Webster defines “sedition” as: “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.” It’s pretty clear.
But simply “talking about rebellion or overthrow” without encouraging violence may merely be expressing unsavory speech.
The logic behind members of congress thus far is to speak out against what they consider to be an unjust election – “unjust” primarily because they do not like the outcome. They’re taking a “safe” approach . . . seeking (on the surface) to invalidate the election through a challenge to the electoral votes – and this does not constitute sedition. They are simply exercising their right of free speech.
However – when they advocate violence in the streets, this approaches a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government by force. If such violence does occur, another step toward actual sedition is taken – for sedition includes opposing by force the authority of the US Government by preventing, hindering, or delaying by force the execution of any law of the United States.
Are these members of congress and senators who are taking steps to invalidate the election committing sedition or engaging in seditious behavior?
Not yet – as mentioned before, they are exercising their right of free speech; but they are closing in on that goal.
An alternative view is that they are merely “posturing” to their rabid base in order to avoid a primary challenge. They understand, I believe, that there will be no overthrow of the government nor an invalidation of the election. So, their support of an invalidation of the electoral college is “safe” – they can show their base that they, indeed, consider the election to be fraudulent – even though they probably know that such a conclusion is untrue.
They want their cake . . . . and they want to eat it too.
But, they’re setting a very dangerous precedent.