Most Americans never considered the long term consequences of congressional action for the sole purpose of pleasing their political base.
Benghazi hearings lasted longer than any other and produced no indictments. They easily fit the definition of a political witch hunt. Highly political ploys send a divisive message.
One overt action, taken on behalf of a political party rather than the people, may not be enough to qualify as sedition. But a pattern of overt political actions, especially brazen overt political actions is sedition. The January 6th, 2021 riot is evidence that these actions are seditious. It is overwhelming obvious that they contributed to the problem.
When Congress or the President takes overt political action that undermines the credibility of government, that action is seditious in nature. Demand for another hearing that would re-investigate the results of the 2020 presidential election, after 60 court challenges failed, was a brazen political action under any common sense analysis. And it is hard to argue with the allegation that this demand contributed to the January 6th riot and therefore was seditious.
We must consider not only a penalty for that demand but also consider penalties for all of those acts by Congress or the President that send the type of divisive message that could contribute to subsequent violent action against our government.
It is reasonable to conclude that the Benghazi hearings began a pattern of behavior that lead to seditious action. Perhaps the January 6th riot gives us a better opportunity to define and call out patterns of dangerous behavior.
2 thoughts on “Were the Benghazi hearings seditious?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your reply