A recent tweet by Bill Mitchell has reignited discussion around the legal definition of seditious conspiracy, specifically in the context of actions taken by former President Barack Obama in 2016. Mitchell's tweet asserted, > "WHY WHAT OBAMA DID IN 2016 WAS NOT A SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY: Seditious conspiracy requires either violence or an intent to use violence to overthrow the sitting government." This statement underscores a common misunderstanding of the federal statute.
Seditious conspiracy is a serious federal crime defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2384. The law stipulates that two or more persons conspire to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States." Crucially, it requires not merely advocating for the use of force, but an active agreement and overt act towards its implementation.
Legal experts emphasize that the statute targets conspiracies involving the actual use of force or violence, or the intent to use force, to obstruct government functions or overthrow the government. It is distinct from protected free speech, even if that speech involves advocating for radical change. The bar for proving seditious conspiracy is high, necessitating evidence of a concrete plan and actions taken to execute that plan, rather than just rhetoric or political opposition.
Bill Mitchell, known for his conservative political commentary and social media presence, frequently engages in discussions on legal and political topics. His tweet reflects a broader public debate, particularly in recent years, surrounding the application and interpretation of seditious conspiracy charges, notably in cases related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol events.
There is no credible or substantiated public record of former President Obama's actions in 2016 being investigated or legally defined as seditious conspiracy. The tweet appears to address a hypothetical or unsubstantiated claim, using it as a teaching moment to clarify the legal requirements of the charge. The legal framework for seditious conspiracy is stringent, focusing on direct intent and overt acts of force against the government, a standard that has been rarely met and successfully prosecuted in U.S. history.