Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Hi Jim,
I'm not finding that distinction here:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html
Or here: "sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force."
https://law.jrank.org/pages/10113/Sedition.html

Hi Rod:

Looks like I was wrong, the nature of historical sedition has caused it to be rolled up into the modern seditious conspiracy law  (I guess sedition always must have a conspiracy element, unlike murder)  

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384  Up to 20 years in the federal pen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_conspiracy

There is also this:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385  Also up to 20 years in prison.  I doubt that they charge anyone with a section 2385 crime, seems like it covers a lot of free speech to me.   

Thanks for the correction, Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod:

Looks like I was wrong, the nature of historical sedition has caused it to be rolled up into the modern seditious conspiracy law  (I guess sedition always must have a conspiracy element, unlike murder)  

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384  Up to 20 years in the federal pen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_conspiracy

There is also this:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385  Also up to 20 years in prison.  I doubt that they charge anyone with a section 2385 crime, seems like it covers a lot of free speech to me.   

Thanks for the correction, Jim

This is a good article that you linked:  https://law.jrank.org/pages/10113/Sedition.html  It references a Supreme Court case finding the Smith Act (now 18 USC 2385) constitutional.  It does look like something more than just speech is necessary to commit this crime, like I mentioned to Mel.  Of course, the government here has alleged a lot more than just speech, so it is going to come down to what they can prove.  

The distinction between 2384 and 2385 is subtle.  I think these oath keepers are charged with 2384, but I'll check.

Here is the Supreme Court case affirming 2385:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/341us494

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You keep saying this.  What exactly am I NOT believing Jim?  

Because I don't think what these clowns did anything that could be considered anything like an INSURRECTION, then I'm in denial am I?

Please explain your thoughts, because you seem to be jumping to conclusions that I never stated.

I heard the guy yesterday, on Tucker, the place you said would NOT cover the story.  He not only covered it, he had the guy on TV who has been charged with sedition.

So then, since you apparently are in tune as to what "sedition" amounts to, tell me what you KNOW that this defendant did that could be construed as Sedition.

Or are you judge, jury, and executioner regarding the guy since Rachel Maddow told you that he was an Insurrectionist?  

Is that how it works with you?  He's guilty because the DOJ SAID he was?

Let me ask you another simple question Jim, its regarding the guy who wore the Viking helmet and strolled onto the House of Reps Floor.  

Did he deserve 4 YEARS in Prison as he was sentenced?   If so, WHY?  

They aren't charged with insurrection.  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

More importantly:  https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1462481/download

These defendants are charged with Seditious Conspiracy, under 18 USC 2384  Rod and I have both linked and quoted that statute.  Whether the gov. can prove that case will be interesting.  It has nothing to do with insurrection (see 18 USC 2383).  J

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

People discuss a LOT of things, acting on them is another matter.

Yep, conspiracy type crimes are one area where the laws make a lot of common sense.  

The alleged weapons stockpile in VA caught my eye.  Can the Feds prove that?  That along with the alleged planning and discussion (if proved) would fully justify 20 years IMHO.

J

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Thanks for the links to the US Codes on Insurrection 

Incidentally, insurrection is what I believe the Adam Schiffs of the world want to charge Trump with:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

Seems like a complete and utter pipe-dream to me, no matter what Rod says.  Not that it would break my heart if Trump were not able to run in '24, but he did not meet the reequipments of section 2383 based on the evidence we have so far.  My opinion only, of course.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I'm not butt-hurt over it. Presidential polling is only as good as the poller and the source of information. Besides, Trump never came close to breaking 50% approval. His rating remained amazingly flat throughout his entire Presidency averaging somewhere around 40%?

See that green line below? That's Biden's first year compared to Trump. It's not that disappointing if I paid much attention to such things.

Hi James:

I too like 538 and RCP's aggregates.  But no matter how you slice it, Biden's numbers are poor.  He is beating Trump only among modern presidents at this point in time.  (See your initial post).  If I were a D, I'd be very concerned, since presidential approval is a good predictor for midterm results. 

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I beg to differ. 

He's losing to Trump on the percentages.

I don't think Trump was at 33% approval. 

Ben Shapiro said that fully 75% of the American people say America is on the wrong track.  I don't recall that kind of percentage anytime Trump was in office.

So then Jim, do you still want to say Biden is beating Trump?    

James and I were talking about the 538 aggregates and their very cool graphic interface that shows Biden's approval against other president's approval going back over 50 years.  You knew that right?  So yes, Trump was lower than Biden at this point in his presidency.  With respect to James and my conversation, that is not disputable.  It is also not disputable that according to the 538 aggregates, Biden is lower than all the rest of the presidents shown.  

Of course you can find a poll where Biden is at 33% this many days into his first term.  To compare apples to apples, you would also have to check out Trump's poll numbers in individual polls this many days into his first term.  The tricky thing is that some polls have D bias and others have R bias, so the lowest polls might not be the same ones for Biden and Trump.  This is precisely why James and I prefer poll aggregations like 538 and RCP.  Picking out individual polls that validate one's own personal point of view is too easy.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Well Jim, as you've previously stated in other posts, inflation and the price of gas are going to be determinants of the outcome of the midterms. If the Republicans do well, the people will see they have no policies to deal with either or anything else, for that matter.  Take Glenn Youngkin who was sworn in as governor of Virginia the other day. He signed a "executives actions" on day one including: 1 Banning critical race theory. Er, ah, Virginia has never taught CRT in its schools and didn't plan to. 2. Eliminate mask mandates in schools. Well, that's likely to be held illegal by the courts since it was enacted by the general assembly of the state. And if you've been following how it's been going in the school districts that have been forced to so  by governors like DeSantis, you know how badly that's worked out.
Finally, we need to see what the Fed will do about taming inflation. It appears that oil production by the Saudis will increase:  https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/04/business/opec-russia-agree-increase-oil-output/
So, we'll see what that does with gas prices...

Agreed - there are significant economic factors at play that could pump up or deflate the D chances in the midterms.  Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I did attempt to make some altercations immediately when I wrote it,

Rich, you gotta admit that this is a darned funny typo, given the source.  Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Why do I need to compare Bumble to Trump? I dont give a rats ass what Trump's ratings were. He isnt the president and it isnt a contest. My point was Bumble is doing BAD, I cant think of one single thing he has done that has made anything better. I guess it shouldnt be a surprise though......he did pretty much nothing for around 40 years in politics unless you count fondling women and girls and sniffing their hair.....

As for the poll I quoted, it is widely believed and not disputed by the left to lean left by 3 to 5%.....

Hi Greg:  No one disputes that the polls for Biden stink.  Why care?  Good question.  I care a little bit because the President's approval ratings are a good indicator of his parties likelihood of success in the midterms.  I want an R congress to compliment a D president.  Also, I would love to see our Senator Michael Bennett replaced with a Republican, breaking the D stranglehold on Colorado.  Bennett is supposed to be vulnerable if there is an epic R wave in November.  I'm skeptical.

This guy knows what he is talking about:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/01/14/what_bidens_approval_rating_means_for_the_midterms_147029.html

The poll you cite (Quinnipiac) is a good one by the way.  My post you replied to was directed at Rich, who earlier made the naked assertion that Biden is polling lower than Trump at this point in time.  Rich did not make a defensible point unless you cherry pick polls.  I did not mean to put down Quinnipiac, which is very well regarded and usually leans left, as you noted.  Their 34% numbers for Biden are abysmal.  J