lawfagging 18 U.S.[Q]ode sec. 2385.

Every statute reads like a flow chart. Focus only on first clause beginning with "Whoever" because "knowingly" does not appear in the next two clauses (as separated by semicolons;).

STEP1 {Whoever/[RENEGADE][conf.Q3980/3972]} [KNOWINGLY][conf.Q3972]: {rules out [willfully]}

STEP2 [advocates, abets, advises, or teaches]

STEP3 the [duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety]

STEP4 of [overthrowing or destroying]

STEP5 [the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein]

STEP6 [by force or violence, or by the @ss@ssin@tion of any officer of any such government]

After STEP1 reveal [KNOWINGLY], perhaps comes #s 2-5, e.g.: RENEGADE KNOWINGLY [ABETS/ABETTED] the [DESIRABILITY] of [OVERTHROWING] [THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES] [BY THE @SS@SIN@TION OF ___].

"[Q]e have everything."

p.s.: legal definition of "knowingly": a level of mental state related to wrongdoing which is less than willful but greater than reckless. e.g., when an action can't be attributed to a specific intended outcome, but was done with full awareness of its likely consequences.

p.p.s: legal definition of "abet": affirmative [not passive] conduct which facilitates another's criminal conduct. [I'm going with abet b/c some people prefer to let others do the actual dirty work [plausible deniability]; and, it matches up better with "knowingly" since "willfully" has been ruled out.]

p.p.p.s.: who traveled with [RENEGADE] on his 2017 foreign trips that immediately followed 4.10.20's same trips abroad? I did some digging, but could not find out who accompanied him, other than Michael. Was [RENEGADE] abetting someone who sought [OVERTHROW] by letting them hitch a ride on the secret service dime, clearly knowing their intentions and the intended outcome of their advocacy? Where were all the entourage members when he had public meetings in CHN, IND, GER?

spitballing