That does not mean it refers to an immediate bloody revolution as opposed to a more remote bloody revolution, if Chinese style autocratic rule is successfully put in place.
I’ve heard and read those on the Left also proposing to burn down cities and a bloody revolution if Trump had got back in because they feared a right wing authoritarian regime.
And I also said maybe it shouldn’t be. When an over-zealous or politically motivated Prosecutor goes to the grand jury and presents no exculpatory evidence knowing it exists, it has a high potential to unnecessary burden both the Court and the defendant. One could even call it fraud if it were not legal for them to do so.
If you don’t like my answers, you should quit asking me questions.
Except the prosecution is required to turn everything over in pre trial, and at that point, the defense can make motions on exculpatory evidence and so forth.
What you are talking about is a trial before the trial, and that’s just stupid.
Turn over to the Defense. They are not required to present any exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.
And I’m not talking about a pre-trial, I’m talking about evidence for the defendant that is on par with what the Prosecutor presents to get his/her bill of indictment against the suspect. The saying “indict a ham sandwich” did not arise out of thin air.
Here on the boards and talking to folks that I know, I am amazed how so many people do not realize the strength of our Constitution.
No, of course not. But it is still stupid to want a trial before the trial. The system works, you are just bent out of shape because you are buying into this “politically motivated prosecution” nonsense.
Trial is your word. I never called it that. A Grand Jury does not determine guilt or innocents. They only validate the case the Prosecutor claims to have against the suspect. To help prevent a politically motivated or over) zealous Prosecutor from wasting Court resources, they should have the benefit of seeing the holes in the Prosecutor’s case.
Yup. That’s called pre-trial.
Or in layman’s language … Kangaroo Court. 
Serious crime or riot <> republic at risk
There is a reason why people keep losing the “conspiracy” part so yes, pretty clear to those people the actual crime of “sedition” (which was not charged) sounds more ominous, and less accurate.
Republicans in seven states all won by Biden faked government documents giving electors to Trump, if the certification on Jan 6th was delayed those fake document could have been used.
for the record only a small percent of the people at the capitol on Jan 6th were actively part of a conspiracy most of them were useful idiots.
There is no crime of “Sedition” only “Seditious conspiracy”
Is there an echo in here?
I would think planning to use violence to overthrow the duly elected government is kinda the definition of seditious conspiracy.
I’d be careful about that; the Venezulans had a good Constitution, and they believed in it.
All Democrat panickers have is “they would have” or “they could have”. Fine. None of what you said happened or was on the verge of happening, though.
So what? We are really into semantics now. Of course it is illegal to overthrow a government by force. Conspiring to overthrow a government is not the same thing as overthrowing a government or even attempting to overthrow a government by force. It is seriously talking about it and taking one step towards doing it. My point was that exaggerating posts kept referring to their “sedition”. If there is no crime of sedition then obviously they did not commit sedition, so stop calling it that.
