Tyler O'Neil: As For Trump v. BLM, It's No Contest

Blogger formatting is still screwed up. Sorry.

Also: a quick-and-dirty post. Sorry.

link:

  Article III of the U.S. Constitution defines “treason” as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Advocating the wholesale arson of the American system, especially at a time when looting, vandalism, and arson have ravaged American cities, is arguably incitement toward a kind of civil war.
   Trump often resorts to hyperbole in condemning his opponents, and it may be hyperbolic to interpret Newsome’s comments as “treason,” but even if this threat of violence falls short of treason, it is still a serious matter.
   “You… have said that violence is sometimes necessary in these situations,” MacCallum said in the interview with Newsome. “What exactly is it that you hope to achieve through violence?”
   “Wow, it’s interesting that you would pose that question like that, because this country is built upon violence. What was the American Revolution, what’s our diplomacy across the globe?” Newsome asked. 
   “We go in and we blow up countries and we replace their leaders with leaders who we like. So for any American to accuse us of being violent is extremely hypocritical,” the Black Lives Matter leader insisted.  [note: textbook tu quoque]
   Naturally, there is a tremendous difference between the violence in the American Revolution — when citizens revolted against taxation without representation, a key component of English liberty — and the violence in the George Floyd riots, which involves citizens who have representation and the right to vote looting innocent businesses, burning down buildings, and forcibly occupying police stations.
   “I said, if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking … figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation,” Newsome said.
   Given recent events, Newsome’s rhetoric may constitute incitement to violence.

Not a lawyer...but I'm more than a little skeptical about this argument in support of the accusation of treason. And I don't know whether this incitement to violence is direct enough to be illegal.

   I want to highlight the following, but trying to format it correctly as a quote keeps narrowing all the margins, and can't be undone. Hence the screwy formatting. Sorry:

“I said, if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking … figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation,” Newsome said.

This coy bullshit is doubly angrifying. It's clearly a threat, but he doesn't have the guts to come right out and threaten--I dunno...am I threatening you? That's for you to decide...maybe I am...maybe I'm not...I'm not sayin'... Asshole. 

   

   The fact that we have a radical political faction employing violence and threatening to employ more of it, in order to frighten people into acquiescing to (radical, psycho) political change should result in banner headlines across the MSM...but...nada.