Sedition Charges Coming from DOJ?

by ·

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Attorney General William Barr told the nation’s federal prosecutors to be aggressive when charging violent demonstrators with crimes, including potentially prosecuting protesters for plotting to overthrow the U.S. government, people familiar with the conversation said.

The article continues:

In a conference call with U.S. attorneys across the country last week, Mr. Barr warned that sometimes violent demonstrations across the U.S. could worsen as the November presidential election approaches. He encouraged the prosecutors to seek a number federal charges, including under a rarely used sedition law, even when state charges could apply, the people said.

The call underscores the priority Mr. Barr has given to prosecuting crimes connected to months of protests against racial injustice that have at times become violent and led to major property damage, as President Trump has made a broader crackdown on violence accompanying the demonstrations a key campaign issue. U.S. attorneys have broad discretion in what charges they bring.

I expect a big hue-and-cry about this from the usual suspects in the MSM, but there shouldn’t be.  I was an Assistant US Attorney for a long time, and charging decisions are mostly straightforward.  In no instance should they depend on what the prosecutor thinks media opinion will be.  You just examine the language of the statute, review the governing case law applying it, and assess the evidence of the defendant’s behavior.  If after a sober evaluation, you conclude that the behavior matches the elements of the statute, and that you can so prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, then you should ordinarily file the charge.  I might add that present guidance inside DOJ states that prosecutors should charge the “most serious readily provable offense,” so the Attorney General’s current view is nothing more than a specific application of that pre-existing general standard.

Of course, and as the WSJ points out, proving sedition is not a walk in the park:  “To bring a sedition case, prosecutors would have to prove there was a conspiracy to attack government agents or officials that posed an imminent danger, legal experts said. Rhetoric alone wouldn’t suffice.”

This is as it should be.  As I noted earlier this week, we as a country should be vigilant to safeguard the First Amendment and the robust, and sometimes unpleasant, debate it contemplates.  But there’s difference between debate and insurrection.  In recent months, we’ve seen all too much of the latter, often with tepid or nonexistent responses from “woke” local authorities.  Nothing requires the federal government to stand by like a pitiful, helpless giant.  Where federal law fairly assessed applies, use it.