If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Federal felony

▲

11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

nkohari 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> by force, intimidation, or threat

You seem to be glossing over the key piece of that statute. Peaceful protest is protected by the first amendment (free speech, right to assembly).

	▲	knubie 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Intimidation, or threat at the very least seems applicable here if you have any idea of what's going on in Minnesota and what these Signal chats are being used for.
	▲	refurb 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Blocking law enforcement's vehicles and their person (I saw several protestors put hands on officers), when they are conducting arrests, certainly seems to fit the bill.
	▲	sb057 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If you threaten to kill somebody then follow them around for days at a time, is that intimidation?

▲

mothballed 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I heard a totally unsubstantiated rumor that the participants were sending (ICE agent) plate numbers to people with NCIC access to run the plates. If that's the case it would be a pretty easy felony charge for all involved.

I have no reason to believe that's true, just what word on the street was they might be charged with.

▲

sjsdaiuasgdia 10 hours ago | parent [-]

If you have no reason to believe it's true, and understand the rumor to be unsubstantiated, why bother to spread it?

▲

mothballed 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Because the question was what they might be charged with, not what they did.

Did you expect the government to charge people in good faith? It doesn't matter it if it's true or not, even putting them in the slammer for a long time while awaiting trial and forcing them to hire expensive attorneys is a win.

▲

sjsdaiuasgdia 10 hours ago | parent [-]

No, I don't expect the Trump administration to operate in good faith.

The post you replied to didn't ask what they might be charged with. It asked what they "plan" to charge.

And you replied with internet rumor nonsense. It's actually fine to say "I don't know" or simply not reply at all when someone asks a question to which you do not have an answer.

▲

andreygrehov 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Several undercover reporters have reported this. They are obviously lying. If the administration confirms the same, they are obviously lying. Who shall we believe then? The NYTimes?

▲

plorg 6 hours ago | parent [-]

These "undercover" reporters have screenshots, surely they could show one of actual crimes instead of something that you keep willfully misinterpreting as such. We've already given you the mundane explanation, but it seemingly relies too much on people being able to work together as social creatures and not enough on a technological system.

What this reads as is a bunch of credulous X users trying to one-up each other and looking for reasons that Trump and his cronies are not once again lying to your face.

It is neither necessary nor particularly useful for them to be running plates for reasons you've already identified.

▲

andreygrehov 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> surely they could show one of actual crimes

That's exactly what they have done - shared the information pointing to the organized attempt to interfere with the ongoing federal operation. This is a crime.

	▲	plorg 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You keep saying this, but there actually is a legal standard for this, and following people around, yelling at them, none of that is interference with public acts.

▲

hsbauauvhabzb 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They don’t need to if they just shoot them on the street.

▲

11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

missingcolours 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Presumably Seditious Conspiracy, like many people involved in J6. Conspiracy to use force to prevent or delay enforcement of laws.

▲

lenerdenator 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or, at the very least, what they want to try to convince a grand jury to indict people on.

That's another angle that needs to be discussed more often with respect to Trump's DoJ: if you're impaneled on a grand jury for charges coming out of these investigations, you don't have to give them a bill.

▲

adrr 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Terrorism seems to be their default claim if you're against the Trump admin.

▲

q34tlR4y 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

2OEH8eoCRo0 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hope they're just looking for foreign influence I'm not sure what you could charge peaceful protestors with that would survive in court.

▲

cdrnsf 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not voting for them.