╌>

Top Justice Official Reinforces Barr’s Call for Sedition Charges Against Protesters

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  4 years ago  •  54 comments

By:   Sadie Gurman

Top Justice Official Reinforces Barr’s Call for Sedition Charges Against Protesters
The relevant statute, which lays out the crime of seditious conspiracy, “does not require proof of a plot to overthrow the U.S. Government, despite what the name might suggest,” Mr. Rosen wrote. He said it could be used in other contexts, including “for instance, where a group has conspired to take a federal courthouse or other federal property by force.”

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The second-in-command at the Justice Department issued a formal memo to the nation’s federal prosecutors Thursday telling them to consider  charging violent demonstrators with sedition , a day after The Wall Street Journal reported that Attorney General William Barr had strongly urged them to bring such prosecutions.

Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said he was “re-emphasizing” Mr. Barr’s directive, made during a phone call with U.S. attorneys last week, that prosecutors be aggressive when charging certain protesters with crimes, including potentially prosecuting them for plotting to overthrow the U.S. government. People familiar with Mr. Barr’s call had earlier described it to the Journal.


The relevant statute, which lays out the crime of seditious conspiracy, “does not require proof of a plot to overthrow the U.S. Government, despite what the name might suggest,” Mr. Rosen wrote. He said it could be used in other contexts, including “for instance, where a group has conspired to take a federal courthouse or other federal property by force.”

The edict is part of a broader Trump administration crackdown on violence and property destruction that has sometimes accompanied  protests over racial injustice  in U.S. cities. The federal courthouse in Portland, Ore., was the scene of  nightly and sometimes violent clashes  this summer between demonstrators and law enforcement, including federal agents who had been sent there to tamp down the unrest.


Legal experts said violation of the rarely used sedition statute could be difficult to prove in court, as prosecutors would have to show there was a conspiracy to attack government agents or officials, that posed an imminent danger. There is a fine line, they added, between the expression of antigovernment sentiment, which could be protected speech under the First Amendment even if it included discussions of violence, and a plot that presented an imminent danger and could justify a charge of sedition.

im-233601?width=620&size=1.5

Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen urged prosecutors not to let news coverage of the Justice Department’s proposed use of the sedition statute discourage them from using it.


PHOTO:   TASOS KATOPODIS/PRESS POOL

There are few recent sedition cases, and Mr. Rosen’s memo cited one, highlighted by the Journal, that ended in acquittal. Several members of a Michigan-based militia group were accused in 2010 of plotting to kill a local police officer as part of a plan to start an armed clash with state and federal authorities. They were found not guilty in 2012 by a federal judge who said the government’s case was built on “circumstantial evidence” and didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants had entered a “concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the United States Government.”

“While that prosecution was not ultimately successful, its failure was based on the facts of the case, not any infirmity in the statute itself,” Mr. Rosen wrote. He urged prosecutors not to let news coverage of the department’s proposed use of the statute discourage them from using it.

He also expressed regret that Mr. Barr’s conversation on last week’s call had leaked to reporters, saying, “I know that you share my disappointment over selective leaks of internal department communications and deliberations, which seem designed to misrepresent what the department is actually doing to protect the rights and interests of the American people.”




Mr. Rosen’s memo also listed a number of other federal statutes available to prosecutors looking to charge demonstrators with crimes related to the arsons, vandalism, gun crimes and attacks on law enforcement that have taken place amid the protests.




Federal prosecutors have charged more than 200 people with violent crimes related to the demonstrations sparked by the May  killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody . FBI officials earlier this year described the perpetrators as largely  opportunistic individuals taking advantage of the protests .

On the call, Mr. Barr warned that violence could worsen as the November presidential election approaches, the people familiar with it said.


Appeared in the September 18, 2020, print edition as 'Barr Deputy Backs Use of Sedition Charge in Clashes.'



Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

Local officials have to be held accountable as well.



 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 years ago

Bob Barr has gone full fascist.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    4 years ago

Trump and Barr doubling down on abuse of power...

John Adam's pulled that sedition crap for one term!

It did not work then and it will not work, again, today.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2    4 years ago

I see, you are invoking the Constitution. That is a valid argument. Jonathan Turley is making the same one. The strange thing about Turley is that he is consistent when it comes to the law!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 years ago

Then you are wrong, again. "Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it". John Adam lost his bid for a 2nd term mainly because he abused his power as regards The Aliens and Sedition Act he enacted which ruined his chances. It was abuse of power then and it would still be abuse of power today...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    4 years ago

Tell us why it was an abuse of power?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.3  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    4 years ago

Because? Have you never heard of The First Amendment of the US Constitution? Really?

It is unconstitutional and thus illegal to ever interfere with American free speech. Just try to and you will get buried legally and politically!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.3    4 years ago

We all have the right to free speech, not to be confused with crimes and acts of armed rebellion.

Rioting is a federal crime.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    4 years ago

Yet Trump and Barr are threatening protesters!

By their definitions the Tea Party is seditious...

Read your own headline. It does not say rioters. It says protesters. At least try to be honest!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.5    4 years ago
Yet Trump and Barr are threatening protesters!

Not protesters - RIOTERS!


By their definitions the Tea Party is seditious...

The Tea Party was not committing violent acts


Read your headline. It doesn't say rioters. It says protesters. At least be honest!

Correct. They were one and the same. If not, they shouldn't have allowed the radical elements in.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.1.7    4 years ago

Let us never forget his right to protest!/s

It's so darn American!/s

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @2.1.5    4 years ago
"Read your own headline. It does not say rioters. It says protesters. At least try to be honest!"

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    4 years ago

So Barr is going to charge the outside agitators with seditious conspiracy then?  In Kenosha,  I believe, 125 people were arrested.  120 of them were not from Kenosha.  So you see, it is outside agitators, right wing agitators, who are stirring up violence, inciting, and killing.  In all of the protests that have been going on, there have been over 400 (much higher now) instances of outside agitators, right wing agitators, stirring up violence, inciting, and killing.   

Not the peaceful protesters.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4    4 years ago
120 of them were not from Kenosha.

A salient point

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    4 years ago

Yes, proof that the majority of the inciting and the rioting and the killing are outside agitators, right wing outside agitators.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    4 years ago
proof that the majority of the inciting and the rioting and the killing are outside agitators, right wing outside agitators. 

A good deal of it was from outside groups, but to call it right wing is outrageous?

Please provide the link

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    4 years ago
"A good deal of it was from outside groups, but to call it right wing is outrageous?"

You just said it yourself.  A good deal of it was from outside groups

They were indeed right wing agitators.  All with the 'presidents' blessing.  

Thanks for proving my point!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.3    4 years ago

But I didn't say they were all right wing or 120 out of 125 like you did.

Those kind of claims require proof and you don't have any.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @4.1.5    4 years ago

No dear, I wasn't.  

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4.1.7  JaneDoe  replied to  Kathleen @4.1.5    4 years ago

Yep, as usual. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @4    4 years ago

Not even close to true.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    4 years ago

100% true.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    4 years ago

Prove it. Just once.

Please try and prove your batshit crazy claim that 120 out of 125 arrested were not from Kenosha.  

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4.2.3  JaneDoe  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.2    4 years ago

Come on Sean, you know it’s impossible to prove Bullshit. 

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel review of bookings into the Kenosha County Jail showed most people arrested since the shooting were from Kenosha, the surrounding area or a few cities in out-state Wisconsin.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JaneDoe @4.2.3    4 years ago

Thank you Jane.  

The truth once again prevails.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.5    4 years ago

Kenosha Police Say Most Arrested During Protests Were From Out Of Town

BY    REBECCA KLAR    -   08/31/20 12:24 PM EDT      1,008

blm_kenosha_wis_082520getty_lead.jpg?itok=7RUm6Ahd
© Getty Images

Most people arrested during protests in Kenosha, Wis., have been from out of town, according to   Kenosha police  . 

Kenosha police said they arrested a total of 175 people between Aug. 24, when protests erupted after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, and Sunday as of 12:30 p.m. 

Of the 175 arrests, 102 listed addresses from outside of Kenosha, police said. Arrest numbers include people from 44 different cities, police said.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.6    4 years ago

But that's much different than what you said. You said 120 out of 125 and that they were "right wing"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.9    4 years ago

See comment 4.2.6

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4.2.11  JaneDoe  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.8    4 years ago

Crazy isn’t it? I will stick with the local paper who checked booking records.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.7    4 years ago

So instead of 120 out of 125, it was 102 out of 175, and they were right wing agitators, Kyle Rittenhouse being your most prominent example.  A supporter of this 'president', an outside agitator/inciter/KILLER. .  I got my numbers mixed up, initially I said, I believe, but that doesn't matter to supporters of this 'president'.  You think it's a gotcha when it's nothing of the kind.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.13    4 years ago

Yes the misinformation from the right and supporters of this 'president' is so tiresome.  

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4.2.15  JaneDoe  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.13    4 years ago

Misinformation or just out and out lies? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.8    4 years ago

Of course not. Jane had the most recent article. The one from August (the Hill) simply needed updating, but it still does not support what Tess originally claimed.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4.2.20  JaneDoe  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.17    4 years ago

It was also a local paper who actually checked booking records. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.19    4 years ago

So true.  The 'right' never admits when they're wrong, they double and triple and quadruple down.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  JaneDoe @4.2.15    4 years ago

"Misinformation or just out and out lies?"

Well with the 'right' and supporters of this 'president', it's both.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.23  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.17    4 years ago
"but it still does not support what Tess originally claimed."

Of course it does.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  Tessylo    4 years ago

"Top Justice Official Reinforces Barr’s Call For Sedition Charges Against Protesters"

So this top justice official is Barr's caporegime?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5    4 years ago
So this top justice official is Barr's caporegime?

He is under the AG, just like everyone else who serves at the DOJ.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    4 years ago

So Barr's caporegime.  .   .  Got it.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    4 years ago

We can't have a discussion without slander, can we?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6  Tessylo    4 years ago

It's not slander when it's true.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6    4 years ago

But it never is

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    4 years ago

Oh but it is. . . 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

"The seditious-conspiracy statute , which is codified by  Section 2384  of the modern federal penal code, was actually enacted by Congress during the Civil War — mainly to deal with Confederate sympathizers in free states who were violently sabotaging the Union war effort. As the  Journal ’s experts observe, it is rarely used. That is not because the crime is especially difficult to prove; it is much more straightforward than many federal crimes. Rather, it is because the conduct at issue — dangerous conspiracies to levy war against the United States, to violently overthrow our government, or to violently oppose the government’s legitimate authority — is historically unusual.

Notice the thread that runs through these variations of conspiratorial behavior:  Force . Keep that in mind and you will easily grasp why apprehensions about sedition charges are specious. Unless prosecutors can prove that the alleged conspirators  agreed   to use force against the government , there is no such crime.

The notion of prosecuting sedition is anathema to legal experts and some historians because it calls to mind the late 18th century Alien and Sedition Acts, which are justly reviled as an unconstitutional effort to punish political dissent. There is also understandable constitutional concern about the word sedition . Outside the criminal-law context, it can be broadly construed to cover speech that, though it urges people to revolt against a government, does not necessarily advocate violence.


Similarly, if there is evidence that people are using force or plotting violent attacks against U.S. government installations, there is no viable objection to the introduction of evidence that they hated the United States and called for attacks against the government. The statements are not the crime; they are  evidence  of the crime, and the First Amendment does not prohibit their use as such. Judges, moreover, carefully instruct juries that people may not be convicted for holding unpopular beliefs; there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in a seditious-conspiracy case, that they conspired to use force against the nation and its government. That’s the crime."



 

 
 

Who is online





devangelical
Ronin2
bccrane


68 visitors