Like the phrase “criminalization of politics.”
While despicable, most of trump’s “crimes” — that people think will imprison him — are described by that phrase.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,538 posts)and it involves trying to harm or overthrow the government by means of force. Trying to overthrow the government by means of bullshit is reprehensible but it isn't sedition, and I wish people would stop using that word. It makes us look stupid and uninformed.
unblock
(56,198 posts)ok, donnie lost, but he came close, and republicans picked up seats in the house and held the senate (unless we win the daily double; even then, they did better than expected)
they can make a career out of being stupid and uninformed.
sigh.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,538 posts)
Bucky
(55,334 posts)is trooth
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Not the same as thinking they can be formally charged with the crime of sedition.
Some of them have arguably called for violence though, and when wingnuts get politically violent ... something we've already seen spatterings of ... in response to the words of these politicians?
You might have a case depending on what they said.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,538 posts)So far nobody but maybe the Proud Boys has committed the crime of sedition. Seditious speech is on the edge - if it advocates the violent overthrow of the government it can be a crime; if it advocates the overthrow of the government by bullshit it isn't.
Fullduplexxx
(8,626 posts)Theyre trying to force the election in to the house and then force the gop governors to overturn it
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,538 posts)If Ron Johnson shows up to a session of the House wielding an axe or an AK-47 and threatening to kill people if they don't vote to overturn the election, that's sedition. Spewing bullshit is unpatriotic and stupid but it's not criminal sedition.
Fullduplexxx
(8,626 posts)
moondust
(21,286 posts)Oxford English Dictionary:
sedition
n noun conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of a state or monarch.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER:
Definition of sedition
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
What they've been doing is clearly "sedition" even if not technically prosecutable under (sometimes archaic) U.S. law.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)18 USC Section 2385 states "force OR violence." So, "force" in this case means something different from violence. It's open to interpretation at the very least. What constitutes "force" in this case may not be what you think it is.
I think Flynn and Miller have both committed seditious behavior, and deserve to be punished for it. I think anyone that threw in and actively supported them in deeds is also guilty.
Here's a link to the statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
When you read legal stuff, "and" means both parts, but "or" means either one. So, you can't have "force" subsumed into "violence," in this case, because the statute doesn't state that.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,538 posts)"...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)of the First Amendment does not guarantee an absolute immunity for unprotected speech (McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985)).
They basically argued, in the name of the state of Texas, that the vote be overturned and thrown out, in effect overturning the Government. This is the "Advocacy of Action" required, and it doesn't matter if the SC would have done it or not, nor if it would have occurred instantaneously or at some date in the future. (Thank goodness that the SC turned them away for lack of standing; and they were not required to even give a reason. The Right To Petition does not include the requirement of an answer.)
I'll tell you what: I'll give you "sedition" if you'll give me "treason."
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But what we have here is not a genuine questioning of the election results. It’s a deliberate attempt to override the election results. It’s a blatant attempt too because it appears they are trying to get Black votes thrown out by delegitimizing them. It’s basically attempting voter suppression after the fact. It may even be as illegal as attempting voter suppression before the fact.
It’s not an easy situation to deal with. But it IS one we need to deal with.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)But using the courts and the legislature to make arguments, even spurious arguments, isn't be criminal or rebellious. It's obnoxious and this country exists because we support the right to be obnoxious.
I don't think they're sincere, of course, but unless they defy a judge's orders or ruling, then they're only questioning the legality of some votes, not suppressing them. That might be a moral crime, but it's not a legal one.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)since sedition has a narrow and well defined definition. They aren’t trying to overthrow the government. They’re trying to change it into their preferred construct in order to keep power. It’s really that simple.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)And, your comment here is confusing, because you have just underlined what they have done, and then stated that their seditious behavior is not seditious.
"They’re trying to change it into their preferred construct in order to keep power." Well, yeah, but their "preferred construct" is against the will of the people and against our government. They prefer Trump, but he did not get reelected. They have tried everything to avoid this fact, but it is not working for them.
So, they are advocating seditious behavior in order to get what they want: A second term for Trump. And, they want a different set of electors conveniently fitting that, or, alternatively, martial law in order to force an election result that Trump did not earn.
I would think that after multiple recounts with the same results--TRUMP LOST--that they would quit, because THAT was their "preferred construct." They prefer a win on the books that looks like Trump won by vote--but, he didn't.
So, when they run around pushing this or that, it is perilously close to being the use of "force" within the meaning of 18 USC 2385. I would really like to test this out in court, and see what the court thinks. It would not be a frivolous prosecution.
Just because Trump lost 50 times in court post election does not mean that the process was fraudulent. Not once did they present any evidence to any jurisdictional court to prove to a judge that their protest had any merit.
These people are too stupid to be our leaders.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)They are trying to retain power. It really is that simple. They’re aren’t anywhere close to overpowering the government. They obviously thought their legal “arguments” would suffice since Trump and McConnell stacked the courts and the SCOTUS. They’re too stupid to know how stupid their actions are. Most of the courts have thrown their arguments out within days and sometimes hours. Smart people would know they don’t have a leg to stand on.
Trumps Trump card has always been taking everything to court. It’s just not working for him anymore. And it’s driving him nuts.
mahatmakanejeeves
(69,854 posts)
doc03
(39,086 posts)an election when there is absolutely no evidence of election fraud and they knew it.
unblock
(56,198 posts)calling on the courts to rule in their favor despite the lack of evidence, or otherwise putting pressure on them to rule in their favor other than on the merit of the case -- or worse, as some sort of compensation for donnie having appointed them -- that goes beyond the legitimate rights of candidates to protect their right to a proper, legal election.
that's where the problem is, a perhaps some of that is even illegal.
that said, i agree, it doesn't amount to "sedition", which usually involves weapons or an appeal to use weapons to overthrow the government. of course, when they talk about second amendment solutions, they get damn close to sedition, but i haven't seen any quote yet that really amounts to what i would consider sedition.
but clearly there's plenty of room to be horrible and reprehensible in an effort to overturn an election and yet not quite amount to sedition. doesn't make what they've been doing any better, it's just the wrong word or phrase for it.
what they *are* doing is attempting a coup. fortunately, they're pretty incompetent.
this time, anyway.
C_U_L8R
(49,384 posts)But when these 'people' advocate that the military should intervene to overturn the election on their behalf... that sure seems to be creeping down the sedition path.
genxlib
(6,136 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,538 posts)to the MAGAts, and the military wouldn't do such a thing; but it's at least stochastic terrorism because if the military won't do it, some fake militia assholes very well might.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)But the proof that they're bad actors is generally in that they haven't crossed that line.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)When a member of Congress joins in on this, you've got a case
doc03
(39,086 posts)3 million more votes. If 126 Democrats and 17 AGs signed on to a lawsuit to overturn the election do you really think Republicans would be having this discussion? You know and I know damn well they would refusing to seat those Democrats and would be charging them with sedition or treason f-- your damn feelings. That's why we are always on the defensive.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)Your argument of "if it'd been the other way around, you know they woulda" is an argument based solely on your own feelings. I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about the law.
doc03
(39,086 posts)care about the law? really?
Bucky
(55,334 posts)If they join in on this call, then you've got sedition...
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/12/18/trump-insurrection-act-presidency-447986
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)If they join in on this call, then you've got sedition...
Then again, he's got his get-out-of-jail ticket in his pocket already.
lame54
(39,771 posts)It didnt work but now we are stuck with her
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,538 posts)There's no way in Hell the court would have taken up the Texas case. rump doesn't care about abortion or religious freedumb; he appointed conservative justices only because he assumed they would do what he wanted in exchange for their jobs. I don't think it ever occurred to him that even conservative justices don't owe the president a damn thing just because he appointed them.
lame54
(39,771 posts)Guliani could have submitted a piece of toilet paper that read Trump won and it would get the election overturned
I can't imagine what went wrong
Or at least they said rushing thru Barrett was to resolve any legal questions coming out of the election. The real reason they threw her on the bench was because they knew they were gonna lose.
intrepidity
(8,582 posts)that what the Rs are doing is trying to make challenges to the election process seem like an extreme and unacceptable behavior so that when they pull their next round of dirty tricks, they can preemptively abort our cries of foul play.
Yet another form of projection. They know Dems are loathe to be seen as hypocritical, and thus they leverage that positive trait for their nefarious purposes.
I truly believe this motive is playing a large part in why they are persisting in this effort.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)The other reason they persist in this folly is because they're deviants.
In sociology you learn that in a deviant subculture, the most extreme expressions of deviancy become the leaders of the group. Among punks, it's who has the most piercings; among emos, it's who has the darkest attitude; among modern pharisees, it's who prays loudest while wearing the most gold and flying around the country in the biggest Learjet; among rowdy frat boys, it's who chugs the most brewskis at the fall mixer.
Among the current crop of faux conservatives, it's who crows the loudest about the illegitimacy of any Democratic politician.
tinrobot
(12,062 posts)It's not the lawsuits, it's the harassment and intimidation of people trying to conduct an election. That's what crosses the line into illegality. Whether it is sedition depends on how you interpret the law.
doc03
(39,086 posts)"Use your 2nd Amendment rights"
"Beat the hell out of them, I will pay your legal bills"
"Stand down and Stand By"
Dead American soldiers are "Losers and Suckers"
He tells them to vote twice.
"There are good people on both sides."
An American citizen is cut to pieces with a bone saw, silence!
He believes Putin over our intelligence agencies.
Lock up your political opponents.
Going after you political opponent's family.
Russians hacked into our government agencies, silence!
I am sure people could add a hundred more things to this list.
Then all the similar remarks and threats made by his sycophants.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)Bucky
(55,334 posts)doc03
(39,086 posts)This is far from over that crazy son of a bitch has another month to fuck things up. I think you are
very seriously underestimating Trump and what he is willing to do. It scares me to think that SOB has nukes.
I think he is capable of nuking blue states.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)surprised if Trump attempts some sort of insurrection bullshit. I don't think he will succeed, but it is sedition.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Trump isn't some conman who doesn't have a clue as to how to lead the nation and run it. He's a criminal mastermind hell bent overthrowing our government and imposing a dicatorship.