Maroon Dawn said:
Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed
Sounds like it meets your definition again
Buuuuuut
Let me guess:
It's STILL (D)ifferent
I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.
Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.
But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.