NYT Responds to Trump

I guess the New York Times won’t be pressured by the New York Con Man to reveal the identity of the op-ed writer.

now, can we get elizabeth warren to demand that some newspaper do something?

Speech isn’t the issue. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from prosecution if you publish an article admitting you committed a crime.

What crime was committed?

saying that they elected a crazy man? saying that the con man conned them like they’re a paint store?

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

prev | next

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

That one.

Where did anyone conspire to overthrow?
Where did anyone destroy by force?
Where did anyone levy war?
Where did anyone oppose by force?
Where did anyone force to seize?


Not agreeing with the president is not sedition. What part of the op Ed specifically makes it sedition?

1 Like

I really, really, really hope the DOJ tries to get subpoena in federal court… Trump/Session’s problem will be finding a DOJ attorney brave enough to risk sanctions by filing for a subpoena like this…

i like the way the NYT worded their response. it’s presidential sounding.

A classy way of saying go fornicate with yourself…

Do you know what the word “or” means?

He admitted to a conspiracy to block the lawful authority of the President. It is probable cause for investigation at the very least.

No it makes him a ■■■■■■ employee but it’s not “technically illegal”



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Would it be technically legal for the author to launch nuclear weapons? To issue a pardon? To sign a bill into law?

If the author is Trump… Dum Dum Dums

Are any of these alleged?

What is admitted is a conspiracy to usurp the authority of the chief executive, those were merely examples of that authority. An investigation would be to discover what if any authority they have usurped.

You think you could get a federal judge to sign that subpoena?

So this time it’s technically illegal? Didn’t you agree with me in another thread that this does not ride to the level of sedition

1 Like

I’m loving Zantax’s angle in this thread.

Loving how bad it is.

But it will make for fun reading!

1 Like