What I’m anxiously awaiting is those people who will have “January 6 Re-enactments” done in Family Guy style
Florida cop who was charged with the attack on the Capitol building is posting videos telling “patriots” that they need to keep up the insurrectionist actions. His lawyers are worried that his videos will give him problems at sentencing time.
Maybe he’s our first candidate for a treason charge.
Sedition. Treason is formally defined as aid and comfort to a declared foreign enemy.
I thought it was an either/or definition — where it “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (Haven’t some folks been convicted of treason when there was no ‘declared foreign enemy’ being aided or comforted?)
How about incitement to riot?
If trying to overthrow the US government, by the President himself, is not treason, we either need a new definition, or an entirely new word.
Honestly, I think “rebellion” is actually the most accurate word for what happened.
I believe that “rebellion” carries a kind of nobility of purpose that was not present whatsoever with these fools. “Insurrection” fits the bill.
I’d be the first to admit that there are few words with as much baggage in American history and culture as “rebel” and its derivatives. Still, there’s no reason why a popular rebellion can’t be led by bad people for a bad cause. Sometimes the rebel scum are, in fact, scum.
“Rebellion” carries the appropriate degree of seriousness for them. “Tantrum” carries the appropriate level of gravitas for them. What word does both?
Rebeltrump!
oy
IANAL, but I’m not sure treason would fly - mostly because that seems to require the assistance or collaboration of a hostile foreign power.
However, I’m looking at the laws and I think it’s a slam dunk for
2383 -Rebellion or insurrection
2384- Seditious conspiracy
2385 - Advocating the overthrow of government.
Links to the relevant laws here, I’m not typing them out.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim
It seems pretty clear cut to me and I don’t know why they seem to be so hesitant to bring these charges.
“You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as ‘our rebellion.’ It is only in the third person - ‘their rebellion’ - that it is illegal.”
Ben Franklin, “1776”
Yeah, insurrection/sedition works. Rebellion, to myself does not. The rebels where trying to install their false leader back in as ‘leader’ of the country.
Treason/Traitor still works best. Yes we are not at war.
But -
- Donald J Trump enlisted, or accepted the assitance of the help of a country hostile to the US to become president. Our US intelligence agencies agree with this.
- DJT extorted an allied country to attempt to gain the presidency.
- This extortion would have harmed an allied country.
- The obvious extortion would have benifited a country that is hostile to the US.
- The country that helped DJT be installed as president would have benifited from this extortion. Both in taking over an ally, but also having the hostile country having a puppet as the president of the US.
- We will hopefully find out just how much the hostile country has influence over DJT. While his tax returns won’t probably show all of it. Data is data. It’s there. DJT’s own son said that they get all their money from the hostile country. This is one of probably many reasons that DJT does not want his financial records scrutinized.
- DJT fired up a mob for 2 months and incited a riot and insurrection to attempt to overturn an election that he clearly lost.
No. We are not at war with the hostile country. But we have been this >.< close.
This is just the tip of the ice burgh. And if this isn’t treason, then we new a new word.
Constitutionally,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Attacking the U.S. is enough to be treason. An armed mob ransacking the Capitol Building and targeting specific officials qualifies. Also note that an enemy does not have to be a foreign adversary.
The legal question I’m interested in is: can an individual be charged with violating the Constitution directly or only with violating a specific law.
Like in the movie Frozen? 
(A burgh is a town; a berg is a mountain.)
There you go.
Treason.
In today’s most giantest fuck you to the GQP, democrats promote republican Liz Cheney to a vice-chair role in the insurrection investigation.
“Sedition” fits as well and has the advantage of sounding vaguely dirty.
A military coup apparently saved us from a dire fate following Trump’s failed coup:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/woodward-book-trump-nuclear/index.html