That’s not what they did. That sat in a room and plotted to change the outcome of an election because they didn’t like how he was doing it.
This has nothing to do with Russia, pure Comey.
No, the tool has to involve force for the plot to be seditious.
In code 2384, “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy” is a list of items followed by the prepositional phrase “by force”. That prepositional phrase applies to the entire list.
Looking further in the statute:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
All of these things must be done “by force or violence”.
You are wrong. Give it up. It’s ok.
No, it doesn’t.
So what? That’s constitutional, whether they bring it about via the 25th or impeachment. Whipping up a consensus, whether it’s amongst the cabinet or congress is not seditious.
It was sedition…and they need to be prosecuted and tried by their peers outside of DC. In Midwest region would be appropriate.
Of course it is. Glad we could agree they were plotting, not “discussing”.
Have a nice day.
This is absurd. If that were the case, articles of impeachment or the 25th could never be discussed.
1 Like
Thanks. I appreciate it.
It’s not just the 25th they attempted. It’s also the appointment of Mueller. Never mind the fact of unmasking, spying and other BS they pulled.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments…transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office
Pray tell, how does a majority transmit a written declaration if it’s not discussed amongst them?
What part of
or to destroy by force
That you don’t understand?
It doesn’t say by force now does it? It say “or” by force.
What evidence, note the word, do you or they have or had at anytime since he took office that the President is or was unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?
Impeachment is fine. Make the case and impeach him. Two ass clowns from the DOJ are not going to plot to change an election, of anybody, and me not say something.
Sedition. Attempted coup.
And what do you think they did?
Did they not harm the goverment by their actions? They singles handed destroyed CoJ and FBI…not to mention other intelligent agencies with their abuse of power.
Agian…what part of “or” by force that you do not understand?
Again the language was clear.
Shooting someone with a gun is not always lawful or wrong or immoral. It is sometimes justified.
Attempting to unseat a sitting president is not always unlawful or wrong or immoral. It is sometimes justified. The constitution of the US explicitly provides a lawful mechanism to do so, and discussing the potential use of that mechanism is not unlawful.
The president is not the government. Discussing potentially invoking a ratified US amendment to unseat a president is not seditious.
He’s not the king.
The head of state is not the state.
What evidence, note the word, do you or they have or had at anytime since he took office that the President is or was unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?
There was no sedition. The 25th amendment exists.
I’m sorry the constitution offends some Trump supporters.
ok, if you say so.
