The Use of Sedition Laws Against Rioters Would Be Wrong

I have been critical recently of remarks attributed to Attorney General Bill Barr, including the alleged consideration of criminal charges against a mayor for not acting against rioters and the use of sedition charges against some individuals. The latter allegation was reinforced by the Associated Press after it obtained a memo to United States attorneys.  The memo suggests a more general use of sedition for anyone opposing government authority by force. Such a use of sedition laws directly threatens free speech values and would return to dark periods of the suppression of dissent in our country.  It is also entirely unnecessary given the array of ample and severe laws available to punish looters and rioters.

It is important to note that, while Barr has been criticized for his recent speech about “headhunting” individuals for criminal charges, the speech cuts both ways.  He was denouncing those on both sides who have sought to use the criminal code against political enemies. Some of us have long raised the same objections to both the Democrats and Trump calling for criminal charges.  It is also true that the Obama administration charged nine suspects under that same part of the law being referenced by the Justice Department.

The federal sedition provision at 18 U.S.C. 2384 reads:

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.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N)Sept. 13, 1994108 Stat. 2148.)

I have been defense counsel in cases alleging crimes under this provision.

The Justice Department appears interested in using the language “oppose by force the authority” of the United States government to push sedition charges.  The memo cited as a hypothetical example “a group has conspired to take a federal courthouse or other federal property by force.” That sounds like Portland, Oregon.

The Justice Department has already been hitting rioters hard with criminal charges that bring lengthy sentences.  The use of sedition seems virtually gratuitous given those options. These protests are a mix of violent and nonviolent actors. Those who act violently have been charged with an array of serious offenses from battery to rioting to arson to conspiracy. When presented with a mix of such actors, the government has long used restraint and relied on conventional charges to avoid injecting heavily laden notions of sedition into the debate.

I recently discussed the use of these laws in testifying on Antifa.  I have been a long critic of Antifa but I have opposed declaring it a terrorist organization.  As I previously discussed, the United States has gone through repeated periods of crackdowns and criminalization of free speech. Early in the Republic, the anti-sedition laws were used to not only to intimidate but to arrest those with opposing views. The use of the Sedition Act by President John Adams and the Federalists was recognized at the time as not just an abuse, but as the height of hypocrisy. Adams and the Federalists routinely engaged in false and malicious writings about Jefferson, including declaring that, if elected, “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.” Thomas Jefferson and James Madison denounced the law, which made it illegal for anyone to “print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States . . .” Twenty-five leading Republicans were, arrested from journalists to politicians. All those convicted would later be pardoned by President Jefferson. The Sedition Act was never found unconstitutional, and, fittingly, expired on Adams’ last day in office as a lasting and indelible mark on his presidency.

We have used various laws to suppress dissent in our history.  We have emerged from these periods with regret, but we continue to return to the same impulse when confronted by groups like Antifa or its far right counterparts. Antifa is the most successful anti-free speech movement of our generation. It is winning in advancing its agenda to cancel or “deplatform” opposing views. The way to fight Antifa is not to adopt draconian measures like sedition with long histories of anti-free speech applications. That is what Antifa wants. They want the government to fulfill its stereotype. That is why this is a mistake. It is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unwise.

112 thoughts on “The Use of Sedition Laws Against Rioters Would Be Wrong”

  1. There are plenty of laws to apply to the goings on of arsonists, looters, etc. If sedition is added then it would be appropriate to apply sedition against Trump and some of the traitors that support this holy disgrace. Call

  2. “It is also entirely unnecessary given the array of ample and severe laws available to punish looters and rioters.”
    That would be true if local district attorneys actually prosecuted these people but there are ample examples of DAs stating that they will not do what the law requires.

    “The way to fight Antifa is not to adopt draconian measures like sedition with long histories of anti-free speech applications. That is what Antifa wants. They want the government to fulfill its stereotype. That is why this is a mistake. It is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unwise.”
    So what do you propose, Professor? Should the government send in social workers?
    There is a big difference between having an opposition opinion and trying to burn down a federal building with people inside.

  3. Yesterday before Turley’s article ran. I said sedition would be difficult to use. it has a weak history for winning successful prosecutions.

    the better charge here we all know is RICO

    and use that to get to the kingpin, George Soros and all the money’s hes tossed around by the billions to the enemies of law and order

      1. Murdoch who. No let’s hear about what Soros has done to prepare this insurrection by buying off DAs

        “Americans can’t let Twitter noise overwhelm political reality.
        Ihave been watching a truly curious phenomenon over the past few days. It seems there is suddenly a movement in media to silence anyone who speaks out against George Soros—and, specifically, his funding of radical prosecutors seeking to change the criminal justice system by simply ignoring certain crimes. This happened to me personally this week while I was being interviewed on Fox’s Outnumbered. When I brought up Soros’s plan to get pro-criminal, anti-police prosecutors elected across the country, two of the show’s participants interrupted me and forcefully asserted that Soros was not involved. Host Harris Faulkner, it seemed, was stunned by the interruptions, and did her part to move the show forward after some awkward silence. The next day, she addressed the strange moment during the show and condemned censorship. Immediately after the show, Twitter and other social media went crazy. People were alleging that any criticism of Soros’s political involvement is automatically false, anti-Semitic, or both. This is ludicrous. Soros’s plan to elect these prosecutors has been well documented already—and it has nothing to do with his spiritual or ethnic background. The Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Politico, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, CBS, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel—even Fox News itself, among others, have all thoroughly reported on it. There are plenty of specific examples of Soros’s work in action. Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot, who campaigned on the promise that he would not prosecute a host of crimes—including thefts—admitted his campaign was largely funded through Soros or his groups. He has been so dismissive of crime and police that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has had to send in the Texas State Patrol to police large swaths of Dallas. Soros gave $333,000 to the Safety and Justice PAC in 2016 to support then-Cook County District Attorney candidate Kim Foxx in Illinois—who is currently presiding over terrible violence and mayhem in Chicago, where murders are twice what they were in 2019. Soros and his organizations spent $1.7 million to help get Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner elected in 2018. Before being elected, Krasner earned a name for himself by suing the Philadelphia Police Department 75 times. Since he took office, dozens of experienced prosecutors have either been fired or resigned. Criminal prosecutions have plummeted and crime has risen. Philadelphia now has the second-highest murder rate among large cities in the country. Former Hugo Chavez advisor and current San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin was also funded by Soros and his groups. Boudin has called prison “an act of violence” and has refused to prosecute a slew of illegal acts, from public urination to the public solicitation of sex, which he deems to be “quality of life crimes.” By the way, Boudin is the foster child of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, of terrorist group Weather Underground fame. His birth parents were convicted and imprisoned for their involvement in an armed robbery-turned-homicide. One of Soros’s favored PACs spent $402,000 to support a failed San Diego County District Attorney bid by Geneviéve Jones-Wright. In 2016, a Soros-funded super PAC donated $107,000 to benefit Raul Torrez in his Bernalillo County District Attorney primary—which he won by a 2-to-1 margin. In fact, Soros’s huge funding prompted the Republican running to bow out because it was just too expensive to run against Torrez. Soros-backed George Gascon is currently challenging Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey, who has been targeted and systematically harassed by Black Lives Matter supporters. I’m not overly surprised to see the Twitter mob embrace a sudden, near-universal denial of these facts. I am alarmed to see that the force of this groupthink on social media appears to be strongly influencing professional media. I think the heart of this mass denial is that Democrats and the Left are watching the terrible human cost of their misguided, pro-criminal, anti-police justice policies, and they are beginning to worry that the American people will realize who is responsible for them. Rather than deal with something difficult—or admit they were wrong—the activists of the radical Left are trying to find some way to scream “racist” and get the media to follow suit. America will suffer if our professional media continue to be overruled by our social media.”

          1. Jewishness is not the issue where Soros is concerned, but you can read quite a few articles by jewish authors who have make a case that it is precisely soros who is a dangerous antisemite himself, because he is anti-Israel. I can’t parse such things, but I had a good laugh when a Jewish friend told me “Jews make the very worst of antisemites!” Karl Marx I asked? Exactly! he said. Paul of Tarsus I asked? He stopped and grinned– “you said it, not me!”

            So for Soros I do not address his mischief as a function of his jewishness one way or another nor does Newt Gingrich.

            But if you want to double down on it, I don’t care if you or a college of rabbis dislikes me for it.

            So I will say this much. Soros reminds me in some ways of a Jewish financier of an older generation Jacob Schiff of Kuhn and Loeb paved the way of underwriting revolutionary governments with his big money because he hated the Tsar of Russia. You can look it up. History is what it is.
            There is a type there, to be sure. One might consider the Rothschilds loaning to two different sides of war at once. Napoleonic wars, or maybe more than one war. Cant remember.
            While I can appreciate the cleverness of that, I can also understand how some people might take it badly once the truth came out.

            In person I have made remarks like this to Jewish people and we had a laugh over it. I m sure some narrow minded people will see it as confirmation that Im an antisemite. Whatever!

            But out of appreciation for your reapparance here bug, I found this for you, and I hope you will enjoy it, and understand that I did see your little comment and I took a moment to take you seriously.

            I got a laugh out of this, maybe you will worry about it, but here it is


            Murdoch’s shameful slam of ‘Jewish-owned’ press
            By Howard Kurtz, CNN

            Updated 4:03 PM ET, Wed November 28, 2012

            Rupert Murdoch under fire for tweets 03:55
            Story highlights
            Howard Kurtz: Rupert Murdoch tweeted asking why Jewish owned press is anti-Israel
            He says suggesting Jews have hidden agenda, where religion trumps journalism, is offensive
            Kurtz: It’s hypocritical from man who controls Fox News, WSJ, NY Post, other news organs
            Kurtz: “Apology’ tweet cryptic; Murdoch’s slam of reporters’ ‘biased’ coverage gives no proof
            There are things that I admire about Rupert Murdoch. He has maintained a lifelong commitment to newspapers, long after it became clear that they were no longer profitable. He has a feistiness at 81, when he could be happily sitting on a yacht somewhere. He now spews his opinions on that newfangled social network called Twitter, and since he’s the undisputed kingpin of News Corp., who’s going to stop him?
            But over the weekend, Murdoch sent out a tweet that went beyond outrageous to offensive, truly offensive. He played off the worst kind of historical libel against Jews. And while he later tweeted a semi-apology, it’s not clear he understands the magnitude of his hurtful words.
            Watch: Murdoch’s ‘Jewish Press’ Rant–More CEOs Spewing on Twitter
            The subject was the violence flaring in the Middle East, with Israel mounting airstrikes in Gaza after a long series of rocket attacks by the Hamas government. The message:
            “Why is Jewish owned press so consistently anti-Israel in every crisis?”
            That’s right, he said Jewish-owned press, reviving the old canard about Jews controlling the media. Who, exactly, is he talking about?
            Watch: Petraeus overkill or permissable pandering?
            Well, there’s the Jewish heritage of the Sulzberger family, which owns The New York Times and Murdoch sees as a rival. Beyond that, most major media outlets are owned by public companies: Comcast (NBC), Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC), Time Warner (CNN), Tribune (Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times), Gannett (USA Today). The Graham family, which owns The Washington Post, isn’t Jewish.
            And isn’t there something rich in a complaint about media ownership by the man who controls Fox News, the Fox broadcast network, 20th Century Fox, the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, the Sunday Times, Sky News, HarperCollins and other properties?
            Beyond that, it’s hard to take ethical lectures from a man who presided over a phone-hacking scandal in London that — whatever his knowledge of it — prompted him to close the longstanding News of the World tabloid and has led to the arrests of several of his former lieutenants.
            Watch: Orgy of advice on getting away with Petraeus-like affair
            What’s more, Murdoch has never been shy about interfering in his newsrooms — cozying up to politicians ranging from Ed Koch to Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair — so maybe he expects others to shape news coverage in the same way. Murdoch’s Fox News portrayed Mitt Romney as a more viable candidate than he turned out to be.
            But the heart of Murdoch’s indictment is far more troubling.
            He is suggesting that Jewish Americans have a hidden agenda in which their religion trumps their commitment to journalism. Since Murdoch finds these outlets allegedly dominated by Jews to be anti-Israel, perhaps he thinks they are of the self-loathing variety.
            In a tweet on Sunday, Murdoch seemed to defend his use of the phrase: ” ‘Jewish owned press’ have been sternly criticized, suggesting link to Jewish reporters. Don’t see this, but apologise unreservedly.” The wording is too cryptic to know for what exactly he’s apologizing.
            Watch: Why Romney’s ‘gifts’ comments diminish him
            Earlier, Murdoch had tweeted that Israel’s position was “precarious,” adding “watch CNN and AP bias to the point of embarrassment.”

            1. Is all criticism of U.S. policy ant-American? If so, then all of the Republicans who criticized Obama’s policies are anti-American. Or you can accept that it’s possible to criticize American policies without being anti-American.

              In the same way, it’s possible to criticize Israeli policies without being anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.

              Soros isn’t anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.

  4. Why is it that some people who are told by their eventual killer that the killer’s goal is to kill them refuse to see the danger?

    1. Good question Manny.

      Ill take a stab. Maybe, because the people who hire the killer control the mass media and they tell them they are racist baddies if they resist their own doom

      and like the sheeple they are, docile and credulous, they believe it

  5. If someone would like to take the time to read the history of the Peruvian Communist Party Shinning Path you will see so many similarities to what is happening today in the USA, left teachers in the universities, killing police officers, Molotov bombs, burning business, and then they became more aggressive, killing business men, car bombs, explosives in apartment buildings. All in the name of social equity. I am having a dejá-vue.

  6. Jonathan Turley wrote, “The way to fight Antifa is not to adopt draconian measures like sedition with long histories of anti-free speech applications. That is what Antifa wants. They want the government to fulfill its stereotype. That is why this is a mistake. It is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unwise.”

    That reads like a unethical rationalization.

    If the law applies to the criminal act that was done then use the law should be used against the criminal regardless of what ANTIFA wants or doesn’t want! The law rules, unethical rationalization can take a hike.

  7. The question is who should be charged with sedition: The perps rioting, looting, and burning or the perps who are supposed to protect us from these violations and allow it?

  8. Jonathan Turley wrote, “The memo suggests a more general use of sedition for anyone opposing government authority by force. Such a use of sedition laws directly threatens free speech values and would return to dark periods of the suppression of dissent in our country.” (Bold Mine)

    This kind of logic doesn’t pass the smell test Jonathan.

    Using the sedition laws against violent destructive rioters that are opposing government and authority will not directly or indirectly threaten free speech values or dissent in any way. Rioting like we have seen is NOT free speech or dissent, the riots are criminal acts and general violent mayhem by individuals that appear to be opposing government and any authority – it’s sedition and subversion.

    1. prosecute the little fish for riot

      prosecute those who can be for arson and aggravated assault on peace officers

      prosecute the organizers for racketeering

      this is a better approach than sedition. sedition trial have gone very wrong for the US over those rare occasions when used

      i suspect this is a head fake by Barr. He knows what I say as do most people with an understanding of prosecutorial history

      moreover the AUSAs know it and don’t want to break their teeth on difficult sedition cases

      just prosecute riot, arson, aggravated assault, destruction of federal property, and RICO and it can roll the whole mess of racketeers up like they did the mafia

      1. Mr. Kurtz,
        I agree that all these people can and should be charged for the things you mentioned, but there are those that should also be charged with sedition.

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

        Subversion: the undermining of the power and authority of an established system or institution.

        As an example; the chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, Hawk Newsome, said on a live TV interview “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it” and has since doubled down on that statement and others have followed his lead; this is NOT justice, this is sedition and subversion.

  9. Turley’s conclusion about using the sedition laws to punish the violence taking place at recent protests is that it is a “mistake”, “unnecessary, unwarranted, and unwise.” It’s also tyrannical. Turley never seems to point this out frankly, although he does get to its essence. The substantive law of sedition should be unconstitutional, full stop. It would be unconstitutional in a genuinely free society. So would treason, terrorism, or any abstract political offense which is capable of being defined so loosely, and so arbitrarily applied, as to allow the government to criminalize political dissent – and, yes indeed, revolution, which any oppressed people have a right to, that is, if we still take the Declaration of Independence at its word. The appropriate offenses for suppressing and punishing rioting and violence are those “conventional” offenses that Turley listed, nothing more. Any government move to go beyond punishing specific acts of violence or property destruction with defamatory political rhetoric, even if it happens to be legal, is tyrannical and, in the word of John Locke, “is liable to be treated accordingly.”

    1. wartberg is some kind of anarchist or liberterian nutter who wants to get rid of not only sedition but treason now. wow.

      I cancel liberterians and anarchists. enemies of law and order in its very essence

      Locke had a lot of fantasies but he is long dead and his stale bromides will soon be erased. the BLM is erasing many of them before our eyes.

      liberterians like their bastid cousins the anarchists.
      this is a bad taste and you fools who still harbor the error must disavow it fast or you will end up outside the city gates with the savages you wanted to protect

  10. Turley: “The Justice Department appears interested in using the language “oppose by force the authority” of the United States government to push sedition charges. The memo cited as a hypothetical example “a group has conspired to take a federal courthouse or other federal property by force.” ”

    Instead of using the “oppose by force” clause for taking over a federal courthouse, why wouldn’t the Justice Department use the “by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof” clause? Does Barr just want to create the widest net possible to catch all who demonstrate against Trump’s world?

  11. “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.”
    Laws aren’t precatory. They are an expression of popular will and an indelible provision of the social contract. To fail to enforce them would be a betrayal of the contractual duties a nation owes to its law abiding citizens and to itself. Let’s quit pandering to revolutionaries out of some sentimental notions of restraint by claiming a law doesn’t fit when it obviously does.

    1. Let’s enforce all of the white collar crime laws too. To fail to enforce them would be a betrayal of the contractual duties a nation owes to its law abiding citizens and to itself.

            1. Sure, who hasn’t found themselves in this position?

              “…The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade.

              In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found when it compared his results with detailed information the I.R.S. compiles on an annual sampling of high-income earners. His core business losses in 1990 and 1991 — more than $250 million each year — were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers in the I.R.S. information for those years….”


              1. a lot of business managers get rich running businesses at a loss. trump is not the first nor will he be the last. Wall Street is full of them

      1. I agree with your sarcastic comment. A better solution would be a “sunset” provision for all laws and statutes that could result in me being imprisoned. After a given time on the books it comes up for “review”. The law would face automatic repeal if the justice department cannot show cause to enforce it.

    2. Using that measuring stick, we should also prosecute torture techniques adopted from the Spanish Inquisition, warrantless domestic spying [a felony] and violating FISA – also a felony.

    3. Indeed, and among the more recent failures of that contractual duty was the Senate’s treatment of the impeachment trial of the President where they refused to hear witnesses for the 1st time in our long history, and when a 1st person witness was waiting in the wings.

  12. Citing the above law 18 U.S. Code 2384: “…the Government of the United States” is a “constitutional democratic republic” model of government, that is designed to RESTRAIN unconstitutional authoritarianism. Since “Marbury v. Madison” established judicial review, in America the Judicial Branch interprets constitutionality NOT the Executive Branch DOJ. What really makes America great is a system of checks & balances and an independent judiciary that provides a counter-weight to authoritarian actions that violate the U.S. Constitution. The Judicial Branch interprets this, not Barr. Barr needs permission from his co-equal branches of government.

    1. Every lawyer knows a mob of people engaged in an awful assembly — some violent and some just cheering them on — is really a gang of perps and accomplices. Aiding and encouraging a crime provides as much culpability as committing the criminal act itself. JT skipped over that little matter. Oops.

      1. yes he did

        apparently he’s not going to get too precise and technical in his columns. maybe he saves it for the law students? or maybe won’t go there because they intimidate him

        turley’s got more ballz than I do but i suppose he has his limitations too

    2. Mayor Richard J Daley of Chicago told police to shoot to maim looters and shoot to kill arsonist. I second your motion to use live ammo. More importantly the sedition law is clear. It’s use is justified as it is written. If you don’t like it’s application or the legitimate enforcement of other laws (immergration) then seek their repeal.

      1. Mayor Daley in that instance proved that while his city government had tolerated a lot of corruption, deep down he was truly a man of law and order. God bless his memory

  13. That’s because you still naively see what’s going on as somehow related to the death of George Floyd or whatever pretext they’re using now. All of this was planned, from the coronavirus’ release to the “riots.” Take away the BLM tshirts and what you have left is open sedition. Excuse me for saying so but this inability to see what’s right in front of your eyes is the principal characteristic of the left. If I call myself “free candy for the poor” and go around burning cities and shooting people, half the country will judge me on my results and half (the left half) will judge me on my “intentions.” The tragic part is that the left half will not wake up and smell the coffee until there is no coffee left to smell. We are on the brink of a world war with China and the entire world has been brought to its knees by Chinese action. You probably think that’s a coincidence too. To weaken our country in this very delicate and perilous moment is foolhardy to say the least and to defend it is unconscionable.

    1. Allison, anyone who thinks that All of this was planned, from the coronavirus’ release to the “riots.” is a conspiracy theorist.
      Are you a QAnon supporter too?

  14. Olivia Troye — a lifelong Republican and assistant to Pence — reports Dear Leader Trump saying “Maybe this COVID thing is a good thing. I don’t like shaking hands with people. I don’t have to shake hands with these disgusting people.”

    1. Aninymouse:
      Oh yeah, she’s credible. I suppose timing of an attack provides you no evidence of its validity. Don’t speak up then, do it right before an election. Another politics whore looking for a John. And with you, she found one.

      1. She’s credible enough to have been a top Pence staffer.

        According to you, when was she supposed to have spoken up?

        When Trump said in January that “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine”?
        When Trump said in February that “The flu, in our country, kills from 25,000 people to 69,000 people a year. That was shocking to me. And, so far, if you look at what we have with the 15 people and their recovery, one is — one is pretty sick but hopefully will recover, but the others are in great shape. But think of that: 25,000 to 69,000. … And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done”?
        When Trump said in February that “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear” and in May that it’s “going to go away without a vaccine”?
        When Trump said in March that “Anybody that needs a test, gets a test. We—they’re there. They have the tests. And the tests are beautiful” and “If somebody wants to be tested right now, they’ll be able to be tested”?
        When Trump said in April that “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? … It would be interesting to check that”?

        1. Anonymous:

          No she made the slur after she left Pence so her credibility inquiry starts then. People change, Anon, and yes liars do work for good people. Another lesson you need to learn. She looks like another cat lady in waiting and on the make.

          1. mespo727272, what a coward you are.

            You can’t even bring yourself to say when she was supposed to have spoken up.

            1. Aninnymouse:

              Happy to, oh liar-in-chief, From the Washington Compost:

              “Ms. Troye is a former detailee and a career Department of Homeland Security staff member, who is disgruntled that her detail was cut short because she was no longer capable of keeping up with her day-to-day duties,” retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Pence’s national security adviser, said in a statement. “Ms. Troye directly reported to me, and never once during her detail did she ever express any concern regarding the Administration’s response to the Coronavirus to anyone in her chain of command. By not expressing her concerns, she demonstrated an incredible lack of moral courage.”

              Like I said, she’s another cat lady in waiting.

      2. Yeah, everybody else who has worked with Trump leaves with glowing remarks on his work habits and empathy and he in turn is incredibly loyal to them. The stability of his cabinet and staff is clear evidence of this relationship as is the prestige and collective wisdom of the pool of available personnel waiting in the wings to fit those very few vacancies.

        Besides, why would she wait this long, and just when we’ve “turned the corner” on the virus and the President’s vigorous leadership on the crisis is otherwise in full display?

        1. she probably got paid off by some operators who are busy setting up stories like this in a cookie cutter fashion

          one has to admire the seriousness and effectiveness of Democratic party mass media manipulations. they hire the best

          Mike Pence obviously doesn’t

          1. Kurtz, you’re full of s..t on this and you know it. Provide evidence to support your mischaracterization of her or shut up. Everything she said is in tune with known facts of the a..hole you worship and she has led an exemplary life to this point, and as a committed republican with principles. Trump has none, which means those who follow him don’t either.

            1. “Kurtz, you’re full of s..t on this and you know it. Provide evidence to support your mischaracterization of her or shut up. Everything she said is in tune with known facts of the a..hole you worship”
              You really are a profane old man with nothing to add to the discussion but your lies.

          2. The ad was produced by the group Republican Voters Against Trump, “a coalition of Republicans, former Republicans, conservatives, and former Trump voters who can’t support Trump for president this fall” —
            You may not like that some Republicans and conservatives oppose Trump, but surely you’re not in such denial that you believe they don’t exist.

            1. Anon, you mean the cabal of Romney like RINO-CINO endless war hawks who would bend over forwards for China & supported all the terrible trade deals that got the fake repubs paid off as they watched US companies move out of the USA leaving a LOT of US citizens unemployed ?


    2. one dumb girl says something and Democrats hail her as a bellweather. she’s nothing more than another weak hand flushed out of the game

      1. Mr Kurtz, you’re making excuses. Your scenario requires that you think VP Pence is dumb — that he hired a dumb girl as one of his senior staffers, and he never noticed that she was dumb and kept her on his staff for years. You imagine that she was flushed, when she wasn’t fired.

        Do you truly think Pence is that dumb Mr Kurtz?

        1. No, I think he is modestly intelligent. But not overly so. I did not say he was dumb, I said she was dumb

          I did say that “he does not hire the best” and clearly he did not when he hired her

          Mike Pence is typically midwestern, very straightforward and not all that complicated. the DC Swamp is a byzantine miasma. He needs to do better at screening what sort of people come on his staff. He needs to be more cunning.

          Trump often does not choose staff well either. In his case, he is plenty cunning, but more in a business way than a politics way.

          Nancy Pelosi is the pinnacle of cunning in the political way.

          1. So why didn’t Pence fire her if she was dumb?
            You want to pretend that this was all about ineffective screening, ignoring that he kept her on as senior staff for years.

      2. Or yet another high level trump administration insider risking the wrath of blowhards and coming out and saying trump is the pathway to the death of whatever sort of democractic principles adhered to previously in the U.S. My sympathies are with her rather than the crowd that goes around making excuses for a narcissistic showhorse of an orange shartmeister who every time he gets caught in a lie they try to ground his illogical schlock into some sort of logical excuse. Probably the best use of your time may be to hide in shame and try to piece together the wreckage of your misplaced gullibility and racial animosity?

    3. Transcript of her remarks:

      “I’m Olivia Troye. I was Homeland Security and Counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Pence, and served as Vice President Pence’s lead staff member on the Covid-19 response. You know, I’d been on the Covid Task Force from day one. I mean, the virus was very unpredictable at the beginning. There were a lot of unknowns.

      “But towards the middle of February, we knew it wasn’t a matter of if Covid would become a big pandemic here in the United States. It was a matter of when. But the president didn’t want to hear that, because his biggest concern was that we in were an election year. And, how is this going to affect what he considered to be his record of success? It was shocking to see the president saying that the virus was a hoax, saying that everything’s okay, when we knew that it’s not.

      “The truth is he doesn’t actually care about anyone else but himself. He made a statement once. It was very striking. I never forgot it, because it pretty much defined who he was. When we were on a task force meeting, the president said, “Maybe this covid thing is a good thing. I don’t like shaking hands of people. I don’t have to shake hands with these ‘disgusting’ people.” Those disgusting people are the same people that he claims to care about. These are the people still going to his rallies today who have complete faith in who he is.

      “If the president had taken this virus seriously, or if he had actually made the effort to tell how serious it was, he would have slowed the virus spread. He would have saved lives.

      “It was the opportunity and honor of a lifetime to be able to serve in the White House. I put my heart and soul into this role every single day. But at some points I would come home at night. I would look myself in the mirror, and say, “Are you really making a difference? Does it matter?” Because no matter how hard you work and what you do, the president is going to do something that is detrimental to keeping Americans safe, which is why you signed up for this role. It was awful. It is. It was terrifying.

      “I have been a Republican for my entire life. I am a McCain Republican. I am a Bush Republican and I am voting for Joe Biden because I truly believe we are at a time of constitutional crisis. At this point, it’s country over party.”

      But Republicans here like Mr Kurtz and mespo727272 can’t bring themselves to put country over party.

      Is there anything that would ever convince them that Trump doesn’t actually care about anyone else but himself?

      They’d have to come to terms with having believed in such a fraud, and maybe that’s too threatening for them.

      1. Anon, ah ha! She is a McCain & Patriot Act Bush Republican. Both of these dirt bags were FAKE Republicans, just like the Romney cabal I mentioned earlier.

        That she is voting for Creepy Unka Joe is another exposing tell. What does Joe B stand for? I am not sure he knows. He waits to be told, he does, the poor demented sock puppet. The Harris-Biden team wants higher taxes, socialized medicine, open borders, more regulation, the old trade agreements that left the US n very bad financial state…. Then there are Joe’s China & Ukraine connections. Lotta peeps bash Trump for his previous comments & such, but pay no attention to the Harris Willie Brown affair. Kamala slept her war up. But, hey that just fine & dandy. Uh huh…

        Mr. T isn’t perfect. But he at least is standing up to China, our worst enemy & greatest threat ATM. Except for the Dim & Repub deep state & the fake stream media.


  15. Turely….the small difference you seem to overlook….peaceful protest is an expression of Free Speech. The use of violence in furtherance of that speech is a criminal act. When done with the express intent of overthrowing the established government….the use of violence in a concerted and coordinated effort with others….that is Sedition and should be prosecuted as such along with any other crimes that are committed.

    Free speech is protected….absolutely….but violence of any kind is not!

    1. And let’s talk about the difference between peaceful protest and Antifa.

      Peaceful protest does not occupy public parks and city blocks. Antifa does.

      Peaceful protect does not block local roads and interstates. Antifa does.

      Peaceful protest does not break windows and set fires. Antifa does.

      Peaceful protest does not physically attack police and firemen with lasers, explosives, and feces. Antifa does.

      1. Peaceful free speech won’t stop ANTIFA. Organization and the force of law will.

        Disorder and anarchy will never win. Sometimes they get a moment in the spotlight such as when the Bolsheviks– tactically use them to create a screen of disorder as they go rob the banks. but then when the Bolsheviks are in charge, then they cancel the anarchist tickets. off to the gallows they go. soon to be followed by the Trotskyites too.

        This pattern will reassert itself in one form or another. Government and organization win over chaos in the long run. maybe not the government we like or prefer, but organization is always stronger than disorganization

  16. The AG’s suggestion is sort of backwards. I like Barr and the job he’s been doing, but the justice system is an essential part of the government, and it collapsed a long time ago. People are just now beginning to notice. There’s nothing there to “overthrow”. The job now is restoration, and the nationwide protests are part of that – restoration – not “sedition”.

  17. That you would equate Antifa to free speech, and crackdowns on left-wing violence (like burning, looting, and murdering peace officers) to suppression of dissent, is deeply disturbing.

    Antifa is a violent, left-wing, militia group that actively seeks to oppose with force the duly constituted government of the United States simply because it doesn’t like the results of the last presidential election. Antifa’s very existence is a seditious conspiracy. Moreover, while its actions harm all Americans, Antifa disproportionately harms the poor, sick, and minority communities it pretends to care about (but really just exploits).

    American society would go a long way if our government simply started enforcing the laws against the left.

  18. Barr is using the term sedition to try to give the idea that if Trump is not re-elected it would be more like a Revolution. Trying to summon the base to think of themselves in the role of the earlier patriots. Disgusting tactic!

        1. Aninny:

          “Art Deco, you have more flotsam and jestsam between your ears than she does.”
          Oh touché’ there D’Artagnan! You know, intellectually, Arty can buy, sell and liquidate you, right?

Leave a Reply