Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)

3. "Impede" might be a vague term

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 05:34 PM

May 2016

In fact, it might even be unconstitutionally vague, but the conduct alleged against the Bundy Gang isn't ambiguous in the least. If the government proves the elements of its case, it will be up to the Bundy Gang to try to argue that they didn't mean to "impede" federal employees by staging an armed takeover of a federal building and office. Good luck with that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Defense Attorneys Argue Some Malheur Charges Unconstitutional [View all] struggle4progress May 2016 OP

Conspiracy charge can 'chill' political dissent, defense lawyer says struggle4progress May 2016 #1

Their defense loses yet again. longship May 2016 #2

"Impede" might be a vague term gratuitous May 2016 #3

and all this time i thought fantasy fiction was a bad choice for a career dembotoz May 2016 #4

Okay, fine. jmowreader May 2016 #5

Yeah well, I doubt that shitting on native American artifacts is "speech" yellowcanine May 2016 #6

Some patriots shed their blood to defend the Constitution. Kaleva May 2016 #7