Wednesday, September 16, 2020

UPDATED: Barr: Consider Charging Sedition

The WSJ is reporting that AG Barr is telling prosecutors to be aggressive in their charging decisions with regard to violent demonstrators and, specifically, to consider charging violent demonstrators with variations on sedition. Here are highlights from the article, omitting tendentious rhetoric:

Attorney General William Barr told the nation’s federal prosecutors to be aggressive when charging violent demonstrators with crimes, including potentially prosecuting protesters for plotting to overthrow the U.S. government, people familiar with the conversation said. 
In a conference call with U.S. attorneys across the country last week, Mr. Barr ... 
Federal prosecutors have charged more than 200 people with violent crimes related to the protests, most of whom face counts of arson, assaulting federal officers, or gun crimes. ... 
In the call last week, Mr. Barr urged prosecutors to seek federal charges whenever possible, two of the people said. He listed a number of additional statutes they could potentially use, including one addressing conspiracies or plots to overthrow the government. ... 
To bring a sedition case, prosecutors would have to prove there was a conspiracy to attack government agents or officials that posed an imminent danger, legal experts said. Rhetoric alone wouldn’t suffice. 
Officials have also discussed using a statute that allows prosecutors to bring a federal case against someone who impedes or obstructs a law enforcement officer responding to unrest, which experts said is also infrequently applied and could raise similar challenges. Federal prosecutors in June brought that charge against three people accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at New York City police vehicles during protests. ...

The statutes under which such charges could be brought are grouped in


Below is the table of contents for Chapter 115, and I've bolded those sections that are most likely to include what Barr has in mind:

  1. § 2381. Treason
  2. § 2382. Misprision of treason
  3. § 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
  4. § 2384. Seditious conspiracy
  5. § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
  6. § 2386. Registration of certain organizations
  7. § 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
  8. § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
  9. § 2389. Recruiting for service against United States
  10. § 2390. Enlistment to serve against United States

Answer me this. In his tenure at DoJ, have you ever know Bill Barr to bluff? Me neither. If he brings the topic up, he's serious about it. And that probably means that, after Trump wins, bygones will NOT be bygones:

Nothing in the statute requires that the effort to “overthrow” the government have any remote chance of succeeding — “impossibility” is not a defense.  Proof of the offense requires only an analysis of commentary and activity.  The evidence of the activity is in the streets of various US cities, and on tens of thousands of hours of video posted online — not to mention covert video recorded by law enforcement in dozens of localities.

Commentary will come from the recorded conversations that have no doubt been intercepted involving various actors identified over the past 90 days at least.  Building cases based on such intercepts takes a bit of time, as a jumbled mess of information needs to be sorted through and assembled in a coherent manner.

Testimonial evidence will also come in the form of cooperator testimony — yes, some of those Marxists will decide that cooperation is a better alternative than 20 years in jail.

But the realization by criminals that they have been surveiled and intercepted ALWAYS comes too late in the game.  The Antifa/BLM agitators have faded into the shadows because they know “the heat is on.”  I would speculate the likelihood is quite high already that discovery in the dozens criminal cases filed in federal courts has already resulted in the production of text messages, emails, and likely even recorded conversations between Antifa/BLM agitators, and the possession of such evidence by the federal prosecutors has filtered its way to those persons who have funded and organized the protest efforts all throughout the summer.

Suddenly feeling exposed, those promoters have gone underground.

Get that? The Resistance has their own "filter team." Which is no doubt part of the reason Pelosi has done an about face and is now calling for prosecution of rioters--it's a warning.


  1. Any riot should have been put down immediately (my initial word was forthwith). This is not about party.

    Problem is, and it is clear, Democrats are for the rioters no matter how much damage they do or who they hurt or kill. The only time Democrats care if it affects them personally and that has been with the violence the unleashed has turned on them.

    I really do not like Republicans. I feel they mostly are about getting along to gain power and then they become Democrats when having gained power.

    That said, straight Republican ticket for me because the alternative is anarchy and sedition.

    Sorry, Neil Durrance.

    - TexasDude

    1. Maybe all the violent "protesters" have Biden's clueless and idiotic idea of PTSD.

      He's so uninformed he should be charged with felony ignorance.

  2. § 2384, on "conspire to overthrow, *put down*, or to destroy by force...."
    I'd have expected a more precise, or less colloquial, phrase than "put down".

    1. The term almost certainly has a legal history that puts more meat on the bone than we'd think at first glance.

      I'm too lazy to research that history (ha!), but it seems it means to render a government powerless or ineffective, but not primarily by force & without technically removing it from power. I say this because the section also specifically says "overthrow" (i.e., remove from power) OR "destroy by force," so there'd be no need to say the same thing twice.

      Again, I bet the term only seems colloquial to we the uninitiated but is actually a term of art.

    2. Thanks for the thought, it sorta figures, Brad.

    3. "verb - To quash, eliminate, or put an end to something, especially through force or violence."


      I would consider it possibly more archaic than colloquial for it was once in common legal usage concerning revolts, coups, and conspiracies. As in most serious lawmaking it is included to reduce the wiggle room for defense attorneys to argue that their client never intended to "overthrow" or "destroy" the government, but merely to quash it, that is to render it impotent or ineffective, much like BLM-Antifa have stated as their intent from the beginning.

  3. If Barr is prepared to charge rioters with sedition, then treason could be legitimately on the table in the ObamaGate scandal.

    1. Sedition and treason are two very different things.

  4. "which experts said is also infrequently applied and could raise similar challenges."

    Gosh, could it be infrequently applied simply because the actions it applies to infrequently occur?

    I mean, really, how often in the past has what we're seeing now actually happened?

    Just a thought...

  5. AG Barr's latest comments show frustration but also determination. I read yesterday AG Barr asked his team to look into possible charges against the mayor of Seattle for actions/inactions when the CHOP/CHAZ was established that ultimately resulted in two deaths.

    From appearances, the gloves are finally coming off.


  6. Promising but it will take a 2nd Trump term to flush out the Lefty prosecutors and hire patriots. Heck, who am I kidding? Another 8 years wouldn't do it.

    1. "Another 8 years wouldn't do it."
      I have hope that even 4 years could make a big dent, esp. if this happens in a context of other progress vs. the whole DS/ MSM/ Higher Ed infrastructure), which could quite emerge from Durham etc.'s exposure of the recent orgies of deceit, incl. on virus/ lockdowns issues.
      I have hope, that the Left really overplayed its hand w/ lockdowns & riots, thus forcing normal folks to wake up, to the scale of the Left's threat to normal life.
      Turnout levels in 47 days, esp. in red/ purple parts of the country, will say much, on the extent to which Normies have been thereby awoken.

  7. Much web-buzz over the last 24 hours about how
    Fox News ‘Outnumbered’ hosts cut off Newt from linking Soros to riots, see .
    I'm surprised that Newt wasn't prepared to rebut such a move, with something along the lines of
    "So Soros is untouchable, but not Bezos, Zuckerberg, or Gates?
    Or, are they all now untouchable?
    How could that have come to be?"

    The excuse likely is, that "beefs vs. Soros are anti-Semitic".
    But, Zuck is also Jewish, so what gives?

    1. Get this: Faulkner issues an apology to the Newt "who is beloved", see .

    2. I think Gingrich was shocked at the reaction to the mere mention of He-who-must-not-be-named.

      The killer response would have to have been along the lines of, "Your Master must be pleased." Leave everyone to process that as they cut away.

    3. Until Fox gives Newt a slew of time to finish his thoughts on Soros, I'll see this Faulkner move as damage-control Lip Service.

    4. The below-linked video makes it pretty clear, to me at least, it was the Fox producer ordering the on-air talent to shut it down. Fox brass is at best super swampy, and definitely maybe worse than that, imo, so it makes perfect sense to me.

      If you look at the video, notice @ThunderB’s comment a little below that says it’s not every day you get to see the color revolution barking out it’s orders. Pretty funny, and maybe not completely untrue.

    5. BTW, if anyone can figure out what "definitely maybe worse" means, hook a brother up & let me know, would ya? rofl

  8. It appears to me that a charge of Sedition could apply to the Deep State actors involved in the conspiracy to overthrow the Trump Presidency/Government.