DOJ Called On To Open A Sedition Investigation Into Trump And His Staff

[onenote]

116. The problem with the analyst's premise: Meadows didn't conspire to commit sedition

Without doubt, there are some individuals for whom the charge of seditious conspiracy might be applicable. But the analyst seems not to have a firm grasp of basic legal principles.

First, seditious conspiracy requires a conspiracy that seeks to achieve its objective (sedition) via the use of force. Second, there needs to be evidence that the person accused of being a co-conspirator had a mutual understanding with at least one other person of their specific intent to commit the objective of the conspiracy (i.e. forcible action). It is not enough for a person to have knowledge or have been warned by others that there could/would be violence on January 6. As one of the leading cases on seditious conspiracy notes, everyone named as a co-conspirator must be shown to have a “shared a ‘unity of purpose,’ the intent to achieve a common goal, and an agreement to work toward that goal.” While Meadows and others had a shared unity of purpose and intent to get Congress not to declare Biden the winner of the election, the evidence that he agreed that violence should be used to achieve that end just isn't there.

Where the analyst has a much better argument is with the possibility of charging Meadows and others with conspiracy to defraud the government.