Read on Twitter
THREAD:
1) Sedition, as it currently exists in US law, requires the use of *violent force*. Really - go look at the statute: 18 USC 2384. I'll wait. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
1) Sedition, as it currently exists in US law, requires the use of *violent force*. Really - go look at the statute: 18 USC 2384. I'll wait. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
2) If there's no violent force used or contemplated, it doesn't qualify for criminal charges. Period. Filing an amicus brief, or a frivolous lawsuit, is not criminal sedition. Sorry, but it's not, and if we charge Rs with it, we look as silly as they do now.
3) That's not to say nothing should be done. It's just saying that sedition isn't it, despite what Wiki and Google search have to say about it.
4) I would encourage the next House to take a close look at whether the current law could be expanded slightly to include "overthrow by election fraud/tampering". Because that's what the Rs have been doing, and it OUGHT to be a crime.
5) The Members of Congress who signed off on the amicus brief should be ashamed of themselves. And they ought to be censured. And maybe recalled by the voters in their districts.
6) But signing off on an amicus brief is not criminal sedition as the law is currently written. It's just not. Please stop mansplaining to me what sedition is. I've had it. I'm getting testy. You wouldn't like me when I'm testy.
