Stephen Miller Suggests SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY Charges Against Gov JB Pritzker

[Diogenes]

Seditious conspiracy is the wrong charge to contemplate.

How about this, though?

Elected and/or appointed state and municipal officials may be violating federal law if they instruct police under their control to arrest or impede federal officers in the performance of their duties.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 111, it is a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers while they are engaged in their official duties.

This applies to anyone, including state or local officials, who directs or engages in such actions.The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that federal law takes precedence over state or local laws. If state or municipal officials instruct local police to interfere with federal officers acting within their lawful authority, this could be construed as an unlawful obstruction of federal duties. For example, cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) affirm that states cannot impede federal operations.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) could bring several specific charges against state or municipal officials who instruct police to arrest or impede federal officers in the performance of their duties, depending on the circumstances.

Below are the most relevant federal charges, based on applicable statutes and legal principles:

1. 18 U.S.C. § 111 - Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Federal Officers
   • Description: This statute criminalizes forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers while they are engaged in their official duties.
   • Applicability: If officials direct police to arrest or physically obstruct federal officers, this could constitute "forcible" impedance, even without physical assault. Instructing police to act could be seen as aiding or abetting the offense.
   • Penalties:
     • Simple interference: Up to 1 year in prison and/or a fine.
     • If the act involves physical contact or intent to commit another felony: Up to 8 years in prison.
     • If a deadly weapon is used or bodily injury occurs: Up to 20 years in prison.
   • Example: Directing police to detain federal agents conducting a lawful investigation could trigger this charge.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer
   • Description: This statute applies to conspiracies to prevent federal officers from discharging their duties by force, intimidation, or threat.
   • Applicability: If officials coordinate with others (e.g., police or other local authorities) to obstruct federal officers, this could constitute a conspiracy.
   • Penalties: Up to 6 years in prison and/or a fine.
   • Example: An official organizing a plan to block federal agents from executing a warrant could face this charge.
3. 18 U.S.C. § 2 - Aiding and Abetting
   • Description: This statute holds individuals liable for aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, inducing, or procuring the commission of a federal offense.
   • Applicability: An official who instructs police to impede federal officers could be charged as a principal for directing the illegal act.
   • Penalties: Same as the underlying offense (e.g., penalties under § 111 or § 372).
   • Example: Ordering police to arrest federal officers to stop a federal operation could lead to aiding and abetting charges.
4. 18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
   • Description: This statute prohibits individuals acting under color of law (e.g., state or municipal officials) from willfully depriving others of their constitutional rights, such as federal officers’ right to perform their duties.
   • Applicability: If officials misuse their authority to obstruct federal officers’ lawful activities, this could violate the officers’ rights under federal law.
   • Penalties:
     • Up to 1 year in prison for basic violations.
     • If bodily injury results: Up to 10 years.
     • If death results or the act involves aggravated circumstances: Up to life in prison or the death penalty.
   • Example: Instructing police to use excessive force to stop federal agents could trigger this charge.
5. 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
   • Description: This statute covers conspiracies to defraud the U.S. government or obstruct its lawful functions by deceit, craft, or dishonest means.
   • Applicability: If officials orchestrate a scheme to undermine federal operations (e.g., by misusing local law enforcement to block federal duties), this could apply.
   • Penalties: Up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine.
   • Example: Coordinating with other officials to systematically interfere with federal law enforcement efforts could lead to this charge.
6. Obstruction of Justice - 18 U.S.C. § 1503 or § 1512
   • Description: These statutes address obstructing or interfering with federal judicial proceedings (§ 1503) or tampering with federal investigations (§ 1512).
   • Applicability: If the interference targets federal officers involved in judicial or investigative duties (e.g., FBI agents executing a court-ordered warrant), these charges could apply.
   • Penalties:
     • § 1503: Up to 7 years in prison and/or a fine.
     • § 1512: Varies, up to 7 years for tampering or 20 years if physical force or threats are involved.
   • Example: Directing police to block federal agents serving a federal court order could trigger obstruction charges.

Additional Considerations:

• Supremacy Clause Violations: While not a specific criminal charge, actions that violate the Supremacy Clause (by obstructing federal authority) could lead to civil or injunctive actions by the DOJ, alongside criminal charges.
• Intent and Context: The DOJ would need to prove intent (e.g., that the official knowingly and willfully directed unlawful interference). If officials claim they acted to protect state or local interests, this defense would be scrutinized, as federal law generally prevails under the Supremacy Clause.
• Case Law: Precedents like United States v. Gilbert (1987) and United States v. McLeod (1967) have upheld convictions for impeding federal officers, reinforcing the fact that state or local officials cannot lawfully obstruct federal duties.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

This is the hallmark of a fascist dictator, to eliminate decent with trump-up charges.

Agreed on the hallmarks. The fact he's supported by White Nationalists is sad. The good news is that most of them will be taken down by their own families or neighbors.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am not related to Dutch Uncle.


Only someone who is stupid, insane, or a MAGA moron thinks the left's politics are anti-American.

Which gives you a triple play.

Way to go!

MAGAts are obsessed with me. If they were smarter they'd realize I'm not the threat and start noticing how their families and neighbors are giving them the snake eye when their backs are turned.

Sadly, all JPP MAGAts are fucking morons. They only see what they want to see and will never see the end coming.