Throw the book at Mark Meadows.

[dutch508]

Star Member kentuck (104,967 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216633210

Throw the book at Mark Meadows.

There is evidence already, from the tapes and the text messages that show the degree he conspired to overthrow the last election. All evidence points to seditious conspiracy.

They may not have the evidence on Donald Trump yet, but they have it on Meadows. Not only is he refusing to talk with the Committee but he is also withholding documents that have been requested by the Congress.

He was the person that every Republican talked to when they wanted to send a message to Donald Trump, as if we had a king or something? Even his family would communicate with Meadows when they wanted to say something to their father. Meadows was involved with the entire conspiracy every inch of the way.

Even to the point of calling up election officials in Georgia to try to get them to call the White House. Trump wanted the official, the Secretary of State, to find 11,780 votes our of thin air and declare him the victor in Georgia. They have it on tape.

Never mind that Meadows was registered in three different places to vote. He has caused great damage to our country and must be held accountable.

A sentence of 10-20 years might give him the incentive to want to talk with the Committee? Only the threat of a long prison sentence will loosen his tongue. Only then will Donald Trump be charged.

Mark Meadows should be charged immediately.

 

Ohio Joe (18,255 posts)

4. I agree, throw the book at him...

With the 7th Grand Jury only a few weeks in, I don't think it will be immediate that you see charges though... My guess is around Aug but it is only a guess. We have no way of knowing how long the Grand Jury will go.

Star Member onenote (36,976 posts)

7. What evidence points to Meadows engaging in seditious conspiracy?

Keep in mind that judicial precedent establishes that the seditious conspiracy statute requires participation in an conspiracy whose goal is “the exertion of force against those charged with the duty of executing the laws of the United States.”

There definitely were those involved in the January 6 insurrection as to whom a charge of seditious conspiracy would be in order. But I haven't seen any evidence (let alone "all of the evidence" ) that points to Meadows being part of the planning for the use of force on January 6.

 

Novara (1,116 posts)

30. Force is not required

Seditious conspiracy:


18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
U.S. Code

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. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


Note the "or."

The conspiracy is there. And we don't even have all the info the DOJ has.

 

Star Member onenote (36,976 posts)

37. and its plain meaning is that force is an element of sedition

As every case brought under the statute has held.

Even if you don't accept that force modifies overthrow and destroy, the fact is that the use of force is implicit in those words.

Otherwise, attempting to "overthrow" the sitting government by non-forceful means -- such as by running against an incumbent, or voting as provided in law, not to accept a state's electors -- would be a crime.


But basically, what your post indicates, is that you can't find any citation that supports your interpretation of the statute.

Novara (1,116 posts)

38. Nope

"Otherwise, attempting to "overthrow" the sitting government by non-forceful means -- such as by running against an incumbent, or voting as provided in law, not to accept a state's electors -- would be a crime."


Where'd you get this???? "Running against an incumbent"? Seriously?



Um, I posted the legal statute in the U.S. Code. Let me post it again:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
U.S. Code

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. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


"Or" is a small word but it is carrying a heavy load here. The statute says "conspire to overthrow" OR "put down" OR "to destroy by force." It does not say "Conspire to overthrow by force," and it does not say "put down by force." It also does not say "and." It is a subtle difference but it is an important difference.

And think about it: Meadows was warned there would be violence. He conspired to overthrow Biden anyway. Legal experts believe: "But actively planning such an action (distributing guns, working out the logistics of an attack, actively opposing lawful authority, etc.) could be considered a seditious conspiracy." Who worked with the mob? Who was working on a way to "actively oppose lawful authority" (i.e. the certification of the votes)? Those at the top "were working out the logistics of an attack" with the organizations represented in the mob and they knew violence was going to happen.

Will it be easy to convict? Most likely not. We don't even know if those at the top would be charged with seditious conspiracy. But legally, they meet several of the elements of seditious conspiracy as defined in the legal code.

Star Member onenote (36,976 posts)

39. Definition of "overthrow"

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/overthrow_1

Not sure what law school you attended, but the one I attended taught me about statutory construction and there is no question -- none at all -- that the sedition statute requires a conspiracy to use force to carry out its objective.

And Meadows knowing about others planning to use force does not make him a co-conspirator. Again, maybe your law school didn't teach you this, but it is well settled there needs to be evidence that the person accused of being a co-conspirator had a mutual understanding with at least one other person of their specific intent to commit the objective of the conspiracy. It is not enough for a person to have knowledge or have been warned by others that there could/would be violence on January 6. As one of the leading cases on seditious conspiracy notes, everyone named as a co-conspirator must be shown to have a “shared a ‘unity of purpose,’ the intent to achieve a common goal, and an agreement to work toward that goal.” While Meadows and others had a shared unity of purpose and intent to get Congress not to declare Biden the winner of the election, the evidence that he agreed that violence should be used to achieve that end just isn't there.

Again, I implore you to cite one case that would support the prosecution you think should be brought.

Novara (1,116 posts)

40. I cited the statute. Twice.

The law is on the books.

Star Member onenote (36,976 posts)

41. I pray you're not an attorney

Given your lack of understanding of statutory construction.

 

Nululu (567 posts)

9. 4 months and they haven't charged him with contempt.

Mark Meadows like the rest will skate. I'm completely disgusted by our injustice system.

Our DoJ is a joke and a disgrace.

Star Member kentuck (104,967 posts)

18. How certain are you of that?

I think Mark Meadows is the key to busting the whole sordid scandal wide open. Once he falls, all the others will follow, possibly including Donald Trump.

But, at the moment, it all points to Mark Meadows, unless he can prove he was taking his orders from Donald Trump. That is likely the case, but there may be no proof?

Star Member MineralMan (143,233 posts)

22. Well, that's one way to approach it.

However, we are learning more all the time about Meadows. Perhaps waiting until we have all the possible information from and about him that there is would be a better idea than charging him with something right now.

No doubt he could be charged immediately, but we might gain more by holding off a while longer. There are bigger fish we would like to see in the witness stand during their trial, I think.

Charging him immediately could be the immediate end to additional information and evidence becoming available.

Star Member kentuck (104,967 posts)

27. That is possible.

I found it interesting the other day when someone on MSNBC asked Jamie Raskin, one of the Committee members, about the latest leaked memos of Mark Meadows, and he said they did not come from the Committee? I found it curious that the point was not pursued. If they did not come from the Committee, then who gave them to the reporters? Was it Meadows? How many is he still holding on to?

Novara (1,116 posts)

31. Right. It appears they could build a much bigger case

News is coming out almost every day.

I used to be one of the people calling for prosecutions NOW. But seeing how leaks are happening almost on a daily basis as they get closer and closer to the top, it looks like Raskin probably is right - it's gonna blow the roof off the house. Think about how much more they know that we don't at this point.

Play the tape forward a few months: if Raskin is right and the hearings present massively damning evidence of a whole conspiracy from the top down to overthrow Biden, people are gonna be enraged. It'll be summer, so maybe we'll have protest marches until the DOJ acts. And if We The People are demanding prosecutions, it looks a hell of a lot less partisan than if just the committee (which is mostly Democrats and a couple of "turncoats" refers the mother****ers to the DOJ. America will demand justice.

So I'm gonna sit back and watch what happens. I'll watch the leaks and anticipate the public hearings in June. I can't wait to see what the committee will present to the public.



And the next time some idiot whines at you about a stolen election, ask them this: if Democrats stole 2020, why didn't they also steal more Senators? Gotta have a solid majority to get shit done, especially with the filibuster. So why wouldn't we also steal more members in the House as well? And in statehouses? More Democratic governors? Then go ahead and state the obvious: The American people rejected Trump. Period. He's the one they really wanted gone. They kept their corrupt representatives and Senators but they couldn't stand trump. What do they say to that?

fightforfreedom (906 posts)

32. You and I are on the same page.

I believe Meadows is going to turn on everyone in order to save his ass. He is a spineless, backstabbing, piece of shit.

[SVPete]

Star Member kentuck (104,967 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216633210

Throw the book at Mark Meadows.

There is evidence already, from the tapes and the text messages that show the degree he conspired to overthrow the last election. All evidence points to seditious conspiracy.
...

1. A couple hundred people entering the Capitol without a single firearm among them (except for planted FBI agent-provocateurs) were an effort to "overthrow the last election" and a "seditious conspiracy"?        

2. kt and another DUmmie or two are as obsessed with Mark Meadows as Buggee/Baltimike is with Russia. Did Meadows win a disability civil lawsuit filed by kt, et al?