• mriguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    We look at the definition of treason in the Constitution, conclude that unless we can prove she’s acting on behalf of a foreign power, it isn’t treason, call it sedition, which it clearly IS, and go from there.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      2 years ago

      Clearly eh?

      “Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy.”

      I love when liberals just want to throw out the first amendment…

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 years ago

          As an elected official she is allowed a political opinion. Even an unpopular one. The first amendment protections for political speech are very strong.

          She needs to have done something or supported something in furtherance of that goal.

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            And everyone else is allowed their opinions too. And the idea that someone who wants to dissolve the country shouldn’t be in Congress doesn’t seem like it should be that controversial.