Attorney General Bill Barr Encourages Federal Prosecutors To Charge Violent Protesters With Sedition

The Wall Street Journal reports that Barr told prosecutors to pursue federal charges, including sedition charges, whenever possible.


The Trump administration's aggressive response to the demonstrations and riots that have broken out in U.S. cities following the police killing of George Floyd continues apace, with U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly suggesting that prosecutors charge demonstrators with sedition.

Barr, according to a story published today by The Wall Street Journal, encouraged prosecutors on a conference call last week to charge violent protestors with federal offenses wherever possible. The attorney general encouraged the use of sedition charges even in contexts when state charges would apply, reports the Journal, which spoke to several people familiar with the call.

Federal sedition law makes it a crime for two or more people to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government, and it comes with a potential penalty of 20 years in prison.

The invocation of rarely used sedition laws to go after protestors is raising alarm among civil libertarians and some legal experts.

"If you start charging those people, even if you don't get a conviction, it may make people think twice before going out to exercise their right to free speech," said Jenny Carroll, a University of Alabama law professor, to the Journal.

"Treating protest as a form of sedition won't stand up in court, but that is clearly not the point here," Somil Trivedi, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), tells Reason. "This is a tyrannical and un-American attempt to suppress demands for racial justice and an end to police violence. Independent and ethical prosecutors should reject this administration's authoritarian impulses."

So far, the federal government so far charged 200 people with violent offenses, including gun charges, related to recent protests. That includes two New York lawyers who've been charged with federal explosives charges for torching an empty police car. If convicted they could face life in prison.

Barr's reported encouragement of sedition charges follows a summer of federal agents deploying aggressive tactics against protestors.

In Washington, D.C., Barr himself ordered police to clear peaceful demonstrators out of Lafayette Square so President Donald Trump could pose in front of St. John's Episcopal Church.

In Portland, Oregon, U.S. marshals and agents under the control of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took to arresting protestors in unmarked vans. The federal courthouse building in Portland had become a target of both nonviolent and violent protests.

The ACLU of Oregon filed a lawsuit against DHS and the U.S. marshals in July, accusing them of assaulting journalists covering the Portland protests and other aggressive tactics.

Earlier this month in Washington state, a task force that includes federal agents killed  Michael Reinoehl, a suspect in the fatal shooting of a Trump supporter during a Portland protest. In a subsequent interview, Trump said: "This guy was a violent criminal and the U.S. Marshals killed him…And I will tell you something: That's the way it has to be. There has to be retribution."

Both Trump and Barr have both pointed to antifa and other leftist radicals to justify an aggressive federal response to violence at protests around the country.

Left-wing groups aren't the only ones being subjected to a federal crackdown. In late August, the FBI conducted a truly absurd sting on two Boogaloo Boys (an ideologically heterodox movement that predicts a coming civil war) who attended demonstrations in Minneapolis. The feds accuse them of trying to sell weapons to Hamas.

Arson, vandalism, and other acts of rioting have accompanied many of the anti-police-brutality protests around the country. But since this violence is often adjacent to protected First Amendment activities, law enforcement's response needs to be careful, targeted, and proportionate. We should try to stop the violence and vandalism, but peaceful protesters shouldn't be unjustly punished or otherwise dissuaded from exercising their rights to free speech and assembly.

By encouraging prosecutors to be as punitive as possible, Barr appears to be taking the exact opposite approach. His suggestion that they dust off sedition laws should alarm all civil liberties advocates.

NEXT: Homeschooling Hits a Tipping Point

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. with U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly suggesting that prosecutors charge demonstrators with sedition.

    Rioters, not demonstrators, you fucking nitwit liar. He reportedly said that about people who engage in violence, attack federal buildings, and voice threats to destroy the United States, not just people out protesting/demonstrating. That is textbook sedition and insurrection.

    Jesus, it's like you fucking cosmotarians are constitutionally incapable of telling the truth about anything.

    1. "If you start charging those people, even if you don't get a conviction, it may make people think twice before going out to exercise their right to free speech," said Jenny Carroll, a University of Alabama law professor, to the Journal.

      You're 100% right they'll think twice before trying to burn down a federal building and assault federal officers. That's the fucking point. That's also not an exercise of free speech...that's rioting and insurrection. Not protected by the Constitution.

      "This is a tyrannical and un-American attempt to suppress demands for racial justice and an end to police violence."

      As opposed to "mostly peacefully" trying to lock police officers in a building and set it on fire to burn them alive, like that street trash tried in Portland and Seattle.

      "Independent and ethical prosecutors should reject this administration's authoritarian impulses."

      If attorneys were really ethical, Somil Trivedi would never hold a law degree. From his bio:

      Trivedi was previously a trial attorney at the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section and the United States Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. Before that, he worked in white collar criminal and regulatory defense, representing clients in investigations before DOJ

      In other words, he's a shakedown artist who extorted businesses for the Obama administration with threats of prosecution, and before that helped wealthy Democrat donors get out of trouble with the DOJ.

      1. Getting their asses kicked in the culture war by their betters, and knowing they are to spend the rest of their deplorable, disaffected lives complying with the preferences of people they dislike, seems to have made bigoted faux libertarians extremely cranky.

        The culture war has consequences. May the better ideas continue to win, and the lesser people continue to see their right-wing aspirations crushed.

        1. This sounds like a dude who is really really afraid that his child pornography guy might get locked up.

          1. The ironic thing is he calls others fascists and authoritarians while this is his standard trope. It is almost like some proggies lack self awareness. Also see Lord of the Strazzle complaining about Fascism while supporting the exact tactics fascists used to gain power in Germany (and it should also be noted, that the economic philosophy of the progressive is closer to fascism than the economic philosophy of conservatives, who tend to be capitalist).

            1. Which tastes better, soldiermedic76 . . . the taste of the sole of my shoe, or the taste of Trump's scrotum? You spend so much time with your tongue on each with your tongue on each of them that it is difficult to tell which you prefer.

              1. Keep proving how immature you are. I don't have to prove how stupid your arguments are because you do it yourself. Especially as I didn't vote for Trump and am voting or Jorgenson this time.

                1. I don't know why you insist on giving people like rev a W by prioritizing your refusal to vote for Trump

                  1. I don't vote for Trump because I don't like him and don't agree with about half his policies. It is my own choice.

                    1. I'm not talking about your decision to vote for Trump or not, but it seems you feel it's important to mention it.
                      Your points stand on their own merit, and if anything signaling that you are also anti-Trump weakens your argument.
                      It strikes me like an apology, which concedes ground to the person you're arguing against.
                      Like "You're totally wrong about X, Y, and Z for reasons A, B, and C... (but I'm sorry because you're correct to oppose/hate Trump)"
                      That parenthetical is all that matters to the people you're arguing with. All they want is submission to their opposition to Trump. Thus by repeatedly saying it, you give them the W. No matter how well you've refuted the details of their argument, you've supported their primary position.
                      There's nothing virtuous in being Team Not Trump, and there's nothing wrong with being Team Trump. You don't have to apologize for either, and you don't have to pledge fealty to Team Not Trump to make a compelling case.
                      Vilification of their opponents is the Left's primary tactic, and play into it when you deny the exact thing they want you to deny.

                    2. And in come Nardz with the psychological evaluation of someone's voting habits. And here I thought you only evaluated independent films for your interpretation of what constitutes child porn, you sick fuck!

                    3. So you're mad that Nardz called your movie preferences kiddie porn, got it.

                    4. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

                      This is what I do....................... CashApp

                    5. I don’t vote for Trump because I don’t like him and don’t agree with about half his policies.

                      So you're going to vote for the progressive who will get none of the policies you want enacted (because she won't win) and instead slightly increase the odds that the person who will vote entirely for policies you hate gets elected? This seems a poor strategy.

                      Here's the reality of politics. If you find a candidate who you agree with half the time for national office, you've gotten incredibly lucky and you should enthusiastically support that candidate. If you find a candidate you agree with 100% of the time who has a 0% chance of winning, you are throwing away your vote. If you are voting for the 100% candidate who has no chance of winning because the person seems more personally likable to you than the 50% candidate, and the only other candidate in the race capable of winning is the polar opposite of you on all issues, you are being scammed.

                  2. Seems like a reasonable thing to say when someone accuses you of sucking Trump's balls.

                    1. Yes. I love when people call me a Trump cultist because I am not a huge fan. But even less of a fan of progressive, dishonesty and hyperbole and binary thinking.

              2. Denouncing people with different political opinions as sexual deviates: another favorite of fascists. Likewise, you keep referring to yourself as an ubermensch. Kirkland: you keep showing that you and people like you are the fascists.

                1. I don't believe conservatives lick Trump's scrotum for sexual reasons any more than I believe the reason they tongue-wash the soles of my shoes for sexual reasons. It's more about subservience and submission.

                  Conservatives are our bitches.

                  1. So you think they lick feet for the same reason you do, got it.

                    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…TMz after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.

                      Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

                  2. Arty, you lick scrotums all day long, so you’re the expert here.

              3. You hardly seem a Rev. given you've threatened to step on the face of what you call a "bigoted faux-libertarian". Being a non-bigoted libertarian, I don't support initiating violence against others (and I should add given the way liberals think speech is action) and I don't see speech as harming others (except if it's revealing trade secrets) even if it's politically disagreeable and offensive. While threats are just speech, they sure aren't very respectful of others, and don't belong in the comments section of this magazine, titled "Reason", but would belong in "Threats".

            2. "It is almost like some proggies lack self awareness. "

              All Proggies lack self-awareness.
              Projection is all they have.

        2. Gee, I didn't realize Johnny One Note also reads the main part of Reason, not just Volokh.

          Hit is Sami!

      2. "You’re 100% right they’ll think twice before trying to burn down a federal building and assault federal officers. That’s the fucking point. That’s also not an exercise of free speech…that’s rioting and insurrection. Not protected by the Constitution."

        You missed the point. If you're charging demonstrators with sedition, you can stop people from demonstrating, and that's what Trump wants, so that 's what the toady is trying to produce.

        Actually catching rioters to charge with rioting is hard to do.

        Easier to just make up stories about antifa starting wildfires.

        1. So you're an idiot, got it.

        2. If he charges demonstrators with sedition, a judge will dismiss the charges with prejudice. If he charges rioters and arsonists and looters and attempted murderers with felonies, it will encourage the demonstrators to remain mostly peaceful, even more so.

        3. Hard to do? Seriously? No evidence of particular individuals rioting in any of the thousands of hours of video of street violence? Just stop making a fool out of yourself, it's embarrassing.

    2. Nice catch. Propagandists like Goebbels here need to be called out with receipts.

    3. Arson is just the voice of fire.

      1. and an effective negotiation tool

    4. Fireworks aren't sedition. Who is the fucking nitwit?

      1. And bullets aren't murder.

        You've made a great argument.

    5. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks.......... Read More

    6. That includes two New York lawyers who've been charged with federal explosives charges for torching an empty police car. If convicted they could face life in prison.

      And what do you think would have happened if they'd thrown "infernal devices" into a van owned by an abortion clinic?

      Lighting vehicles on fire is a serious offense. Google BLEVE...

    7. Engaging in violence is evidence of rioting. Attacking federal buildings (but not looting them or harming the people in them) is much weaker evidence. Voicing threats to "destroy the United States", on the other hand, is very much still protesting and not evidence of rioting.

      If you're going to rant about Barr and the author getting their terms wrong, you'd better have your own right first.

      1. Destruction of federal property costs me tax dollars. Money and support (especially from foreign sources) crossing state lines to make it happen is sedition.

    8. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home.CMq I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

      This is what I do………………….. ReadMoreHere

  2. O/T - Poor little proggies don't like when their tactics are turned against them.

    Progressive news outlet complains that Andy Ngo's coverage of violent crime harms violent suspects

    1. I loved reading about the canceling of all those filthy commies.

      1. Get some competent professional help.

        1. Only after you get the beating you deserve, Jimmy.

        2. We get it, you love Marxism and hate America. Now go away.

    2. Of course, it's Ngo's fault for tweeting their pictures, and not their own fault for participating in riots. Of course there's no suggestion that they should stop participating in the riots.

      1. assuming the pictures tweeted have anything to do with riots, of course.

        1. so you're still an idiot, got it

          1. Is "idiot" the word you use to refer to people smarter than you are?

            1. You seem upset that you're an idiot.

            2. Who would that be? Certainly not you Pollock. You truly are an insect among gods.

        2. "assuming the pictures tweeted have anything to do with riots, of course."

          Um, they are mugshots made public.

          So, yeah ... you are an Idiot.

  3. There's this thing called "baiting".

    You resist it by not rushing to the defense of looters and arsonists seven weeks before an election.

    . . . if you're smart. If you're not so smart, you take the bait and do what the Trump campaign tells you.

    1. Feels more like he's baiting libertarians to vote for Biden. You Trump fuckers are flirting with fascism

      1. Says someone who isn't aware how fascist took power in Germany. Here is a hint, it involved rioting and violently shutting down any political rival and a Government that refused to stop them.

        1. You sure it didn't involve kidnapping critics off the streets in unmarked vehicles?

          1. You got your timeline mixed up. We're currently in the equivalent of the 1920s when fascists thugs would cause mayhem in the streets and moderate government tried to return the country to normality and peace. The Democrats are the equivalent of the NSDAP, complete with their anti capitalist ideology, support for free education/health care, absurd abuse off science, and racial classifications.

            1. YOU may be stuck in 1920, but the rest of us are in 2020.

              1. And while there, you're an idiot.

              2. LOL, no son, you haven't progressed past 1932.

          2. Completely sure yes

      2. Also by the strict definition of sedition this is sedition. They use violence and intimidation to force change and many openly call for the destruction of the US and it's government. And many even support violence to accomplish that. Look up sedition and explain how this isn't sedition.

        1. Sedition (noun): conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

          1. We don't have a monarch, no matter how much Trump thinks he was selected as one.

            1. So you don't know of what the word or means?

              1. He's an idiot.

                1. Damn, he really is. One of the dumbest proggie trolls that shows up here.

            2. Notice the word or. That was a sad attempt at sophistry. The word or clearly demonstrates it doesn't have to be a monarchy that it can be either the authorities OR the monarchy. God. What a sad attempt at a gotcha.

          2. I would think that in the US, under the first amendment, it needs to be conduct and not merely speech. The country was founded through seditious activity after all.
            It's an interesting dilemma. Many here I'm sure believe in a right to overthrow an oppressive government. But no government can allow that and continue to exist.

            1. Yeah I don't support sedition charges based only on speech, but they should also include actions.

            2. Plenty of conduct to go around. Yes, I'm Capt. Obvious.

      3. I wish the Biden campaign was "smart" enough to defend rioters and looters against sedition charges. Unfortunately, they aren't that stupid.

      4. Because raucous mobsighting fires, going to peoples houses, assaulting diners, etc etc isn't the same as the shamewalks of china. You're an authoritarian shithead.

      5. Fuck yes. No libertarien should support these fucktards. The tariffs alone are enough. Who are they to tax trade between contractual partners based solely on nation of origin. Then you habe immigration. Reducing the free flow if labor has many negative effects on the economy. Especially stemming the tide of legal immigration from companies unable to secure talent from the local populance. I swear Republicanism has nothing to do with today's Republican party. It is a party of cronyism and rent seeking. Nothing more. The Dems may be horrible, but they are not the caricature the republicans have become.

        1. You really might as well kill yourself now, because you don't stand a chance of surviving the next few months

          1. Open wider, Nardz. Your betters have more progress that you will swallow.

            Winning the culture war has been very enjoyable; continuing to watch clingers lose that culture war is just as much fun.

            1. You seem upset about losing the culture war.

              1. To be truly honest I do think conservative have been losing the Culture Wars for decades, mainly because Conservatives don't play as dirty.

                1. That needs to end. We need to thin out the progressive herd.

      6. Actually, it's you and the Democrats who are flirting with fascism.

        1. "flirting"?

          Donks are full-on Prima Nocta.

  4. I'm fine with it. That had all the earmarks of an insurrection being born. Reason of course misreported the entire set of events, being cagey about details and even outright lying. There's a reason why koch liberals and rinos are being thrown out of the republican party.

    1. Save the cost of the trial and shoot on sight! MAGA 2020!

      1. Kid fuckers say what?

        1. "I'm Matt Buckalew, want some candy"?

      2. Another retarded strawmam by sarcastic.

        1. Poor guy’s broken.

          1. I hear he’s a eunuch.

    2. I read this from Barr as being designed for two effects:
      1) a subtle jab letting any potential Oath breakers like Podesta, Clinton, etc involved in war gaming that if they do it IRL, he won't hesitate to charge them with sedition
      2) DOJ and company must know have enough documentation on antifas and black bloc coordinator that he feels he can make sedition stick.

      I don't think this is for rank and file rioting, there are bigger fish that may need to be fried, and it is also a message...

      1. "2) DOJ and company must know have enough documentation on antifas and black bloc coordinator that he feels he can make sedition stick."

        More likely, don't care if they can make charges stick.

        1. You reason like the idiot you are.

  5. Frankly,
    The morons pointing powerful lasers at the eyes of police in portland should have been shot on the spot.
    The morons throwing explosives at the police in portland, seattle, chicago, etc, should have been shot on the spot.
    The morons trying to burn down a federal courthouse should have shot on the spot.

    Charging with sedition is kinda mild.

    1. Damn straight! Protesting police abuse deserves death at the hands of the police! Get out the machine guns and mow the fuckers down! They’re all Democrats anyway! MAGA 2020!

      1. When did i say protesting? Clearly i was referring to direct violent attacks on public servants simply doing their jobs. The jobs that we citizens expect them to do.

        1. Sarcasmic buys his thumb drives full of “art films” from guys in antifa. Too many of them end up behind bars and he won’t be able to get his fix.

          I hear that guy that got capped in Kenosha is like the Scorsese of kiddie porn.

        2. "The jobs that we citizens expect them to do."
          Not this citizen! I expect them to stand watch at the local Walmart during the holidays protecting little old ladies from purse snatchers and helping little old ladies with flat tires on the side of the highway. That's it! Everything else, cancel culture can take care of.

          1. So you don't think it is the job of the government to stop violent rioters from destroying property and protecting citizens from rape, murder, theft etc? While at least you're honest.

            1. The amusing part is that he probably hasn't considered that police officers are who have to gather and process evidence of those crimes, and that it takes a lot of training to do so in a manner that will hold up in court. And that if you don't have that function performed by police officers you're either leaving it in the hands of technicians (who may not be able to secure a crime scene) or social workers (who may not be able to interpret evidence). And without those roles being done competently, it is impossible to have a functioning criminal court system.

            2. Look at it this way, if government thugs (civil servants if you prefer) had there shit together and where not out there killing with impunity then more than likely we wouldn't have to worry about violent rioters (protesters if you prefer).

              1. Literally everything in your comment was a lie.

          2. helping little old ladies with flat tires on the side of the highway.

            Not their job, as well as being sexist and ageist. Nice thought, but they aren't the AAA, and we don't want to hire the number of cops needed to fix cars along the roadway.

      2. 2 billion in damage, many people dead, many assaulted... isnt a protest dick for brains.

        1. Hundreds of thousands are dead because you think a mask is tyranny. Throw yourself in prison, asshole.

          1. masks wouldn't have saved them dude.

            1. Five percent of the worlds population, twenty percent of the Covid cases. Something isn’t being done right. I wonder if it could be the willful flouting of disease containment rules by a quarter of the country.

              1. Explain Sweden then, or South Dakota.

                1. Sweden had loose restrictions and terrible results.

                  Do you guys even bother thinking about things before expressing thoughts on them?

                  1. Sweden is regressing to the mean number of deaths/100,000 sooner than other nations with flatter curves. The time to reduce that number was before it left China for the US and especially Europe. Horse, barn. Sorry for your loss.

              2. If you really gave a fuck about public safety, health and not spreading viruses then you wouldn’t be raw dogging it with random homos at the local bathhouse, Superspreader.

                So really, fuck off with that bullshit, and go drink your Drano.

              3. Yep, those numbers out of China are totally believable, because the CCP doesn't lie, nor does it round up symptomatic cases and execute them to reduce transmission. Are you volunteering?

              4. Perhaps because the vast majority of countries in the world can not and are not collecting valid data.

      3. I'd say you can't be this fucking stupid, sarc, but then again I've read your posts since Trump got elected.

        P2 was mentioning violent acts that constitute an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Try to commit those acts on me, and I'll shoot your ass dead too.

      4. "Protesting police abuse deserves death at the hands of the police!"

        You start there, next thing you know police are getting ambushed in their patrol cars.

        1. Another left-wing shit head that doesn't know the difference between peaceful protests and violent rioting. Not surprising at all. Intellectually dishonest fucktards describes every Leftist I know.

          1. Lefties view riots as protests. They don't care. That they "confuse" them so frequently is not unintentional.

            "They're mostly peaceful" were Tylenol bottles in Chicago in 1982. But the vast minority that had cyanide in them were a bit of a problem.

        2. Stupid Pollock is stupid.

      5. You're conflating rioting/looting/vandalism with protesting, much more so than Britschgi, who at least quotes the people speaking against Barr's encouragement, as using "protestor" while quoting Barr as using "violent protestor" given how "protester" is used by the MSM to describe rioters, looters and vandals. Britschgi fails to note the difference (as others have pointed out here).

    2. Keep up with the straw man and hyperbole.

      1. He isnt even good at it. At least of he was he could claim sarcasm. But he is just broken.

    3. "The morons pointing powerful lasers at the eyes of police in portland should have been shot on the spot."

      The thing about lasers is that if you aren't looking directly at it, it's hard to detect, and if you're looking directly at it, all you can see is the caution sticker: "Caution: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eyeball."

      1. Hi we aren't idiots like you so we know that.

      2. Pollock, you should really look into harming yourself. Drink Drano and see what all the fuss is about.

  6. Trump supporters agree. After all, every protester is an antifa rioter. Execute them all! MAGA 2020!

    1. Guys that fuck kids agree vote Biden. Cheaper tacos and more kids getting spit roasted is the libertarian promise.

    2. Looks like sarc is just another zombie

      1. Beta version of an NPC

    3. Man you are terrible at this.

      1. You should talk.

        1. Lol. I find it funny when idiots white knight idiots. Some even make monikers declaring that intent.

    4. You're the one conflating the two groups incessantly.

  7. Aggressive response? What fucking response? That opening line should draw one of NPR's patented "without evidence" editorial comments.

  8. You obviously don't live in a place where said "protests" have occurred.

    I was in the Twin cities when those "protests" happened. Among regular people (who don't receive their talking points from the DNC) the reactions did not correlate with politics. Anyone who had to work in MPLS was scared. (A dj on a local public radio station actually expressed as much the day after the first night the worst rioting occurred. The next day i think he was sent home and someone with the correct narrative was put in his place) People in customer facing jobs in the suburb were scared.

    Bringing a caricature of a Trump supporter into this is a telltale sign that you have no clue what you are talking about. Because non-radical Democrats who have seen what is going on are starting to believe their lying eyes.

    1. ugh, this was supposed to be a reply to sarcasmic but it is pretty all-purpose I guess

    2. I live near Kenosha and I had the same thought (both as a reply or all-purpose). A bunch of outsiders destroyed the work of generations and did millions of dollars of damage. They also went directly after the courthouse and other government businesses. It will be many, many years before this community recovers.

      1. That exact thing happened except orders of magnitude more violent for decades when white people destroyed black communities and any hope for generational wealth, systematically. Not a single charge of sedition was necessary for them.

        1. You're right, the damage down was mostly minority owned businesses and most the rioters were white in Kenosha. So once again white progressives are destroying minority communities. You finally are correct in one of your takes.

        2. Yes, that’s true. You white democrats abused those black folks mercilessly. Now you democrats want to finish the job.

  9. It turns out that the US Constitution does not enshrine a right to individual rebellion. Quite the opposite.

    It did enshrine State military independence, but we all know how that turned out.

    I wonder if the Feds plan to use this charge to force a plea. That never happens.

  10. We have people in a prolonged and organized effort to bring down the government. If they are not engaged in sedition and insurrection, then nobody is, or ever has. They carry signs expressing their intention to bring down the country through revolution. Honestly, they are lucky that they are not being treated as enemy combatants.

    It seems absurd to me that so many people insist that there is no difference between peaceful protest and violent rioting.

    I almost feel like we are back to discussing whether prosecuting people for beheading infidels is an assault on free exercise of religion.

    1. "We have people in a prolonged and organized effort to bring down the government."

      We do. Then somebody got the brilliant idea of electing them to run it.

      1. "Then somebody got the brilliant idea of electing them to run it."

        I, for one, did not vote for The Imperator's "Fundamental Change."

    2. Seems to me it’s the Trumpers who are itching to start a civil war. Not for any real reason, of course, but because they mainline FOX News like unshowered semi-conscious alley-dwelling junkies.

      1. Yeah you post shit like this and wonder why the right doesn't want to be associated or rules by people like you. You're a parody aren't you?

  11. "... the police killing of George Floyd"

    It has not been established that the police killed him. Unless you are purposely aiming to mislead, please stick to the facts and just say that he died in police custody.

    Now, judging from the bystander video that was promoted at the time, it sure did look like he was killed by police...

    But then the body cam videos, which the Dem leadership had suppressed for months, was leaked. And from that video, you could see that he put something in his mouth, was tripping balls, said he couldn't breathe multiple times while he was still walking around. Furthermore, he declined to be put in the back of an SUV because he said it was too claustrophobic (even though he was DRIVING before this), and REQUESTED to be put on the ground instead.

    tl,dr: George Floyd died of an overdose. The truth hurts.

    1. He died of a cop kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes. The way you guys deny this means that the truth really does hurt.

      Whether or not he would have died later of an overdose is irrelevant to how he did die. Your hypothetical does not invalidate reality.

      1. The autopsy doesn't support that.

        1. I already linked him the report. He fucking ran away. He can't handle narrative busting facts.

          1. Other than the charges against the cops, I don't think it matters exactly what he died of.

            Liability for murder is up to a jury, but as far as discussion of the incident it doesn't matter. To me, what I see Chauvin do is wrong.

            One factor that does matter is the training protocol. The action is wrong, but the problem is more systemic if he was going by the book.

            1. This is a good summation. It wasn't murder, possibly manslaughter, but it is a bigger problem.

              1. Manslaughter's the killing of someone by acts evidencing recklessness. I don't think you can prove Chauvin was reckless, when his own training materials taught him to put Floyd into that position.

                Negligent in checking his vitals throughout? Probably. Criminally negligent? Who knows?

                1. Yeah manslaughter might even be a stretch but closer to appropriate than murder.

                  1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home.LOl I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

                    This is what I do....................... CashApp

                  2. The problem with Floyd was that he was coming up with BS excuses to avoid custody (claustrophobia, etc.) then, after the kneeling on the head started, he said he couldn't breath. Still BS, or real asphyxia this time? Maybe Chauvin thought it was more BS. Oops.

                2. The deliberate killing of Floyd, by Chauvin who acted with depraved and utter indifference to Floyd's life, cannot be tolerated in civil society. Isn't that what it really comes down to? Call it murder, manslaughter, or negligence; Chauvin's behavior cannot go without being very severely punished.

                  I would argue for the needle based on his past disciplinary record.

          2. Poor poor Jesse. I did not mean to insult you so bad. Your butthurt sorrows me.

            I have seen reports on two autopsies, one government and one private, and both agreed that (a) he had drugs in his system, (b) which did not kill him (but could have if the cop had not killed him), (c) he died of asphyxiation from the cop kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes, and (d) it was homicide.

            No, I am not going to waste time claiming I provided you a link. There are links all over. You have ignored my links in the past and continued to argue wrongly, and you will continue to do so here.

            He died from the cop kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes. It's in two autopsies. Whether he would have died 1 second later from the drugs, or one minute, or 70 years later from old age, is speculation and irrelevant.

            1. He died from while the cop kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes


      2. What I've read, is that Floyd probably would have died of an illegal drug overdose, even without the cop kneeling on his neck, which IMHO was totally unwarranted, and plenty reason enough to fire the cop, if not prosecute him for contributing to Floyd's death.

        I believe arguing this point is irrelevant as it's not common, but what is common is uneasy and unhappiness poor people in Democrat jurisdictions feel from how the police treat them, with civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, policing for profit, avoiding problem neighborhoods, lots of pot arrests, criminalizaation of petty acts that shouldn't be crimes, and the unnecessary application of force like kneeling on a neck, or a choke hold for selling single cigarettes leading to death.

        The protests, are a Democrat distraction and misdirection, against whites, racism, Trump and the police, when the protests should be against the Democrat politicians running the police the way people don't like. Trump doesn't run the police, the States and cities do. And if it's racism, it's Democrat created and managed racism their police supposedly are engaged in.

    2. And the medical examiners report was released August 25th showing he would have ruled it an OD in any other case. He even said so.

    3. "tl,dr: George Floyd died of an overdose. The truth hurts."

      He overdosed on cop.

      1. And you are an overdose of idiot.

  12. The first thing they did was try and establish an autonomous zone. How is that not sedition and insurrection?

    1. All they wanted was to secede in peace. Why is this so controversial?


      1. So did the southerners until Lincoln decided they couldn't. I guess the civil war was just violent protests.

        1. Seems to me the south fired the first shots, for no real reason. Ft. Sumpter wasn't complete or fully manned.

          1. an invasion is self defense got it

          2. Confederates shot fireworks at a federally building.

            1. Hi Sparky!

          3. Yes the south fired the first shot but they had ordered the federal forts in the harbor to be emptied. Lincoln ordered them to remain open as a challenge to the South.

          4. Yeah! Let's do the Civil War. That's always fun and productive.

            1. There needs to be a 'Libertarians and the Civil War' corollary to Godwin's Law.

              1. Well, you can definitely count on this crowd to reliably demonstrate it 🙂

    2. "They". We don't charge "they"'s with crimes. We charge individuals, for what that individual person did.

      1. Midwit cog hasn't heard of conspiracy

        1. Conspiracy explains everything, doesn't it? The fact that there's no evidence of any conspiracy just proves how effective the conspiracy is...

          1. Except for all the evidence, idiot, you might have had a point.

      2. RICO says shut the fuck up troll.

  13. Sedition? That’s too respectable.

  14. The point’s been made already by others, but I add this...

    “Treating protest as a form of sedition won't stand up in court”

    Perhaps not. But when applied to rioters who vandalize government property or lock public servants into buildings and then set the buildings on fire, it may well fly.

    "This is a tyrannical and un-American attempt to suppress demands for racial justice and an end to police violence.”

    Maybe we should force the “protesters” to bake wedding cakes instead. The ACLU seems to have no problem with that.

    1. And it isn't 0rotestora but the rioters they are treating like this.

      1. Protestors.

    2. You just described two crimes, vandalism and arson, that carry appropriate sentences if someone is convicted. You did not just describe sedition, which is a different crime.

      1. The attack on a federal installation is part of sedition.

      2. Intent to overthrow wouldn't be hard to show, in many cases.

    3. How is this not the right-wing equivalent of piling on "hate" charges on top of charges for the actual crime committed.

      1. Hatred is not illegal.
        Sedition is.
        Would you like to make a case for changing either?

    4. " when applied to rioters who vandalize government property or lock public servants into buildings and then set the buildings on fire, it may well fly."

      If you can get people such as this into a courthouse, then charging them with crimes should work. But if you just drag anyone who was nearby when the crimes took place, that should only bring shame to the prosecutor who pushes such charges.

      1. Your whole argument rests solely on the availability of true offenders. You otherwise agree with sedition as charged?

  15. Sedition (noun):conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarchy.
    Just so Christian is aware of the definition for next time.

  16. And before anyone says it, the founding fathers were completely aware that they were committing sedition and treason. The justness of your cause doesn't change the act.

    1. And if they had lost the consequences would have been much worse.

      1. They would have literally been drawn and quartered, a pretty gruesome way to go.

  17. I thought libertarians were against charge stacking. Burning down a starbucks or whatever isn't insurrection. It's arson. One crime imagines a nebulous activity taken against anyone the government chooses can be taken as proof of rebellion and therefore punished. The other punishes the destruction of property through a specific and provable means. It's easy to prove someone lit a fire. It's damn near impossible to probe the depths of their mind and divine that they did it with the goal of toppling the US government, especially when the thing they lit on fire isn't US government property.

    None of these charges are going to stick. It's pure political posturing to look tough on crime by way of authoritarian boot stomping.

    1. That's a pretty pathetic point of view, n00b.

      1. I thought it was a well-reasoned and poignant comment, but your brilliant deconstruction of his many logical fallacies quickly changed my mind!

        1. You cant treat them as individual actions when done in a joint construction. The leaders of BLM have been open as to the motivations for these riots, to invoke change and bring down capitalism. In this case the actions are done in collective action which sedition covers.

          1. I'm a solid, card-carrying capitalist. But even if BLM has the goal of bringing down capitalism, bringing down capitalism is not sedition against the government of the United States, which is only kinda sorta capitalist anyhow.

            1. A lot of the rioters are pretty clear in expressing their desire to destroy the United States as it is currently constructed ('No borders, no wall, no U.S.A. at all!', 'Death to America', etc.)

            2. you need their signed affidavit testifying they are seditious, got it

              1. Make sure the affidavit is notarized. Like their BLM or Antifa official membership cards.

                What a complete joke. No surprise if Quora told him to fuck off too.

          2. Alright. Let's suppose that's true. Person A is shouting through a bullhorn to overthrow the US government (but doesn't specifically say "Go burn down that Starbucks"). Hearing that, Person B goes and burns down a Starbucks. Is Person B guilty of sedition? We know they are guilty of arson. That's not in question. But sedition?

            Person A is in the clear because the 1st Amendment protects their right to say pretty much whatever they want. To prove that Person B is guilty you would need to do a couple things:
            1. Prove that the arson was committed in furtherance of a plot (rather than a random act of violence) to overthrow the United States government (rather than a private entity). You can't make either of these connections much less both.
            2. You would need to prove that the act in question was a direct order from Person A to Person B and that Person B performed the action specifically to further Person A's goals. Such orders are already criminal acts, but clearly they aren't happening or you'd see protest leaders being arrested for making them. So all that's left is assuming that Person B is reading between the lines of what Person A is saying and acting on that and boy howdy is that a terrible theory to bring out in a court of law.

            No court will accept it because it is pure 100% conjecture and any court that does should terrify you because if you think reading between the lines of what BLM protesters are saying is legit wait until you have a judge reading between the lines of your defense. When people start getting convicted of crimes based purely on what the government thinks they meant to do, not based on what they actually did... well, is that the America you want to save?

            1. All of that is for a jury to decide, isn't it?

              1. By that logic every defendant should be charged with every conceivable crime no matter how absurdly improbable it is. But that's exactly what charge stacking is and it's blatantly evil and corrupt.

                Here, let me put it in terms you might understand: If you think prosecuting a guy who torches private property should be tried for sedition because of things other people who are nominally of the same political persuasion said you better get your anus ready for prison because once the people you don't like are in power that's exactly where you are going to go for attending an unauthorized gathering, or not wearing a mask within ten miles of another person, operating any kind of business not deemed "essential", or protesting your treatment. Just imagine if that kind of power was in the hands of people who hate you. God help you. God help us all.

                1. N00b, I don't call it charge stacking, but I understand what you are saying and I agree with the general sentiment. Many times, defendants are overcharged to extract a plea agreement. I get that. That is not what is happening here.

                  The difference here is the people AG Barr is contemplating charging with seditious conspiracy were in fact busted committing violent acts. And I am quite sure there is a wealth of social media evidence as well from these seditious assholes advocating the violent overthrow of the government. You just can't do that.

        2. If you believe sedition or treason or insurrection or terrorism is never a legitimate charge, man up and say that.
          But just bitching about the charges being applied when appropriate, as they clearly are here, is pathetic.

    2. It becomes sedition when you advocate,like a number of the rioters do, for the overthrow of the government and your purpose is to incite that overthrow. Just burning down a Starbucks is arson. When you add in the overthrow the government aspect it becomes sedition. Not really hard to understand.

    3. Hmm, is sedition ever more than speech or expression? I can't find a definition of it that says so. Yes, I get that it's usually "incitement" of some kind of violence (but not always). If so, it's pretty subjective as to whether certain expressions are sedition. Is is sedition to protest against the country entering or being in a war, or against people being drafted to fight it? It was in WWI and people went to jail for it, fire in a crowded theater and all that.

      Does it make a difference in sentencing or something when an arsonist, vandal, or looter is convicted? If not, then why even bother? If you intentionally do these things, you're obviously committing serious crimes and need to be held accountable. If you yell "Down with the USA" while doing it, does that make it worse somehow? Does yelling "I hate this building" instead make it not as bad?

      1. I think the line is when you advocate to overthrow the government. Most definition require the call to overthrow the government. And even then it is more than just calling for it, but actively trying to accomplish it, especially through violence.

        1. Well, ok, then protesting war isn't sedition and they were wrong during WWI.

          I'm still curious as to what would be the difference in prosecuting someone for lighting a shop on fire because you hate the shop owner versus doing the same thing because you want to overthrow the government. Ok, the charges have different words on the paper, but would the sentence be different upon conviction?

          1. Technically yes. Sedition and treason are the only two crimes mentioned as being elgible for the death penalty in the Constitiuton.

        2. The line is when there are repeated and collective actions for a greater goal. One person setting a fire is arson. A collective setting fires to invoke change is sedition.

          This isn't hard to understand for most. But we have people on this site determined to ignore reality.

          1. You just pulled that from your ass as an excuse for federal thugs to punish your political enemies.

            1. Citation that his interpretation is incorrect?

        3. Is setting a police car or dumpster on fire during a protest of police brutality/excessive violence advocating to overthrow the government? Or is it just setting a police car or dumpster on fire? I think you'd have to show some evidence that overthrow of the government is the object of the action, rather than committing arson while trying to protest police action. Lots of these young white guys in hoodies just want to set fires and blow off steam because they are bored unemployed hoodlums. They don't even care about the protests.

          1. Does their own words stating they want to overthrow the government and or destroy the US, as a number on record as stating, count as evidence?

            1. Only if it really happened.

              1. So yes.

              2. Since it has been caught on tape, does that make it real enough for you?

    4. Libertarians are against stacking. A lot of commenters here are not libertarians.

      1. Like you for example.

    5. " Burning down a starbucks or whatever isn’t insurrection. It’s arson."

      The problem with that, from Barr's point of view, is that arson isn't a federal crime.

      1. And given how frequently DA's in these shitholes refuse to prosecute, leaving it up to them is a fool's errand.

    6. Sorry, n00b, but there is likely, in many cases, ample social network evidence of just such intent. The nail in the coffin will be funding and supplies/support from outside (again, especially foreign) sources. It will be ridiculously easy to prove sedition.

    7. It's actually pretty easy to "to probe the depths of their mind and divine that they did it with the goal of toppling the US government", when they're carrying a fucking sign that says that".

  18. So far, the federal government so far charged 200 people with violent offenses, including gun charges, related to recent protests. That includes two New York lawyers who've been charged with federal explosives charges for torching an empty police car. If convicted they could face life in prison.

    Sedition is the wrong charge, but burning a vehicle with a gasoline tank is not peaceful, and those clowns should be locked up for a long time. Same with the "protestors" in Portland who tried over and over to burn down a building with people inside.

    Jeez, Christian Britschgi, there are real peaceful protestors out there being sent to jail for nothing more than truly peaceful marching and chanting. Why do you conflate them with the Burn Loot Murder crowd? Why do you mix up two idiots burning a car with peaceful protestors? Why do you think your readers are so damned stupid that they will swallow that Goebbels level lie?

    1. I would argue if they also are trying to incite the overthrow of the government (which some are) sedition for those is the right charge. If they are just burning and looting, no it isn't. It is the latter part, the advocating for the overthrow of the government while using violence to achieve that goal that makes it sedition.

      1. I think sedition is overkill for the most part. Burning a car, with a fuel tank of gasoline, is not just arson, it really does justify the explosives charges in my book. Trying to burn down a federal building is destruction of federal property, and attempted mass murder if occupied. But yelling "Defund the police" or "Fuck the government" or even "Kill Trump" while doing so is nowhere near actually trying to overthrow the government.

        1. Some go far beyond that. Shouting down with Trump isn't the problem. It is the ones are using this to actively pursue a program to overthrow the government. Who admit that there goal is to overthrow the government.

        2. You really think that all this violence isn't for the purpose of overthrowing the elected government?

        3. I put this in the comments earlier, but will add it here as well. I don’t think this is for rank and file rioting, this is for bigger fish that may need to be fried - it is a message…I read this rumored statement from Barr as being designed for two effects:
          1) a subtle jab letting any potential Oath breakers like Podesta, Clinton, etc involved in war gaming know that if they do it IRL, he won’t hesitate to charge them with sedition
          2) DOJ and company must now have enough documentation on antifas and black bloc coordinator that he feels he can make sedition stick.

      2. "I would argue if they also are trying to incite the overthrow of the government (which some are) sedition for those is the right charge. If they are just burning and looting, no it isn’t."

        How about if they aren't burning and looting, but just out of their homes on the same night some burning and looting happened? Is that close enough?

        1. No idiot, and this isn't about them.


        2. Wow, what a stupid attempt at sophistry. Obviously we are discussing those involved in violence. Most commenters have been specific that peaceful protests and protestors are protected.

      3. Is everyone voting against Trump guilty of sedition, or just the ones who say so in public?

        1. Neither. What a fucking stupid straw man.

          1. So you only think SOME people should be thrown in prison for sedition, but the real problem is my straw man.

    2. I've seen no reports "real peaceful protesters out there being sent to jail for nothing more than truly peaceful marching and chanting". I read about one guy picked up by accident, but then released, and I've read of lots of people just having charged dropped and released (but obviously not for peaceful protesting which is legal, and instead for real crimes).

      If you've got a link of the US prosecuting a peaceful protester, post it.

    3. ...there are real peaceful protestors out there being sent to jail for nothing more than truly peaceful marching and chanting.
      That's total horseshit.
      Christ! They are barely imprisoning the most violent rioters.

  19. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY... MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE? <a HERE? Read More

  20. The riots and civic unrest experienced since George Floyd are coordinated attempts to cause social instability and political decline. It’s all from the the Weather Underground terrorist playbook. And guess which wokitarian educator has shared his love with all the boys & girls.

    1. Perhaps some of the rioting. A lot of it is spontaneous and not organized by anyone. It doesn't take that much organization to get disaffected people to riot.

      1. You keep arguing for the innocence of Nazism.
        May you soon get what you deserve.

        1. Says the guy supporting Trump.

          Buy a dollar's worth of self-awareness.

          1. Says an idiot.

          2. Says the guy who obviously doesn't understand what true Nazism was. If any party truly resembles the policies of racism, it is the progressives. Which isn't really surprising as Nazism was originally a progressive movement. Statements like yours just shows how shallow most people's understanding of history and civics is.

            1. Good lord man, read a fucking book.

              1. I have, maybe you should take your own advice. Read how FDR specifically praised Hitler and Mussolini and sent his advisors to Germany and Italy to study their programs so he could copy them for his new deal. It is well documented.

                1. So the guy who beat Hitler also loved Hitler. No wonder Mrs. Roosevelt was a lesbian.

                  FDR was called a fascist in his day—by leftists opposed to the war effort.

      2. A lot of it is spontaneous and not organized by anyone.

        Stop lying.

        1. Spontaneous or not, the concept of "contributory negligence" could be argued. But I'm not arguing that is the instance, but we're not 16 year old and trying to find an angle.

          You lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

      3. Yet poor whites aren't out protesting violently whenever cops kill a white dude.

        I guess it's easy with only some people, huh?

  21. So far, the federal government so far charged 200 people with violent offenses, including gun charges

    But gun charges aren't violent offenses.

    Regarding the shooting of Michael Reinoehl:
    Trump said: "That's the way it has to be. There has to be retribution." It is the way things had to be in that case, because witnesses have stated that he fired on police who were trying to arrest him, so they quite properly returned fire, to defend themselves. It most certainly would NOT have been proper for them to kill him as "retribution" for his original crime. Trump certainly knows that, so his words here were most unfortunate.

    1. That's what Trump wanted though: retribution. He thinks police should be able to kill as retribution for crimes rather than waiting for a jury to hand out a death penalty. Words go straight from his tiny brain to his mouth.

      1. Pure speculation.

        1. Based on observation.

          1. By an idiot.

          2. Based on confirmation bias and selective interpretation of incomplete observation.

            1. This is not going to end well for Trump. You’re a good person. You should jump ship before you’re utterly humiliated.

              1. Jump what ship? Jorgenson's?

      2. Looters should be shot on sight. Arsonists as well.

        1. Still a bit of a jump from "looters and arsonists should be shot" to "and the darn protesters, too!"

          1. Good thing he didn't say anything about the protesters idiot

  22. "Treating protest as a form of sedition won't stand up in court, but that is clearly not the point here," Somil Trivedi, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), tells Reason. "This is a tyrannical and un-American attempt to suppress demands for racial justice and an end to police violence. Independent and ethical prosecutors should reject this administration's authoritarian impulses."

    I disagree whole hartley that charging destructive rioters with sedition is wrong. Demonstrating is a right we all have but we don't have a right to hurt, kill and destroy as these rioters are doing. These rioters have to learn if they don't know that killing, burning and looting is NOT a constitutional right. Now they do have a right to do those things but then when they do there will be consequences to pay. If they don't want the consequences then don't to what causes the consequences. Nor does it make people think favorable upon what they are say they are trying to do. Another thing that causes disbelief in what is being said is when BLM says Black Lives Matter. But as it turns out the only time black lives matter is when the black life is lost in a confrontation with a police officer. NOT one pip comes from BLM or any of the demonstrators about the deaths of all the YOUNG black people killed each week which is far more than the black lives lost in confrontations with police officers! Now I AM NOT saying that the police have not nor do not kill some young black men maybe even unnecessarily because they have but rioting is not the way to stop that. There is a much more effective way to stop that than rioting, looting and killing. That way is by the ballot. But for that to be effective the voter will have to change voting habits because by putting the same people or even the same kind of people back in office that are over the police forces that are doing these kind of things will not work. The vote will work if the person elected is in no way connected to the politicians in office that have caused the problem, it may even require voting for a different party to get a different kind of candidate to put in office. Since voting the way you have for the last half century has not worked vote differently what have your to loose except the death of young black men.

    1. The left has given up on persuasion because they know that most Americans don't want their product.
      They will seize totalitarian power or burn the country down if denied.
      This is literally a life or death struggle.
      Kill or be killed - the left will settle for nothing less.

  23. The biggest problem with Reason's staff is their desire to be loved by the left. They want to believe in the fantasy of the "left libertarian". There ain't no such animal. You can be equal, or you can be free, you can't be both.

    They want to live in LA or NY and hang with all the "cool kids". They'll end up being hung by the cool kids.

    1. And you know this how?

      Have you ever listened to Nick Gillespie, for example? He's a grumpy libertarian who dumps on the Left all the time.

      1. You're pathetic

      2. Nick is about the only Reason writer who will EVER see Trump’s actions in a neutral light. The rest are into virtue signaling 24/7.

        1. How dare libertarians be biased against violent government thugs.

    2. " They want to believe in the fantasy of the 'left libertarian'. There ain’t no such animal."

      you are an unmitigated idiot.

      1. being one yourself, you'd know better than us

      1. wow that Twitter circle jerk is an epic whinefest!

        1. No joke. If the writers were more competent, they'd be at the Atlantic.

    3. There’s not supposed to be such a thing as a government loving violent bootlicker of coercive power type libertarian, but here we are.

    4. Hanged. Being hung is pretty ok.

  24. Yes, perfect decision and good information. visit Law Firm USA Lawyers Firm USA

  25. Geezus, looking at the comments, is this Reason or Fox/Breitbart? Cause all the radical Trumptards are out practically salivating at the chance for the big government to flex their muscle.

    1. The Feds have an obligation and authority to defend federal structures. People who attack such structures, when coordinated with others who do so, are committing sedition.

      1. The USA was FOUNDED on acts of sedition, even to the point of outright war.

        What Barr is doing is nothing but a modern-day version of McCarthyism.

        1. So, to war then?

        2. The colonies fought a defensive war after they were attacked at Concord. If they had lost they would all have surrendered their fortunes, their honor, and their lives, as they well knew.

          The British were not acting illegally AFAIK by attacking the colonies.

      2. Baaah. Baaaaah.

  26. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.
    USA Online Jobs

  27. Carroll and Trivedi aren’t comparing apples to oranges, they’re asserting apples are oranges; I assume for lack of an argument. They must know sedition cannot be free speech any more than yelling ‘fire” in a crowded theater is free speech; could it?

    I will not assert an opinion on which laws may have been violated when one-person’s public pique prevents another person’s right to be exist free of aggression. Maybe it is not sedition, since nobody knows what I’m doing in the booth; but you’re both qualified to assert the correct legal remedy for the offenses committed; which ones?

    IF you don’t fill that void, then the courts are going to rule in Barr’s favor – I think that’ the way THAT goes, right?

    1. " yelling ‘fire” in a crowded theater is free speech"

      It is.
      Note that the text of the first amendment does not read "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, unless they're prohibiting yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater".

      1. Yes but the 1A doesn't protect you from the consequences of yelling fire in a crowded theater, which was actually the point of that historical analogy. If your actions cause harm you can be charged for the harm. The same here simply saying overthrow the government is protected but once you start using violence, paired with your original statement the consequences is that you can be charged with sedition. The speech is not criminalized the actions and outcomes is what is criminalized.

      2. Yes, it's "speech", but your speech is not "free' to violate an others humans' "rights" with your speech. If you were then, then robbery via fear and violence could not be a crime.

        What would legal prevention would exist from one person menacing another for their wallet?

        Only the Government can menace you, legally.

  28. I believe that is a mistake. I firmly believe that Rioting is not a protected Right, most people familiar with the 1st Amendment know this very well...but charges of sedition, in this case, is an overshot. Those who committed crimes among the protesters should be charged with disturbing the peace, destruction of property and the likes.
    Otherwise its a mixed and weak message because it infers a refusal of dissent. I don't like anarchists, or communists, etc...but they still have a right to their opinions, beliefs and the right to disseminate them...but obviously they have no right to what they have been doing, the violence, for 3 months now.

    1. " Those who committed crimes among the protesters should be charged with disturbing the peace, destruction of property and the like"

      Sure, but Barr can't figure out who to charge with those things. So, instead, charge anyone who was picked up when the peace was disturbed with ludicrous charges, and hope the jury is made up of idiots who can't tell the difference between protesters and rioters.

      1. That's what a trial is for, fuckface.

        "If my allies are convicted of being violent pieces of shit, it's because the jury is stupid!" is literally your argument.

        1. Do you think you could confine your stupid authoritarian impulses to the privacy of your own jack-off chamber and leave the rest of us out of it?

          You really should not be so emotional about the fact that some people on a libertarian website believe it’s wrong for the us federal government to violently suppress speech.

          1. you're confused the diacussion is about violence

            1. It’s also about sedition, apparently because that’s what the authoritarian government thugs told you to think and you drank it up uncritically because of the (R) beside his name.

              1. No it is because some of the violence being committed does meet the definition of sedition. Keep up.

                1. It doesn't?
                  18 U.S. Code § 2384. Seditious conspiracy

                  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.

                  1. Sounds like Trump needs to get his affairs in order.

              2. A riot is the voice of the oppressed. 100 riots in 100 days, with the open support of the mayor and the DA and the governor, is open rebellion.

  29. I suspect that one reason for this action by Barr is that the local prosecutors are practicing catch-and-release with protestors who are committing violent acts, and Barr wants Federal prosecutors to take up the slack, and sedition is something they can be charged with Federally, unlike burning down Starbucks.

    1. "I suspect that one reason for this action by Barr is that the local prosecutors are practicing catch-and-release with protestors"

      The local prosecutors are concerned with whether or not they can make their charges stick, which means they'll only charge people with committing violent crimes if there's evidence that they committed violent crimes. Barr wants protesters charged, to shut down the protests. So he doesn't care if the charges stick, he just wants people charged with crimes.

      1. Soros' "Prosecutors" ain't prosecuting anybody ... except those practicing the 2nd Amendment.

        1. Aggravated douchebaggery isn't a crime yet. That's next year.

          1. So, you’re planning to leave the country?

      2. Stop lying.

      3. Explains Soros' DA in St Louis charging the McCloskeys for actions that were in no way remotely illegal.

        1. Or the kid in Kenosha being charged with 1st degree murder for what is fairly obviously self defense.

      4. The Oregon State Police took up protecting government buildings after the federales left town. The OSP also decided to leave town when the local DA refused to prosecute the violent felons they arrested, saying they would go to other cities where the DAs care about enforcing law.

        1. The OSP is short-staffed, because the Republicans in sourthern Oregon don't want to pay enough property taxes to staff the county sheriffs' offices so the OSP has to cover those counties.

    1. Probably the same place as that Jets receiver.

  30. "Aggressive response"

    You're in your own world there Britches.

    1. Ever_person says me about this post..READ MORE

  31. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>Click here.

  32. What a shitshow this room is. Don’t you insufferable fascist douchebags think there are enough people salivating at taking away the basic rights of millions of people because they don’t like their position on abortion? Why turn libertarianism into a farce? Some people might still be interested in the project.

    1. yeah what libertarianism really needs is a fat proggie queen like you to dispense advice after fucking up everything you've ever touched

      1. That might hurt my feelings if I were a fattie, but as I’m not a clownish hypocrite like libertarians for violent government thuggery, I can’t very well maintain my no fatties rule while also being one.

        1. Yes you are a clownish hypocrite who doesn't realize that Nazism was originally a progressive ideology and that his preferred political tribe's policies are very similar to fascism.

          1. Please for the love of good read a book that wasn’t written by a FOX News contributor.

          2. " you are a clownish hypocrite who doesn’t realize that Nazism was originally a progressive ideology"

            Nope. They (and their modern counterparts) were and are YOUR team. Own it.

            1. Fascism is an economic system in which the government dictates prices, production, and favors specific companies, but does not own the means of production. See Mussolini, Benito.

              See Obamacare for a recent example.

  33. Even if there are hardcore violent protestors that deserve to be charged, what makes ANYONE here think said charges will only be made towards them?

    Such a ruling could very well easily be thrown against anyone the government (or rather Trump) sees as being a threat no matter how small.

    1. "... what makes ANYONE here think said charges will only be made towards them?"

      Libertarians here know many people in the government are untrustworthy and are willing to indict innocent people on false charges. E.G., look no further than the false charges of conspiring with Russians to cheat in the election and sell out the US to Ukraine. Libertarians also know the reasons we have grand juries to prevent false indictments, and jury trials to prevent such fake charges.

      But today, the problem isn't too much law and order, and instead it's a) poorly run police and b) Democrat politicians and prosecutors letting "violent protesters" get away with crimes. And shouldn't we be more specific and use "people who engage in looting, vandalism, arson, and other crimes to persons and property" rather than conflating protesting and crime with terms such as "protesters" or "violent protesters"?

      1. Sure, sure, Team Red is only interested in prosecuting arsonists and looters to stop the arson and looting and is ABSOLUTELY NOT INTERESTED in suppressing protesters who aren't arsonists or looters.

  34. I’d very much like to see the stats on how many of the people that are out here pumping for Barr’s position are the same people that are flying Confederate flags on their trucks/ houses. It would probably look similar to a diagram showing the convergence of people who fly confederate flags while complaining about the kneeling at NFL games.

    1. Oh they know they are hypocrites. They know perfectly well this is a game where the prize is the power to violently oppress people whose opinions they don’t like. They think it’s hilarious that anyone opposed to such notions isn’t in on the joke.

      1. So they aren't different than Antifa who has used violence to shut down speech they disagree with?

        1. Do you want to be better than Antifa or not?

    2. flying a flag is protected First Amendment speech. burning down a federal courthouse is not.

  35. Or the people who fly a “don’t tread on me” flag yet think it’s normal to go to their statehouse with a long rifle because they are mad about a bar being closed yet also don’t object to police abuse of the “others”

    1. First Amendment protects their flag waving. Second Amendment protects their arms bearing. Which Amendment protects arsonists, looters, and vandals?

      1. Way to miss my point.

        Care to consider why the military had to take the step of banning Confederate flags on bases? Might have something to do with it being antithetical to “supporting the Constitution” when one chooses to fly the flag of one of the last two entities to officially declare war on the United States. Funny how that works when one is such a “patriot” lining up behind this idea, no?

        And I am well aware the first amendment protects political speech. So are you admitting that if the political speech component is offensive to you, regular street crime (which I do not condone) is now sedition? If so, I disagree and I remind those of you who do fly that confederate flag to check your own shit out before to spout off about being patriots or whatever.

        1. ‘Regular street crime’ that is coordinated and executed in numerous localities is a seditious criminal conspiracy. RICO could be used, but marking the perps in place with indelible inks and obnoxious chemicals would be helpful.

  36. Seems obvious, and Britschgi misses it, that Barr is encouraging arresting, indicting and prosecuting these criminals (and I won't use protester to be specific and clear, because I'm talking looting, assault, vandalism, arson, etc.) for federal crimes, because the Democrats (mayors, prosecutors, governors) are allowing criminals to roam free and cause harm. IMHO, Barr is really encouraging local prosecutors and politicians to prosecute those using the protests to engage in crime, by telling them that if they don't, the federal government will prosecute the criminals for whatever federal crime they can find that fits.

    Consider it from a D politician that believes the rioters are a large faction of their constituents, and are rioting against Trump, racism, white privilege. Are you going to arrest and prosecute them, or is it their civil right as the D politicians say with their actions of letting them go? If Barr is going to prosecute them and jail them for a long time as a result, as the D mayor, you may decide it's better to end the riots and violence, simply by arresting and prosecuting those who do. Once that starts, the riots, looting and arson will end.

    1. I should have added, Barr is respecting and defending the rights of law abiding citizens, to not be harmed by rioters, looters and others (which is government's job even for most libertarians). Just like Kennedy sent in the Feds to ensure law abiding blacks wouldn't be thwarted from attending government school or voting, by the local Democrat government that didn't want that.

      Democrats have misdirected people to think this is all about racism, and allegedly racist Trump and his allegedly racist supporters, and are letting it continue.

      1. That was Ike not Kennedy...a much better president

        1. In Alabama I think it was JFK.

    2. Federalism but only when you get what you want.

    3. In a country where there is rule of law, you have to release the suspects you can't convict. Something about how they're considered innocent until proven guilty.
      Other than just being positive they're guilty, do you have evidence that anyone, anywhere, is actually involved in arson or looting, and if so, why didn't you come forward with it before the prosecutor had them released?

  37. When a violent mob convenes daily to burn, loot and threaten, including attempting to destroy police offices and federal courthouses, and that mob is joined by the city's mayor on at least one occasion, and tolerated by the mayor on the other occasions, and the local DA refuses to prosecute violent felonies, and the state's governor refuses to call up the National Guard to restore order, then yes, sedition seems like an appropriate charge.

    1. What about a political campaign that accepts the illegal support of a foreign government and then does the bidding of that government once in power?

      1. That's a hoax. I believe this is still the "official" line.

      2. Yes, Al Gore should be in jail.

    2. "When a violent mob convenes daily to burn, loot and threaten, including attempting to destroy police offices and federal courthouses, and that mob is joined by the city’s mayor on at least one occasion, and tolerated by the mayor on the other occasions"

      When you imagine these things happening, how does this impact anyone else?

  38. I have made 96,760 Buck just last month by working online from my home. I am a full time college student and just doing this in my free time for few hours per week by using my laptop.Everyone can check this out and start making cash online in a very easy way by just following instructions…....COPY This Website....HERE------Click For Full Detail.

  39. Fucking lolberts. Just admit you're leftists and leave libertarianism already. And this is coming from someone who couldn't care less if every federal building was burned to the ground.

  40. “Federal sedition law makes it a crime for two or more people to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government...”

    Sounds like a perfect description of what Trump and Barr are trying to do every day. Trump is trying to run the US in his own image, like a mafia don, and Barr is aiding him. Now, before I get a lot of angry misspelled words from the lunatic bin here, it is very possible to say protests are fine, violence in criminal. Not a hard concept.

    1. How quickly his defenders on here forget that Trump's chosen advisor for his campaign and the first couple years of his term, one Steve Bannon, LITERALLY said "“I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

      Shocked, I asked him what he meant. “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press."

  41. Here’s an idea for future REASON editorial meetings. All writers have to present their piece and ask the rest “Does this sound retarded?”

  42. Marxists have no natural rights...they are a cancer on liberty period. You attack a persons life, liberty, and property because you believe you decide on their natural are an enemy of our bill of rights and should be tried for sedition. I'd rather see these folks deported. Marxism is the true threat to America and its time Reason understands this...

    1. See above. Maybe it's time for you to round up DJT and Bannon.

  43. If someone starts a fire charge them with arson. If someone writes "Fuck Trump" on a building charge them with vandalism. If someone loots charge them with theft. Charging people with sedition because you disagree with them only proves Barr is a spineless facist. Hey Bill why didn't you charge your Iran-Contra buddies with sedition? I know all the far right wingers reason commenters will call me a liar or whatever. If I'm pissing off a bunch of inbred Mormon loving Hicks I'm doing something right.

    Don't forget: send the mormons to the gas chambers! Mormon lovers who shelter them need to die too.

  44. I think the BLM leader who is encouraging looting needs to be charged under RICO (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.