(12-10-2020, 10:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not hyperbolic at all. Meets the statute of seditious conspiracy to a T. If this scenario does not fall within the reason for making such a law then what does? What else do you call a group of people conspiring to attempt to overthrow a legally elected President? Again, I am not there yet, as I said this is in reference to further actions beyond a SCOTUS ruling as nothing after that can be argued as within anyone’s “legal right” .

I would have said to charge with advocating to overthrow the government but that statute is written in a way requiring violence, or urging of such, which hasn’t been apparent as of yet. Seditious conspiracy only requires an attempt to overthrow but does not require violence.

(12-10-2020, 10:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The sedition angle is hyperbolic, but they are for sure violating the oaths of office that they took.

(12-10-2020, 10:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not hyperbolic at all. Meets the statute of seditious conspiracy to a T. If this scenario does not fall within the reason for making such a law then what does? What else do you call a group of people conspiring to attempt to overthrow a legally elected President? Again, I am not there yet, as I said this is in reference to further actions beyond a SCOTUS ruling as nothing after that can be argued as within anyone’s “legal right” .

I would have said to charge with advocating to overthrow the government but that statute is written in a way requiring violence, or urging of such, which hasn’t been apparent as of yet. Seditious conspiracy only requires an attempt to overthrow but does not require violence.

(12-11-2020, 07:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to disagree. The statute is referring to the overthrowing, or attempt thereof, of the government. That is not what we see, here. The current government is the Trump administration and the current Congress and they are not attempting to overthrow that, but rather continue it moving forward. Their actions are wrong, I agree, but they do not fall within the seditious conspiracy statute.

Now, any threats of violence to prevent the peaceful transition of power from taking place could fit the seditious conspiracy language as it would be the prevention of the execution of a law by force. However, the legal actions are not attempts to prevent the execution of these laws by force, which is the requirement under the statute.

(12-11-2020, 10:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: What if they continue to attempt to keep power after the inauguration?

Then would they be attempting to overthrow the government?

(12-11-2020, 10:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I honestly don't think it will go that far.  In fact I believe Trump knows he has no legitimate legal remedy.  Instead he is just doing what he has always done.  he is playing to his base.  He will leave office, but he will always swear that he was robbed by a rigged election.

Even after he won the 2016 election he cried about how he was robbed of a bigger victory margin by a rigged election.

(12-11-2020, 09:58 AM)Au165 Wrote: FBI subpoenaed the Texas AG this week over that whole pesky bribery thing he is dealing with.

https://www.courthousenews.com/fbi-subpoenas-texas-ag-ken-paxton-after-alleged-bribery-reports/

(12-11-2020, 10:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: What if they continue to attempt to keep power after the inauguration?

Then would they be attempting to overthrow the government?

(12-11-2020, 10:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, but I agree with Fred on this. We won't see these efforts continue on once Biden is in office.

(12-11-2020, 10:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, but I agree with Fred on this. We won't see these efforts continue on once Biden is in office.

(12-11-2020, 10:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: His biggest concern right now is maintaining his popularity after the election.  He is hating to lose the pulpit and spotlight of the Presidency.

He might even do something crazy like have a MAGA rally the same day of Biden's inauguration. But I don't see him refusing to leave office.

(12-11-2020, 01:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would not suggest sedition until we've reached a certain point. Electors have not officially voted and this pathetic and entirely undemocratic legal challenge seeks to utilize a function of the Electoral College that is constitutional. It may violate state laws that determine the allocation of electors, but it still seeks to use a portion of the constitution that allows legislatures to pick electors.

What this does is highlight how flawed and undemocratic the Electoral College is.

Once electors vote on Monday, though, any attempt to block the results from being received by the Senate and then counted by a joint session of Congress puts us into a position where there absolutely is a violation of their oath of office.

Cruz is bluffing, though, because that waste of air doesn't want acting President Pelosi.

(12-11-2020, 01:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I took it as Cruz saying they won't confirm anyone Biden wants for any position as long as there are lawsuits and "doubt" about if he "really" won.

Biden will be POTUS but Cruz will use the "doubt" to oppose all confirmations.