- So it's treason then. (lightsaber whirs)
(lightsaber hums) Or at least that's what a lot
of people are worried about. People are rightfully upset
about the Trump campaign and the Trump administration's attempts to effectively overthrow the
results of the 2020 election. So the question is, and I never thought I'd
be asking this question, did people commit sedition and treason when they stormed the
Capitol on January 6th? And more importantly, did some
of our elected politicians actually commit sedition and treason? And if they did, can they
be expelled from Congress? (dramatic music) Sponsored by Skillshare. Hey, legal eagles, it's time to think like a national security lawyer, and welcome to my new office, with one of those incredibly
practical outward-facing desks. But it does allow me to do this, (papers thump) which adds quite a lot a lot of gravitas to whatever I'm going to say. It's LegalEagle, now
with 7% more gravitas. But today, we're talking
about sedition and treason. Americans are trying to find
the right words to convey just how desperate the Trump
administration's efforts are to hold on to power, and
they've generally landed on the concepts of treason and sedition. But do they fit? Well, let's start with what is treason? The early Americans were men and women who actually committed treason
against the English Crown. That's actually how this
country was founded. So they were bound to
have a pretty limited view of what constituted an
offense against the state. In their experience,
kings used treason charges to silence their political opponents and to punish their enemies, so they defined treason quite narrowly. Treason is in fact the only crime described in the Constitution. Quote, "Treason against the
United States shall consist "only in levying war against them, "or in adhering to their enemies, "giving them aid and comfort. "No person shall be convicted of treason "unless on the testimony of two witnesses "of the same overt act, or
on confession in open court." This comes from the English
definition of treason. In the 14th century, Edward
III's judges expanded the common law concept of treason to cover just about anything
the king didn't like. For example, if a person went
hunting on the king's forest without permission, this was
treason, rather than trespass. That's a crime, but that
probably shouldn't be treason. Therefore, the English
aristocracy compelled Edward III to agree to
an act of parliament that restricted the definition of treason to a direct offense against
the king or his family, such as acts of violence,
levying war against England, and giving aid and comfort
to the king's enemies in the English realm or elsewhere. And that's where we derive
the definition of treason in the US Constitution, either levying war against the United States,
or adhering to the enemies of the United States, and
giving them aid and comfort, which repeats an
interesting legal principle. The founders were simultaneously
disgusted by the monarchy, but also guided by
English legal principles, which takes us to the
affair of Aaron Burr. There actually haven't
been that many prosecutions against politicians
for committing treason, probably for good reason. But the most prominent politician
to be tried for treason against the United States
is probably Aaron Burr, former vice-president, and the man who killed
Alexander Hamilton in a duel. After Burr killed Hamilton, the political class
basically shunned Burr. But he wasn't willing to wait for it, so Burr reached out to Great
Britain to offer his help if they felt like annexing
the Western United States. The English royalty more
or less ignored Burr, so he went on a recruiting
trip to Blennerhassett Island. Think of this as the
Mar-a-Lago of the Ohio River, where he got financial backing from a wealthy Irish immigrant. And Burr went to New Orleans
and enlisted the help of basically rich guys and ex-politicians. The plot seemed to involve
annexing parts of Mexico and Louisiana and convincing
other states to secede, and start a new country. But Burr wasn't just talking trash. His co-conspirator was
General James Wilkinson, basically the Mike Flynn
of the 19th century. Wilkinson was the highest
ranking general in the Army, and like Flynn, Wilkinson
was a secret agent for a foreign government,
in his case, Spain. But unlike Flynn, nobody knew about Wilkinson's treachery at the time. Wilkinson was still on active duty in command of Western soldiers. But after a year of planning,
Wilkinson backed out, and alerted President Jefferson. Burr left Blennerhassett Island with fewer than 100 supporters
and tried to escape. He was eventually caught
and tried for treason. But the trial was America's
first trial of the century. Burr was defended by two
ex-attorneys general, just think of them as the Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions of the time. And those lawyers argue that
the definition of treason required evidence of an
overt act by the defendant in furtherance of levying war
against the United States. And Chief Justice Marshall
agreed with this interpretation. He ruled that Burr had
First Amendment right to voice his opposition to the government, to the president, and to the very concept
of the United States. But Marshall's definition of
overt action was very narrow. Quote, "There must be an
actual assembling of men "for the treasonable purpose "to constitute a levying of war." In his mind, talk without
assembling of men willing to levy war was not actually treason, and there was no question that Burr loved to talk about schemes to take down the US, and get back at his political rivals. There was a little doubt
that Burr had rallied with volunteers and businessmen
who would back his venture. However, Burr wasn't physically present on Blennerhassett Island
when his volunteers gathered with weapons, and Justice
Marshall had already told the jury that they couldn't
consider any actions of war that occurred outside of
Blennerhassett Island. The prosecution could
not convince the jury to hold Burr responsible for an overt act taking up arms against America. The jury found him not guilty. Burr's goals were still murky to this day, largely because Burr said different things to different people. On one day, he was trying to
colonize part of Louisiana, the next, he was trying to
convince Western settlers to revolt against the United
States, and the day after that, he was hoping to wrangle
Texas away from Spain. And while the elements
of treason can include the breach of allegiance, these actions were not
unanimously considered treason, since plotting against
Spain was not exactly a betrayal of allegiance
to the United States. And it wasn't entirely clear
that encouraging the states to engage in another revolution
was illegal in 1805 either. But the Burr prosecution
was the exception, rather than the rule. There have been fewer
than 30 treason charges since the Constitution
was ratified in 1789. The people who conspired
with John Wilkes Booth to kill President Lincoln were charged with traitorous murder
and attempted murder. People were charged with treason for defecting to Nazi
Germany during World War II, or aiding and abetting the
Japanese during the same period. So the question is does
anything that President Trump or his surrogates have said or done rise to the level of treason? Well, in a legal sense,
almost certainly not. Now, arguably the closest
President Trump has ever come to treason would be in
arguably collaborating with a foreign government to
undermine the United States through interfering with election. And while welcoming and
utilizing the resources of a foreign government
in one's own election is a lot of things, it's
probably not levying war, and it's probably not treason. And with respect to the
things that the president and the president's
campaign have tried to do with respect to undoing the
results of the 2020 election through petitioning the courts, most of what they have done
explicitly seeks to use the force of the United States, whether that use of force
is legitimate, or not. So he isn't levying war
against the United States. He's actually advocating for the use of the implements of the
United States itself. So no matter how badly
you may think he has acted in that context, and
you'd probably be right that he's acted pretty poorly, again, that's not levying war
against the United States. So it's not treason then. (lightsaber hums)
(lightsaber whirs) But what about sedition? America's second president, John Adams, signed the
Sedition Act in 1798. The Sedition Act made it a
crime for American citizens to, quote, "Print, utter,
or publish any false, "scandalous, or malicious
writing about the government." The Sedition Act was pretty
obviously unconstitutional because it trampled on
the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but
Adams and his Federalist Party went full steam ahead with prosecutions, charging dozens of newspaper
editors with sedition. Now, obviously, President Trump
would have loved this law, since it gave him the
ability to jail reporters, which he has many times advocated for. But the Americans of 1800,
however, did not love the Sedition Act, and
punished the Federalists by electing Thomas
Jefferson to the presidency. The original Sedition Act expired in 1801, and the crime of sedition
has been severely limited in the modern era. Current laws on sedition
were passed in 1940. A second sedition law punishes anyone who advocates for the overthrow of the federal government by force. Now, the main distinction between sedition and treason is that treason
requires levying, or waging war. Sedition can be language, or
conduct that incites people to destroy, or overthrow,
or attack the government. The Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of the sedition laws, but
they're construed very narrowly to prohibit the government from attacking purely political speech. As currently interpreted,
sedition does not destroy the First Amendment's
guarantee of freedom of speech. Like treason, sedition
requires actively plotting to take up arms against the United States. Simply talking about it
on Parler is not enough. But if the Parler Patriots meet up and plot to kill a governor, or assassinate an incoming president, they could be charged with sedition. And as the statute is
currently interpreted, you actually have to plot to use force against the United States. And proving sedition is
harder than you might think. For example, in 2014, a
Christian focus group known as the Hutaree held military
training exercises in Michigan and amassed lots and lots of weapons. They called themselves warriors for Jesus, and were found in possession of tear gas, night-vision goggles, a dagger, a sword, manuals on bomb-making, books
by Hitler, race war books, and a bunch of guns. The FBI spent a year
infiltrating the group, and eventually charged them with plotting to kill a police officer and ambush several more
officers at a funeral. But a federal judge acquitted all of them, because they were engaged
in political speech. The judge said that, quote, "There was something fishy going on," but since something fishy isn't illegal, the charges were dismissed. The Hutaree argued that
their training exercises were just some dudes playing with
guns in the woods, as one does. The judge never bought into
the government's case that they were going to actually commit crimes. But some people actually
have been prosecuted and convicted of sedition. For example, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric,
living in New Jersey, who is now serving a
life sentence in prison. Rahman and nine other men were convicted of seditious conspiracy, despite committing no overt acts of war. However, Rahman was found
to have encouraged the men to levy war against the United States. The group was arrested
while mixing explosives in a garage in Queens. The sedition laws make speech criminal only when the speech
constitutes an agreement to use force against the United States. So in case you currently live in Michigan, or let's be honest, Florida,
here's how that would play out. You can generally give an opinion that the government should be
overthrown, even by violence. You can advocate for
the forcible overthrow of the government in the abstract. But you can't explicitly encourage, or induce someone to
overthrow the government by concrete action. And it's not easy to tell when speech plus action
crosses these lines. But to be convicted of
seditious conspiracy under Section 2384, a
defendant has to conspire to use force, not just
advocate the use of force. So with that background, let's look at some of the
things that President Trump and his surrogates have said, all of the beautiful
conversations that they've had that were 100% perfect. Well, during the first debate,
President Trump said that the right-wing Proud Boy group should stand back and stand by. - Proud Boys, stand back, and stand by. - Some of the Proud
Boys viewed this comment as a call to action, according
to extremist researchers. The Proud Boys went on a rampage
in D.C. early in December clashing with other protestors, resulting in several people being stabbed. Did President Trump
act like Sheikh Rahman? No, not quite. Were President Trump's words seditious? Almost certainly not. He was talking in the abstract, and while we may hate that speech, under the First Amendment,
we have to live with it, and that's probably the better way. But let's talk about militias. When a group of private
citizens gets together to talk about hating the government, and that group is armed, they
are often called militias. But it's not illegal to create
a social group like this, or even for them to call
themselves militias. However, every state makes it
illegal for private militias to in activities traditionally reserved for authorized state militias. And frankly, states are pretty lax in actually enforcing those laws, which arguably leads to more
paranoid people gathering with their guns and declaring
themselves as militias. This might be harmless, but the fact that there are
prominent people encouraging this kind of activity
certainly doesn't help. And the people arrested in Michigan for trying to kidnap the governor were charged with violating Michigan's anti-terrorism statute, rather than with sedition. This is probably because
sedition's close association with speed makes it really hard to prove. So you start to get the picture. Prosecutors don't even
like to charge sedition, because there are other
statutes that are a better fit, and don't have the sort of issues that you run into with
the First Amendment. So you can see that charges of
sedition are incredibly rare, and probably for good reason, often not even being used against things as extreme as an actual militia. So things like filing a bogus lawsuit to overturn an election, not even going to come close
to actionable sedition, though there are ways that
we might be able to punish meritless lawsuits in different ways. And similarly, challenging
the Electoral College results through objections on
January 6th is not sedition, because congresspeople
are simply following a constitutional mechanism, or at least what they vehemently, and wrongly, believe those
constitutional mechanisms to be. Now, many of the Capitol rioters
are already being charged with seditious conspiracy. This is covered by 18 U.S.C. 2384. The law gives prosecutors
a variety of ways to charge these rioters. For example, if two or
more people conspire "To prevent, hinder, or delay
the execution of any law," such as trying to stop
Congress from tabulating the Electoral College votes, this could be seditious conspiracy. I've covered this extensively
in another video about all the crimes that the
Capitol rioters committed. And likewise, if two
or more people, quote, "Seize, take, or possess any
property of the United States," such as, say, stealing mail,
computers, gavels, lecterns, and other objects from the Capitol, they could be charged under Section 2384, in addition to being
charged with federal theft and vandalism crimes. Now, rioters can argue that they were there to peacefully protest, and loudly expressing
one's opinion is protected under the First Amendment, even if a person generally
advocates for the use of force. There is a First Amendment
right to protest, but there's not a First Amendment right to stop the government from functioning. So if prosecutors can show that
they were engaged in action, not just speech, they can
probably prove sedition, and there's plenty of
evidence of coordination between members of this mob. But what about members of Congress, and members of the
president's inner circle? Can they charges for the encouragement and participation of what
happened on January 6th? Well, the answer is that it both depends, and it's complicated, an answer that I'm sure will thrill absolutely everyone. Now, to prove seditious conspiracy, there must be an agreement
between two or more people who are working together
towards a common goal, but the goal doesn't need to be specifically articulated or explicit. This means that the
co-conspirators didn't need to pinky swear that they were going to barge into the Capitol
Building, steal things, threaten people, and beat up the cops. Individual defendants can tacitly agree to a larger conspiracy if they knew, or should have known,
that others were going to take the same actions, such as storming the Capitol Building. And it's worth remembering why
rioters stormed the building in the first place. They had the common goal of preventing, hindering, or delaying Congress' counting and certification of the electoral votes. And it also seems like
they wanted to punish Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi and anyone that they
could get their hands on. And while I wouldn't call
it overwhelming evidence, there is certainly some
evidence of coordination with people fairly high
up in the government. For example, President
Trump promoted the event, and may have even met with
the leader of the Proud Boys on December 12th, the day
after the Supreme Court dismissed the Texas lawsuit
to overturn the election. Enrique Tarrio, the
leader of the Proud Boys, posted on Parler, "Last minute invite "to an undisclosed location. "Wow, I'm in awe," and he was at the entrance
to the White House. Tarrio's second post
shows the main portico with the comment, "Never
thought I'd be here." And while the White House
said that Tarrio was just taking a public tour,
it didn't provide any proof that Tarrio followed the
rules for White House visits, which require applying at
least 21 days in advance, and passing a background check. Tarrio is a convicted felon, and we now know that his
group, the Proud Boys, participated in the January 6th attack, and not surprisingly, one
of them has been accused of plotting to kill Nancy
Pelosi and Mike Pence. And much of what we know
about the plot to overthrow the government is from Ali Alexander, a right-wing conspiracy theorist who led one of the Stop the Steal groups, and in a livestream video
after the January 6th attack, Alexander said he planned the rally with three GOP representatives, Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs of Arizona,
and Mo Brooks of Alabama. - I was the person who came
up with the January 6th idea with Congressman Gosar,
Congressman Mo Brooks, and then Congressman Andy Biggs. - And this wasn't something that Alexander came up with after the fact. "The Intercept" reported
that Alexander claimed to be working with members
of Congress three times before the rally happened on
December 21st, 28th, and 29th. Now, remember that, because
we'll get back to that in just a second, but let's
talk about the element of force. Seditious conspiracy requires
that co-conspirators plan to effectuate their illegal
ends by some unlawful means. Co-conspirators need to have
considered the use of force, even though the ultimate goal
need not actually use force. And the element of force
does not necessarily mean engaging in explicitly violent activities. The government can prove this element if the co-conspirators contemplated the unlawful invasion of rights of others. And in media appearances before the event, Alexander raised the stakes
and predicted violence. He first asserted that if
Biden's win was certified, there would be slavery,
concentration camps, serfdom, and death. - If you do not stand up and fight now, you are signing your road,
and your ticket to serfdom. - Alexander was very clear about what he intended to do on January 6th, to stop this from happening. Quote, "Everyone can guess what me "and 500,000 others will
do to that building. "1776 is always an option." And on January 5th, Alexander
led Trump supporters in a peaceful rally on Freedom Plaza, where he shouted- - Victory or death! Victory-
- Or death! - Alexander's claims sound farfetched, but there are many links between Alexander and prominent Republicans. The Arizona Republican
Party endorsed a message from Alexander that he was
willing to die for Donald Trump, saying, "Are you," it asked of supporters. So let's come back to The Three Stooges, starting with Paul Gosar. Arizona Rep. Gosar did not say anything to contradict the
official Arizona position on dying for Donald Trump. Gosar was in close contact
with Alexander though, and according to
Alexander, Gosar helped him raise money for various rallies. Gosar confirmed Alexander's claim that he helped organize the rallies. Quote, "I helped organize "the very first Stop the
Steal rally in Arizona. "Patriotic warriors joined
together to gather evidence "and tell the left that
we will not accept a coup, "and a usurper in the White House." He spent basically all of December railing against the election result and appearing with Alexander at rallies. In an opinion piece
published on December 7th, not coincidentally, the
anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Gosar
described the election of Joe Biden as a coup. "Be ready to defend the
Constitution and the White House." Gosar described Alexander
as a true patriot, and linked to Alexander's
account at least 23 times since November 30th, 2020. Here's Gosar and Alexander together at a Stop the Steal rally
in Arizona on December 19th. Gosar was present when Alexander said, "We're going to convince
them to not certify the vote "on January 6th by marching
hundreds of thousands, "if not millions, of patriots
to sit their butts in D.C., "and close that city down, right? "And if we have to explore other options "after that yet, yet." It seems clear in context
that these other options contemplated the use of force. And three days later on December 22nd, Gosar met with President Trump, along with Brooks, Biggs, and others. He tweeted that Biden
had committed sedition, and that he could never, quote, "Accept disenfranchisement"
of those who voted for Trump. "This sedition will be stopped." And at 12:05 p.m. on the
day of the Capitol riots, Gosar tweeted that "Biden should concede. "I want his concession on
my desk tomorrow morning. "Don't make me come over there." Is this a threat of force? It probably depends,
because it always depends. We'd also say that the sentence "Don't make me come over
there" is just Gosar saying he's going to vote to
overturn the election. During the attack, Gosar
used his Twitter account to call for peaceful protest, but used his Parler
account to share a picture of rioters climbing the walls. "Americans are upset," he said. These words don't quite condone violence, but they do imply that
Gosar is on their side, and Gosar's own brother and
other members of his family condemn him as a propagandist who committed sedition and treason, and they asked that he
be removed from Congress. - You're just as guilty as the mob that you besieged and took
and overran the House. - And that takes us to
stooge number two, Mo Brooks. Alexander also said he worked with Alabama Representative Mo Brooks. Brooks was the first
person to announce that he would challenge the Electoral College when Congress met to count
the votes on January 6th. - I have a choice. I can either sit back and surrender, and be a part of the surrender caucus, or I can fight for our country. - Brooks rallied support
for this maneuver, and the process of challenging
the Electoral College is spelled out in the Constitution. So that's not a crime. However, Brooks knew that
this challenge would fail, because there would not be
enough people in the House who would vote to overturn the election. But nevertheless, Brooks
appeared at the rally where he spoke directly to the rioters who would later storm the Capitol. Did he contemplate the use of force? - Today is the day American patriots start taking down names, and kicking ass! (audience cheers) Now, our ancestors sacrificed their blood, their sweat, their tears, their fortunes, and sometimes their lives, to give us, their descendants, an America
that is the greatest nation in world history. So I have a question for you. Are you willing to do the same? (audience cheers) My answer is yes. Louder, are you willing
to do what it takes to fight for America? (audience cheers) Louder, will you fight for America? (audience cheers) - Now, Brooks doesn't say fight cops, or trespass, or kill, but
what is he asking people to do in this context? It seems like spill blood
like their ancestors. Now, these words might
be considered hyperbole, which is protected speech. But the problem with Brooks' words is that he was telling people
to fight for an outcome that he already knew couldn't happen, and that directly incited people going to the
Capitol and storming it. And speaking of advocating for violence, let's talk about Don Jr. and Rudy. During the January 6th
event, many speakers used incendiary language and
encouraged the crowd to fight. These words included specific references to members of Congress. Donald Trump, Jr.
targeted congress members who were not willing to object
to certification, saying- - If you're gonna be the
zero, and not the hero, we're coming for you, and we're gonna have a good time doing it. - Does this contemplate the use of force? Well, in comparison,
Rudy Giuliani proposed, quote, "Trial by combat." - Let's have trial by combat! - And actively sought
to delay certification of the election. And Giuliani, who's famous
for not actually knowing how to use a cell phone,
left a phone message meant for Alabama Senator
Tuberville saying that they needed a reason to delay the vote, so that they could present evidence of voter fraud the next day. - [Rudy] I'm calling you,
because I wanna discuss with you how they're trying to rush this hearing, and how we need you,
our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down, so we can get these legislators to get more information to you. But it, the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states, and raise issues, so that we
get ourselves into tomorrow, ideally until the end of tomorrow. - At this point, Rudy knew that
the vote would be confirmed by the House and Senate. He knew that there was no place left to present voter fraud claims. He had pressed his claims
in court, in ad hoc meetings with rogue legislators around the country, and at a lawn care
company in Philadelphia. Now, a prosecutor could
ask a jury to infer that Rudy had no intention of
presenting new evidence of voter fraud on January 7th, and that in fact, Rudy
was actually aware of, and encouraging Trump's
followers to storm the Capitol to stop the voters, or he put it, "Get ourselves into tomorrow." CREW, Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington, characterized this as
evidence that, quote, "Trump and his associates
were engaged in a conspiracy "with the common goal
of preventing, hindering "or delaying Congress' counting "and certification of
the electoral votes cast "in the 2020 presidential election." Now, we don't know whether Trump Jr. or Rudy had direct
contacts with rioters. However, Don Jr.'s girlfriend,
Kimberly Guilfoyle, allegedly spoke with
Alexander on January 5th, informing him that Trump was
in, quote, "Fighter mode." And by the way, people are
asking a lot of great questions about the legal issues that are happening in Washington, D.C. these days, so there are a lot more legal eagles. But only a small percentage of the people that watch these videos
are actually subscribed. So if you enjoy this analysis,
please hit Subscribe. (Devin imitates eagle)
(Devin laughs) But back to Ali Alexander and
all of the connections he had to various representatives. One of those representatives
is Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is a famous QAnon believer. Alexander responded to one
of her tweets by claiming that Congress was trying
to stop objections to the electoral vote. Alexander's response was about 1776. "If they do this,
everyone can guess what me "and 500,000 others will
do to that building." Alexander tweeted on December 30th, "1776 is always an option." And Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted 1776 on the day of the attack. Could we argue that Greene was attempting to aid the rioters, or even
overthrow the government? Possibly, it always depends, and it's always complicated, though Greene already has a
history of threatening violence. In a Facebook post from
2018, Greene wrote that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
was guilty of treason. Greene argued that Pelosi
should be executed. When Pelosi came out
against Trump's border wall, Greene made a second
Facebook post claiming that Pelosi committed treason, which
she pointed out is, quote, "A crime punishable by death." Now, these tweets alone
are incredibly unlikely to give rise to any kind
of sedition indictment. For a tweet to be actionable, you'd need much more than that. You'd need a direct link between the representative tweeting it, and potentially aiding
the Capitol rioters, something like what Lauren Boebert did. Republican Representative
Lauren Boebert of Colorado tweeted Nancy Pelosi's whereabouts while the attack unfolded. Boebert is also affiliated with the QAnon conspiracy movement, to the surprise of absolutely no one. And during the attack, Boebert
tweeted that Pelosi had been, quote, "Removed from the House Chambers," while rioters were still in the building. Boebert did not say where Pelosi was, but rioters did make it
into Pelosi's office. This tweet was so ill-advised, and the strategic value to someone who is looking for Nancy Pelosi to kidnap and potentially kill her,
given that it was so obvious, some wonder if Boebert actually intended for this tweet to be public, or if she meant to send it
privately to someone else. But if the intent is there,
if she did intend this tweet to aid the Capitol rioters
to actually kidnap, and potentially harm Nancy Pelosi, even if it didn't actually happen, that certainly could give
rise to a sedition claim. So finally, that takes us to
the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of this whole election objection affair, the kings of this "Confederacy of Dunces," I'm of course talking about Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. (man screams)
- Hawley, Cruz. I think Cruz would want us to do this, so-
- Yeah, absolutely. - I think we're good.
- Members of Congress swear an oath to protect
and defend the Constitution, which establishes a
republican form of government. And unfortunately, many
Republican lawmakers made repeated false allegations
about the elections, filed many meritless lawsuits, or at least encouraged
those meritless lawsuits, and of course, filed
objections to the election in Congress itself. And in the Senate, Hawley struck first, claiming that he was speaking
for all of Trump's voters in vowing to object to
the election results. Ted Cruz formulated a similar
response, but with a twist. Cruz proposed a 10-day
investigation into voter fraud before certifying the
Electoral College results. The reason Cruz and Hawley's
actions struck a nerve is because they were both
Ivy League-trained lawyers who obviously know their legal claims have no validity in law. The Constitution doesn't allow for a delay in the inauguration, which has to happen on January 20th at noon. And after the attack, Cruz
and Hawley did not back down. Their hometown newspapers
even called for Hawley and Cruz to resign, or be
expelled from Congress. Now, in fairness, and I realize this is
an incredibly low bar, but it seems that neither
Hawley, nor Cruz ever advocated the use of violence to
overturn the election. So let's assume that sedition and treason are out the window. Is there anything else that
can be done to punish Hawley and Cruz for their despicable behavior with respect to the election? Well, a lot of people have
been talking about expulsion, and expulsion is a thing
that Congress can do. Expulsion is the process by
which a House of Congress may remove one of its
members after the member has been duly elected and seated. There are two sections of the Constitution which authorize expulsion. Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 states, "Each House may determine
the rules of its proceedings, "punish its members for
disorderly behavior, "and with a concurrence
of 2/3 expel a member." The expulsion clause
is interpreted broadly, giving each House of Congress
significant discretion to decide the grounds for
expelling their members. Courts give Congress wide
latitude to make their own rules. And as a result, courts
generally have declined to adjudicate the standards
by which the House and Senate have fashion to
deal with their colleagues. But historically, 20 members
of Congress have been expelled without being convicted of
crimes in a court of law, five in the House, and 15 in the Senate. Now, most of those expulsions
dealt with actions taken leading up to the Civil War. But more recent expulsions
dealt with members of Congress who had been convicted
of public corruption. So there's actually precedent
for expelling members for being disloyal to the United States. And by the way, the history
of Congress expelling its own members is fascinating. I don't have the time or inclination to go over it right now, because I'm already
losing my grip on sanity because of this over-long video. But I'd highly recommend
you check out my friends at the podcast "Opening Arguments." They did an entire episode on Congress expelling its own members, and it's really, really
incredibly interesting. And speaking about the
aftermath of the Civil War, a lot of people have been talking about the 14th Amendment as well, and specifically Section 3 of
the 14th Amendment says that "No person shall be a senator
or representative in Congress, "or elector of the president
and vice-president, "or hold any office who shall
have engaged in insurrection, "or rebellion against the same, "and given aid or comfort
to the enemies thereof. "But Congress may, by a
vote of 2/3 of each House, "remove such disability." So to the extent that any
of these members of Congress are actually adjudicated
to have committed the crime of sedition, arguably, a reading
of the 14th Amendment says that they cannot serve in that
House of Congress anymore. But I think we can all agree now that QAnon has been proven again to be an insanely stupid conspiracy theory that everyone that participated
in the riot should be out of a job, and hopefully
even the politicians. But they could all benefit from Emma Gannon's Skillshare class, "Discovering Success: 7 Exercises
to Uncover Your Purpose, "Passion, and Path." They'll need a new
business, and a new passion, because their QAnon purpose was a lie. And since they were all dumb enough to livestream themselves
storming the Capitol, I know for a fact that they're dumb, and can't shoot selfies for anything. So they'd also benefit from Jessica Kobeissi's Skillshare class, "Portrait Photography: Shoot and Edit "Instagram-Worthy Shots," because the stuff that was on Instagram deserves to be in jail. Skillshare, as I'm sure you know, is one of the world's largest
online learning communities and has tens of thousands
of classes on everything, like business, creative writing,
music, and productivity, everything the ex-QAnon cult member needs. And the first 1,000 legal
eagles will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium
when you click on the link in the description, and you
can watch all of the videos. Plus after the trial
ends, Skillshare is still way more affordable than most
online learning platforms with plans starting at just $10 per month. So just click on the link
below in the description, and get a free trial
membership of Skillshare. Plus, clicking on that
link in the description really helps out this channel. But do you agree with my analysis? Leave your objections in the comments, which I will either sustain, or overrule, and check out this playlist over here with all of my other "Real Law Reviews," where I tackle the legal issues of the day from this freakin' administration, and as always, I'll see you in court.
I love legal Eagle, very good channel for anyone who hasn’t seen him before
THIS is one of the good Youtubers!! I love watching his series.
After watching video sounds like Lauren Boebert qualifies for sedition.
Spoiler: Yes.
Legal Eagle also just did a couple of shorts about how a lot of the last minute pardons Trump handed out where written very narrowly so there's still an opportunity for the new DoJ to go after guys like Stone and Manafort.
This guy makes great content. My girlfriend said he looks like Roddy from "Flushed Away."
Can it be proven in a court of law?
I love Legal Eagle. Great YouTube channel for anyone looking for legal analysis with a bit of humor. Plus, Deven is pretty cute as an added bonus.