An Independent Judiciary?

Since the January 6 Event the Zhou Baiden regime--through its DoJ and media proxies as well as the usual suspects in Congress--has been feverishly seeking to to advance a narrative of a Right Wing extremist (anyone to the Right of ... Karl Marx?) "insurrection". An attempt to overthrow the government. We've been trying to keep an eye on developments in this regard, because the obvious objective of the Zhou regime is to gin up anti-GOP hysteria and keep this narrative going through Election 2022. It hardly needs saying that the continued military occupation of the Imperial City on the Potomac plays directly into the "insurrection" narrative--the Sedition Hoax.

The thing about this effort, however is that, while the Dems control the Legislative and Executive branches of government, to keep this narrative going requires the cooperation of the Judicial Branch. One of President Trump's great achievements was the appointment of an enormous new number of Appellate Court judges--and, yes, credit for this does go to Mitch McConnell. McConnell put priority on Appellate Court judges rather than District Court judges, and it paid dividends, as several Circuits were flipped. 

The one Circuit that remains firmly in Dem hands, however, is the DC Circuit, which was greatly expanded by Obama. For that reason one might assume that the DC Circuit as well as the many District Court judges in DC would prove friendly to the Sedition Hoax narrative. Such has not been the case. DC judges at both District and Appellate levels have, with some exceptions, shown a willingness to apply establish criminal justice standards regardless of the media and DC Eestablishment's dominant Sedition Hoax narrative. Notably, not only have Clinton judges shown this willingness but Obama appointees have also done so. 

In evaluating these developments it's important to remember that each defendant's case--and the FBI's nationwide dragnet has pulled in literally hundreds of people--must be considered on its own factual merits. The DoJ is seeking to bolster the Sedition Hoax by constructing a case for Seditious Conspiracy--please note that in this statute the use of actual force is a necessary element:

Listen To diGenova--And Also McCarthy

Joe diGenova gave his usual informative and entertaining interview this morning on WMAL. I was pleased that he touched on the very real "precedent" of the Obama pardon of General Cartwright. He also offered some incisive comments on Obama's central role in the whole conspiracy. In that regard he pointed out that Obama personally urged his Intel chiefs to withhold classified information purporting to concern Russia's interference in our elections from the incoming President. DiGenova characterized that as "sedition."

My supposition is that he was referring to 18 USC 2384, Seditious Conspiracy, which reads as follows--and I've bolded the portion that could arguably apply to this factual situation:

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.

I think diGenova's argument is that Obama and the Intel Community were part of a conspiracy to "overthrow" the Government of the United States.

Obviously that argument has to address the meaning of "overthrow." My counter argument would be that the context appears to require that any seditious conspiracy must be a conspiracy to use physical force or--at a minimum--a credible threat to use physical force in some real sense. I believe the history of the use of our sedition laws bears out my interpretation.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that Obama was treading an exceedingly fine line. It's not much of a step from urging the violation of key intel officials' oaths of office by withholding national security information from the Commander in Chief regarding the purported actions of a hostile foreign power to the possibility of advocating mutiny in the armed forces. And that definitely would be a seditious conspiracy.