Are Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell guilty of sedition?

[gabosaurus]

I am referring only to sedition as it is legally defined. Based on what they actually said. Not what they "meant to say," or whether you approve or disapprove. ------> https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2021/05/31/trump-ally-michael-flynn-says-what-happened-in-coup-stricken-myanmar-should-happen-in-us-at-dallas-conference/

[icansayit]

I am referring only to sedition as it is legally defined. Based on what they actually said. Not what they "meant to say," or whether you approve or disapprove. ------> https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2021/05/31/trump-ally-michael-flynn-says-what-happened-in-coup-stricken-myanmar-should-happen-in-us-at-dallas-conference/

Unless you INCLUDE yourself with them. You answered your own questions. But then. Who can believe YOU?

[fj1200]

Given that the charge of treason flies pretty freely from some around here...

[jimnyc]

I am referring only to sedition as it is legally defined. Based on what they actually said. Not what they "meant to say," or whether you approve or disapprove. ------> https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2021/05/31/trump-ally-michael-flynn-says-what-happened-in-coup-stricken-myanmar-should-happen-in-us-at-dallas-conference/

I think for it to have been sedition they would have to show intent. No intent and then just their opinion or whatever, not sure that's illegal - or ever should be. He's an idiot for his comments. But I don't think this makes him guilty of sedition.

I'm not sure of what you are basing it on for Sidney Powell as she's not in the article you posted.

[gabosaurus]

I think for it to have been sedition they would have to show intent. No intent and then just their opinion or whatever, not sure that's illegal - or ever should be. He's an idiot for his comments. But I don't think this makes him guilty of sedition. I'm not sure of what you are basing it on for Sidney Powell as she's not in the article you posted. I thought Powell was in that article as well. Maybe here ---------> https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bebg/qanon-conference-wildest-moments-from-patriot-roundup-dallas I asked about sedition because, not being an attorney, I wasn't sure about it. I read this, but it didn't really clear things up. ---------> https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html

[jimnyc]

I thought Powell was in that article as well. Maybe here ---------> https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bebg/qanon-conference-wildest-moments-from-patriot-roundup-dallas I asked about sedition because, not being an attorney, I wasn't sure about it. I read this, but it didn't really clear things up. ---------> https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html

Better to go by the direct act and words/contents. I really don't see either one fitting into this definition:


The federal Sedition Act of 1918 states, in part, as follows:

"Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...."

Idiotic statements? Yes. Guilty of sedition? Don't see it.

[gabosaurus]

Idiotic statements? Yes. Guilty of sedition? Don't see it. Given the definition that you offered, I would have to agree with you.

[darin]

Wouldn't one assume he merely misspoke? Or maybe he believes it? And that's fine. We are allowed to believe 50M people voted for the current president and maybe 70M for someone else (because I suspect that's true). We are allowed to believe we should protect the republic at all costs.