Oath Keepers Throw Trump Under the Bus in Sedition Trial
On the Jan. 6 insurrection, they thought they were following Trump's orders to storm the capitol. Here is the good, bad, and the ugly about Roger Stone's connection to these para military groups. Roger Stone was pardoned by Trump...how convenient that was.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … 29f767ab0bFor me, your link went to the MSN homepage, not an article. I scanned for a minute to two but didn't see your story.
GAI perused the link for about 10 minutes, and although an all-under-one-roof Trump/Desantis bash trash, I could not find the specific story PP hoped to share.
My God, one does not look any further than MSM to see how some have become so unrealistic, and biased.Exactly.
I notice that many older Americans (60+) accept the biased, selective, sometimes outright propaganda "news" as something above being questioned, something that they consider reliable.
I see it with some of my in-laws and a few business associates. It has become far more noticeable to me in these post-Trump years. Partly because I disconnected from the MSM completely years ago (soon after Trump was elected) ... but more significantly, I notice those under the age of 50 do not discuss, care about, or seem to even know much about current Trump news or the Jan 6 hearings.
I doubt any of them watch CNN or MSNBC, so that has a lot to do with it I'm sure, but also Trump is old news, yesterday, the past. These people don't live in the past, they deal with today.
Inflation, gas prices, grocery prices, the tanking stock market, these are things that come up, none of which has anything to do with Trump.
Here is more news on the Oath Keepers and how they might blame Trump for their actions.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … d2b6040cf4I think one needs to keep in mind our courts of law have many rules set by law. One is hearsay is not admissible, and someone's thoughts in regards to --- well I thought Trump would call for instruction would not be evidence or most likely even be allowed to be heard by the jury.
"Rhodes intends to take the stand to argue he BELIEVED Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act to call up a militia to support him, his lawyers have said. Trump didn't do that, but Rhodes' team says that what prosecutors allege was an illegal conspiracy was "actually lobbying and preparation for the President to utilize" the law."
He is attempting to blame another for his crime. Now if he has hard evidence of a human being with a name , and face, giving him orders I would think that person would have already been charged. Stone or Trump or anyone connected with Trump is not charged with planning Jan 6th.
I would predict this Rhodes will be found guilty. As will any that were involved that evidence shows they committed a crime.
This man even if he felt he was going to be called to commit violence, was the one that the DOJ feels planned the riot. There is no way he can involve or blame anyone else without evidence. His thought means nothing. It's like when murders say --- the devil told me to do it...
In my mind, I feel if there was any evidence Trump was involved with these groups to plan anything there would be some sort of physical proof. Email, text messages, phone calls, or one of them claiming they met with Trump or a Trump associate. There has been nothing like this reported or has anyone connected to Trump indicted for planning the Jan 6th?
The author of your article is not really providing anything that makes much sense in regard to the law, and what could be submitted in court. We have long abolished witch hunts, and hearsay and the devil told me to do it. This will most definitely be brought up in the Jan 6 hearings, because that's pretty much all they have provided onesided hearsay. Not all, but most. This is why I put little stock in the hearings. I want true facts, and evidence.I really find it comical that the Left is so focused on this.
Not the potential for Nuclear War as we refuse to negotiate with Russia, the only thing we do is escalate the conflict.
Not the potential for economic collapse, as interest rates climb, the stock market crashes, and inflation continues (wait till after the Nov elections) to make the dollar worth less each passing month.
Oh yeah, then we have the devastation of hurricanes, the potential for food shortages, so much more to respond to and worry about.
Nah, lets focus on Trump!Ken: It's a matter of values and beliefs systems. It's more important for you to focus on the chances of nuclear attack and the economy. In my view, the chances of a nuclear attack are very small, unless Putin is insane. As far as the economy, goes, you know as well as I do that there are business cycles and we will come out of this slump.
The severe weather conditions are caused because of global warming and if corporate American doesn't do anything about it, each season they and the fires are going to get worse.
However, the overthrow of our government without out any accountability based on one man not being able to accept that he lost an election is much more important to me. Because it is at the heart of what this democratic republic is about. If we can't trust the election process, we have nothing.
The fact that one man took it upon himself to take highly classified documents that could be a detriment to this country in the hands of foreign agents is much more important to me than a temporary downturn of the economy.
The fact that one man has brainwashed millions of people into thinking the election was stolen from him shows the power that Trump has over the electorate when it is nothing more than a lie. But his lies have caused election laws to be changed and a lack of confidence in the election process.
You can forget about Trump and concentrate on Biden and will focus on Trump as he lurks in the background as a threat to our democratic republic.Like I said...
The guy isn't in office anymore... obviously...
Trust me, only the Democrats/Left care about this...
Of course, only they watch and believe CNN and MSNBC.
The rest of America... Increasingly bad Economics, the growing potential for Nuclear devastation because of Biden's war with Russia, are the bigger concern.
You know what is really interesting, the same people who want Trump's head and seem to put this matter over all others in the world, are the same people who wanted to insist that every person was vaccinated, that everything remain shut down because they were afraid of a virus that had a 5% chance of being lethal only to those over 65... for the rest it was around 1% and almost 0% for those under 18.
Yet now we are in a situation where we have gone from 1% chance of a nuclear war, to probably around 10% today, since the Nord Stream sabotage and increasing support by Biden for military engagement INTO Russia.
10%... and everything you care about, everything you hold precious, is over. Civilization disappears overnight, World War ensues and it becomes survival of the fittest the world over.
Trump is gone... he isn't going to be returning... it doesn't matter what happens to him if there is a Nuclear strike of any type, even one single bomb..
It's more comical that the left can ignore all that is falling apart in the country.
Stock market losses wipe out $9 TRILLION from Americans’ wealth. The falling stock has wiped out more than $9 trillion in wealth from U.S. households. Can you imagine how many American's suffered these losses to their 401k? How anyone could refer to that as "a slump" I don't know.
We are dealing with a proxy war with a man that will not be backed into a corner in my view. Will he use nukes, who knows, he may use bioweapons. But we are in for a long expensive war, that we most likely have no chance of winning.
I can't imagine what this war will bring the EU this winter... little food, and little energy to their homes.
And Ken, this Jan 6th investigation fizzled, and nothing will revive it. they have shown nothing of any evidence Trump planned the attack. Zero, a bunch of --- "I think he was going to give the order." "And he said to stand by..." My God some have totally lost the ability to think clearly.
It's odd because time after time they see their hope dashed by failed Trump investigations, but they still cling to hope. It's So ridiculous, and the ploys are so non-sensical.Sharlee and Ken you guys are caught up in the what if syndrome. what if the market never recovers; what if we get nucked into oblivion; what if we all starve to death.
The Trump investigations take time. He is at the top of the food chain. Just because he hasn't been indicted yet, does not mean that he won't be. He and his cohorts tried to overthrow the government and he is sitting on classified documents.
Those are not what ifs and what he has done will bring criminal charges. it is just a matter of time. The Jan. 6 committee is not done and it didn't fizzile. Trump is very good at creating confusion and delays to protect himself.
Many people have been charged and have gone to jail for what he has done. You saying I'm not thinking clearly and yet you people are paranoid about something that may never happen. You better build your bomb shelters now.The war in Ukraine is real, the escalation is real, the sabotage of the Nord Stream is real.
Inflation is real, the Stock exchange losing trillions is real, the fact that all but the elite are suffering, losing wealth, losing their pensions, losing the ability to pay for food and other essentials is real.
Trump means nothing, Jan 6 means nothing, I don't care if it was a red flag event or a real mob trying to attack Congress, it means nothing, it is the past... Trump is the past.
Biden is President, Biden has corrupt ties with Ukraine, Biden was the man in charge of Ukraine events during the Obama Administration. Biden was in the mix when Ukraine made Billions just disappear, Hunter Biden was on the board of Ukraine's largest, wealthiest company... it stinks.
Biden's determination to escalate this war, to refuse to let any negotiation take place. His funneling hundreds of Billions to Ukraine now, his sending our most advanced weapons, our most elite operatives, this is Biden's war.
I don't care about the past.
I care about the corrupt cabal ruining the American economy and putting us in harms way of a Nuclear war. Trump is nothing compared to these threats."Biden's determination to escalate this war, to refuse to let any negotiation take place"
Are you saying that President Biden and many, many other world leaders never attempted diplomatic negotiations to divert Putin from invading Ukraine? And even attempted diplomacy after the invasion?
Facts don't support this narrative.There were opportunities to push for an armistice, a resolution, rather than an escalation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesstaf … 2c389e44a9
https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d37 … 2b7fa77ef1
There were of course opportunities before the conflict ever escalated.
This would have included accepting the secession of Crimea and working toward a resolution in the Donbas region. This is not what was pursued.
As I have shown many times in many threads here in these forums, it was Zelensky who in 2021 promised to take Crimea back by force that started this war, and it was Biden that promised to support him in those endeavors.
Biden has insisted that Russia reverse its 2014 annexation of Crimea and return the peninsula to Ukraine. The president’s statement could scarcely have been more blunt and uncompromising: “The United States does not and will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of the peninsula.”
That meant war. It always meant war. This is Biden's war... it always has been. Putin is responding to Biden's insistence that Crimea be returned to Ukraine. Everything after that, every chance at negotiating peace, has been sabotaged because Biden refuses to accept Crimea as Russian.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/capitul … -countries
So, in fact, the facts do support this narrative. For those who deal in facts, not CNN propaganda.There were rejections of proposals during the negotiations on both sides, Russia and Ukraine. You really seem to say that the United States should have just strong armed Ukraine, correct? When two independent parties can't come to an agreement then the US should just step in and impose its will?
You think America does not do that?
You think America does not impose its will on other nations?
You think if Biden DIDN'T want this war, we would be supporting it now?
Sorry, I keep giving link after link of proof that this is as much Biden's war as it is anyone's. No greater proof than that for the FOUR YEARS of Trump's administration, Crimea's secession was not an issue America was going to war over... but once Biden was elected, it was time to start beating the war-drums and Zelensky was his little drummer boy.
Here is a link to a good book, please look it over:
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad- … illiam.pdf
That covers U.S. efforts well enough from WWII until the 80s.
This helps cover some of our actions from 1985 to 1995:
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi … ntext=rtds
And of course from there we have our interference with Syria, Libya, and Ukraine... as well as our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq until recently.
Ken: Putin is like Trump. He can't accept the fact that he lost Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union. He wants mother Russia back again. That's why he hates NATO because they are preventing him from taking back the countries that were lost, especially Ukraine.
That Cato article was written in March 2021. Things have changed since then. Putin can't even conscript an army. People are fleeing from him like crazy. Many Russian soldiers have already turned themselves in to the Ukrainians. There is one thing about nukes. They have radiation fallout and then don't care who are what is under that fallout. .
Do you really think Putin would stop at just recovering the Crimea and there would be peace in the valley? I think he wants all of Ukraine back.
Putin was quiet for years because he didn't have the resources to execute war. But once he started selling fuel to other countries, he came to life and now he wants Ukraine back.
Fox News is an on air tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is setup like the NY Post. that he started. It is easy to read and targeted to those who don't want to get into the nuances of the news. It's purpose is to sell commercial time to bring money to Rupert and his family.
Ken: it is all real. The news is not just about Biden it is also about Trump and the effects of global warming. I choose to put my focus on Trump because I can inform people as to what he has done and is doing to destroy our democratic republic.
I can't control the economy or if we get nucked or what Putin is going to do in Ukraine or even global warming, but what I can do is inform others of what Trump has done so that it would never happen again in the arc of our democracy. You choose to blame Biden for what he could have done, but didn't do. As you say about Trump, it's in the past.
I believe survival is based on how well an organism is able to adapt to change. Conservatives by their very nature don't like change but the geo political world is changing whether we like it or not. The stock market will recover. It always does. It crashes and then stair-steps upward to a point higher than it crashed.
Did anyone give proof Trump or a representative of Trump give them a plan or orders to attack the capitol? You seem to feel this is some sort of big news, evidence, or is it ones again some form of an unconfirmed second, and thrid hand --- Well we though he wanted us to attack the capitol" I don't like that kind of garbage. I like factual evidence. Just funny that way...
You will need to offer a direct link to the story. I have scrolled the link you offered, and although I found many many many current news reports. ---- I did not find anything on the Jan 6th hearings or the proud boys. Please provide a link to the story, It may be in the archives.
I did find several reports that are current and being talked about or I should say trending on social media
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … 1824ebf96f
And the trending video of Biden's visit to the UN where he mumbled incoherently, and at another speech he offered in New York he was visibly confused and could not find his way off the stage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtZgV-K_gho
Please offer the link you hoped to share, I will be very pleased to have a look. But, I think it is lost in the archives.Sorry everybody. Don't get your panties in a bunch. The link got screwed up. Here is the correct link.
https://www.salon.com/2022/09/28/legal- … ion-trial/Well, this sounds like a multitude of nothing ---This article offers nothing that is thus far factual. The author offers nothing of proof of what he has written. It adds up to -- "he might be involved"... "There might be some form of evidence." I don't have an appreciation of this form of OP. I have recently read a bit in regard to the cases against the Oath Keepers.
I have not seen anything of which is offered up in your article. I would think it would be prudent just to wait and see what is produced in the trails. In my opinion, these are criminals and our justice system is handling punishing them. Thus far Trump has not been indicted on anything to do with the Jan 6th riot.
Here are a few good links that give a better description of the charges against the Oath Keepers, and the lead-up to the trial of their leader.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/2 … n-00059362
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/11251244 … an-6-trial
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … -rcna49447
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/s … ers-leaderSharlee:
Well, this sounds like a multitude of nothing ---This article offers nothing that is thus far factual. The author offers nothing of proof of what he has written. It adds up to -- "he might be involved"... "There might be some form of evidence." I don't have an appreciation of this form of OP. I have recently read a bit in regard to the cases against the Oath Keepers.
Tell me what was not factual in the article. You just minimized the article by generalizing your reply into buzz words. And then you come up with your own articles that are somehow better than mine. So then this becomes a case of who's articles are better.
Trump is never involved in his dirty schemes, but the people who do dirty work for him are and they pay for the consequences of his schemes . He is just like a mafia boss, but sooner or later they are going to catch up with him. The noose is starting to tighten with tax fraud for the whole family, stealing classified documents, and Jan. 6It was an opinion piece. A pure what id piece. Yes, everyone is willing to take a fall for Trump --- Come on.
" The noose is starting to tighten with tax fraud for the whole family, stealing classified documents, and Jan. 6"
A civil case? This will be settled with a financial punishment if they can prove the case. Jan 6th is going nowhere in my view, and I have as of yet seen any indictments on the document accusations. As I told you, I will be the first to post a thread if Trump is indicted on anything.
At that point the conversation would be current and very interesting. I never, fuel up on what if's.
The evidence of guilt is remarkably strong, the defenses offered are just as weak, and already witness testimony offers some reason for hope beyond this case
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … e-n1299572Just curious, but if I went "far right" and posted my opinion of something, would you present it as if meant something, too? Would it help if I made a bias very clear, used loaded words and language rather than actual proof, and said someone else was a bad person?
1st week of Oath Keepers trial delivers trove of evidence and denials
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/1st-w … f3c278d5f2
Sedition trial begins for Oath Keepers leader
WASHINGTON (AP) — Jury selection began Tuesday in the trial of the founder of the Oath Keepers extremist group and four associates charged with seditious conspiracy, one of the most serious cases to emerge from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Amid complaints by attorneys for Stewart Rhodes and the others that they can’t get a fair jury in Washington, the judge began winnowing the pool of potential jurors who will decide the fate of the first Jan. 6 defendants to stand trial on the rare Civil War-era charge.
Prosecutors have accused Rhodes of leading a weekslong plot to violently stop the transfer of presidential power from election-denier Donald Trump to Joe Biden that culminated with Oath Keepers dressed in battle gear storming the Capitol on Jan. 6.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta on Tuesday denied defense attorney’s latest bid to move the trial out of Washington.
The judge acknowledged that no juries have acquitted Jan. 6 defendants so far, but said that doesn’t tell him about “bias or inherent bias of jurors in the District of Columbia.”
Three of Rhodes’ Oath Keepers followers have pleaded guilty to the charge and are likely to testify against him at trial. Rhodes’ lawyers have claimed those Oath Keepers were pressured into pleading guilty and are lying to get a better sentencing deal from the government.
Rhodes’ attorneys have suggested that his defense will focus on his belief that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act and call up a militia to support his bid to stay in power. Defense attorneys say Rhodes’ actions in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 were in preparation for what he believed would have been lawful orders from Trump under the Insurrection Act but never came.
I would think this will be a very interesting trail. Any thoughtsI looked up the word winnowing that was used in your 2nd paragraph and here is what I found.
https://www.courthousenews.com/social-m … ers-trial/Yes, I guess the last time I heard the word winnowed was when Scarlett Ohara told Ashly(in Gone With The Wind) ---- "For heaven's sake, don't stand there talking nonsense at me when it's us who are being winnowed out."
Good article, I will agree with the judge's ruling to keep the trial in DC.
In my view, the biases a juror might feel in this case would be found among Americans nationwide.
This man and his followers committed a crime against our Government, and not many Americans would find that acceptable.Your link presented a point I hadn't looked into: that an "actual agreement" be proven. I think that's going to be hard to do, at least relative to Pres. Trump.
It raises the question of whether a 'plan', (there surely seems to have been a 'plan'), legally speaking, is an actual agreement.
I agree with the idea that social media activity is an indicator of potential bias—even when the juror claims otherwise, and should impact a juror's credibility to impartially serve.
GAGA:
A seditious conspiracy charge carries a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison. It requires prosecutors to prove to the jury that an actual agreement — to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government — existed among the accused Oath Keepers.
Here is the link to the article referenced in bold.
https://www.courthousenews.com/justice- … acy-trial/The jury has been selected. Opening statements are expected to begin Monday in federal court in the case against Stewart Rhodes and his associates — the first Jan. 6 defendants to go to trial on the Civil War-era charge of seditious conspiracy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … 5cf7ffa66e
The trail starts today
WASHINGTON (AP) — A trial starting this week in Washington, D.C., is the biggest test yet in the Justice Department’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible for the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a violent assault that challenged the foundations of American democracy.
On trial is extremist leader Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers extremist group, and four associates. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will make their opening statements on Monday and the trial will last several weeks. Here is a look at what's to come:
WHO ARE THE OATH KEEPERS?
The antigovernment group was founded in 2009 by Rhodes who was educated at Yale Law School and served briefly as a U.S. Army paratrooper before a training accident left him with a back injury.
The group was named after its stated goal of getting past and present members of the military, first responders, and police officers to honor the promise they made to defend the Constitution against enemies. They issued a list of orders that its members wouldn’t obey, such as disarming citizens, carrying out warrantless searches, and detaining Americans as enemy combatants in violation of their right to jury trials.
That relatively benign framing and leveraging of social media helped the group grow to one of the largest antigovernment militia groups in U.S. history, but the internal dialog was often darker, experts said. Oath Keepers participated in the standoff with federal off with officials at Nevada’s Bundy Ranch in 2014, and later along rooftops in Ferguson, Missouri after a grand jury declined to charge a police officer in the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.
The group would eventually embrace then-candidate Donald Trump's rhetoric and his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
WHY ARE THEY ON TRIAL?
On trial with Rhodes are Kelly Meggs, leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers; Kenneth Harrelson, another Florida Oath Keeper; Thomas Caldwell, a retired U.S. Navy intelligence officer from Virginia; and Jessica Watkins, who led an Ohio militia group.
They have been charged with seditious conspiracy in one of the most high-profile cases to come out of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Prosecutors say they spent several weeks amassing weapons, organizing paramilitary training and readying armed teams outside Washington to stop Joe Biden from becoming president. The plot came to a head on Jan. 6, 2021, when Oath Keepers wearing helmets and other battle gear were captured on camera shouldering their way through the crowd of angry Trump supporters and storming the Capitol in military-style stack formation.
Prosecutors will say that the insurrection, for the Oath Keepers, was not a spur-of-the-moment protest but part of a serious, weekslong plot to stop the transfer of power.
The Oath Keepers, for their part, say prosecutors have twisted their words and insist there was never any plan to attack the Capitol. They say they were in Washington to provide security and preparations, training, gear and weapons were to protect themselves against potential violence from left-wing Antifa activists or to be ready if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act to call up a militia.
WHAT IS SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY? - The seditious conspiracy law was enacted after the Civil War to arrest Southerners who might keep fighting the U.S. government. The charge has rarely been brought in recent history — with mixed results.
In this case, prosecutors will try to prove that Rhodes and his associates conspired to forcibly oppose the authority of the federal government and forcibly block the execution of laws governing the transfer of presidential power.
It can be tough to prove because prosecutors have to show the defendants did more than talk about using force, that they conspired to actually use it.
The last seditious conspiracy cases were filed in 2010, and those ended in acquittal. The last successful seditious conspiracy trial was in 1995, when Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine followers were convicted in a plot to blow up several landmarks in New York and New Jersey.
It's punishable by up to 20 years behind bars.
https://www.aol.com/oath-keepers-capito … 02263.htmlSharlee: Thanks, you saved me from posting that update.
Today both sides gave their opening statement. very little to quote from either side. The trial is not being televised, so we most likely will only get bits and pieces from the media.
This article has a few statements from the prosecutor and defense.
https://apnews.com/article/oath-keepers … 036f858de1
With the evidence the DOJ has, I feel all will be convicted.
Sharlee: How did the Oath Keepers know Jan. 6 was going to take place?
Second Day ---
"By Chris Gallagher
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes began planning to resist the result of the 2020 U.S. presidential election days after the vote, telling followers that Donald Trump "will need us and our rifles," an FBI witness testified on Tuesday.
Rhodes and four co-defendants - Thomas Caldwell, Kenneth Harrelson, Kelly Meggs and Jessica Watkins - are on trial in federal court in Washington, accused of conspiring to prevent Congress from certifying the election victory of President Joe Biden in a failed bid to keep Trump, a Republican, in power.
On Tuesday, the second day of the trial, FBI Special Agent Michael Palian read to the court messages that he said Rhodes sent to his followers on Nov. 7, 2020, around the time media outlets were calling the race for Biden, in which Rhodes warned that "the coup isn't over" and that Biden's fellow Democrats would also "steal" a majority in the Senate.
"Think of all our Founding Fathers did to defy and resist the abuses of King George and Parliament," Palian, the government's first witness, cited Rhodes as saying in an encrypted Signal message that referenced the leaders of the American Revolution who overthrew British colonial rule.
"Trump has one last chance, right now, to stand. But he will need us and our rifles," Rhodes said, according to Palian's testimony.
In their opening statement on Monday, prosecutors told a jury that Rhodes and the other defendants had plotted to do whatever it took to prevent the transfer of presidential power.
Defense attorneys said the Oath Keepers were a peace-keeping group and vowed the evidence would show that the defendants had done nothing illegal.
Palian, testifying for a second day, said Rhodes had organized an Oath Keepers conference call on Nov. 9, 2020, during which he told members their mission was to go to Washington.
"We're very much in exactly the same spot that the Founding Fathers were in like March 1775," Rhodes said on the call.
Rhodes said on the call that Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act, Palian testified. The Insurrection Act is a law that empowers the president to deploy the military to suppress civil disorder.
"And to get him to do that, he has to know that the people are behind him, and that he will not be deserted," Rhodes said on the call. "So we've gotta be in D.C."
Trump supporters stormed the Capitol after the former president falsely claimed the election had been stolen from him through widespread fraud. Five people died during or shortly after the riot, and about 140 police were injured.
The five on trial face numerous felony charges, including seditious conspiracy - a Civil War-era statute that is rarely prosecuted and carries a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
Prosecutors have said the defendants trained and planned for Jan. 6, stockpiling weapons at a northern Virginia hotel outside the capital for a so-called "quick reaction force" that would be ready if called upon to transport arms into Washington.
As lawmakers met to certify Biden's election victory, some Oath Keepers charged into the Capitol building, clad in paramilitary gear.
The government and extremist monitoring groups have characterized the Oath Keepers as a far-right anti-government group, some of whose members have ties to militias. Some of the members include current and former military and law enforcement personnel.
Rhodes, a Yale-educated attorney and former U.S. Army paratrooper, has disputed that characterization."
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/ar … pers-trial
https://www.reuters.com/legal/it-was-ch … 022-10-04/Oath Keeper's defense may have backfired as prosecutors say it opens door to revealing his 'death list'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … 9d0beb0545I think the physical evidence (email, text, Facebook records, and footage that was live streamed from the actual riot) these men in my view will be found guilty. They certainly were sloppy, were they not?
Yes, but the real question is who are what motivated thousands of people to assemble at the capitol on Jan. 6 with the purpose of stopping the certification process and replacing it with a fake slate of electors.
Did they just assemble as an organic mob? Did mana come down from the heavens or was this pre-meditated and they knew what was going to happen in advance and if so, who or what told them?The Jan 6th Rally was well passed around social media, as well as many media outlets were putting the call out that the rally was in support of Trump and the stolen election. We know many thousands attended and left after the rally. And yes they were there to support Trump and protest against the election.
In Michigan, our senior centers offered organized buses to attend the rally. I don't believe anyone that organized these trips was going to the capitol to do anything else but attend Trump's rally. It is obvious we now know that several far-right groups did plan to go to the rally and make trouble in the capitol. This trail is putting forth just such a plan.
I have not heard anything thus far from the trial that the defense or prosecutor claims anyone else other than those being accused planned the riot or that they were told by Trump or anyone from Trump's circle to help them plan what they did. I would think if this is the case, it will come out in the trial. The DOJ is after Trump, and if they could prove Trump or a Trump associate helped plan the riot, they would have been indicted.
The "mob" was formed due to the rally was well promoted on TV media, and social media big time. Trump's rallies are always well attended, nothing new to see 20,000 arrive to hear him. He was heard in Michigan last week he drew 25,000 supporters and more than just lined the streets to the venue. He has a huge base, and they just show up. I don't think anyone knows how big his base is.
So, I don't think the very large majority that attended the Jan 6th rally were there for any other reason than to hear and show support for Trump.You keep saying they haven't been indicted. Just because they haven't been indicted yet, does not make them innocent. Their time is coming. There is John Eastman who advised Trump that he could legally pull of the switching of electoral votes. There is Steve Bannon who kept saying be there on Jan. 6. Here is Steve Bannon's involvement with Trump about Jan. 6
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/politics … index.htmlI would assume our DOJ would indite anyone they feel committed a crime against the Government. I just do not feel if there are others involved they will be indited.
I mean it looks like the DOJ may indite Hunter at this point, so they certainly would indite anyone involved with the Jan 6th riot.
As I shared, I will be the first to post a thread if Trump is indicted for anything.But...until not only indicted but convicted as well, they are to be considered innocent. Including Bannon, Eastman and every other man, woman and child in the country. That tiny point is set aside by so many in the mob mentality sweeping the country; do not fall into the same trap.
I think we both know that there were not "thousands of people to assemble at the capitol on Jan. 6 with the purpose of stopping the certification process and replacing it with a fake slate of electors".
There were thousands of people, yes. Of which thousands were there to protest, hundreds entered the building for a lark to swing from chandeliers and such, and a tiny handful may have been there to stop the election via violence (that's currently in court, right?).
Such gross exaggerations do your case no good.Wilderness: Such minimization of what really happened does your case no good either. Swinging from chandeliers and such...give me a break. There was unmitigated violence damage to the capitol, people were injured and others died. All because one man cannot accept that he lost an election.
No, it happened because we have become inured to riots and simply sit back and watch as the destructions happens in front of us. Crime has become a way of life in this country. I could almost guarantee that if the riots earlier in the year were met with sufficient force to stop them this one would not have happened and no one would have been hurt there. You might have had a couple dozen people truly trying to damage/kill, but the very large majority would have simply walked away from it.
It is my opinion that the majority of those rioters were there for a good time, nothing more. That many on the left have chosen to make a mountain (and one Mt. Everest size, no less) out of a molehill does not change that that small riot was a molehill, nothing more. It does not compare to the riots that went on nightly for months in other parts of the country.
Yes, people died; one trying to break in and one from a stroke. No more, no matter how often you neglect to mention that "people" refers to one woman dying from violence.
Yes there was damage. Now compare the damage done in those few hours to that done after months of rioting in Portland, Or. Or in other cities that saw massive riots. Then talk to me about "minimization" and about blowing it up into something it was not.Wilderness: So let me get this straight. You are comparing BLM to Jan.6? I'm sorry but those are false equivalences. BLM is about protesting for the rights of black people receiving the same equal treatment as white people by law enforcement.
Jan. 6 was protesting because one man could not accept that he lost an election. Granted, they both had crowd mania, but you want to blame BLM for the crowd mania at Jan. 6, because you think BLM set the precedent for protesting. So therefore if there was no BLM, there would have not been Jan. 6, according to your logic. Do you see the cognitive distortion is with that kind of thinking?I'm sorry; the riots in Portland, Seattle and other cities were about having fun, looting and destroying government property. The protests may have BLM, but the riots (whether encouraged by BLM or not) was about something else entirely. Taking over a section of the US was included in Seattle.
No, BLM did not set the precedent for protesting: idiot government "servants" in those cities and states that allowed and even encouraged the rioting did that. Had those "public servants", responsible for the safety of their citizens and their property, done their job and STOPPED those riots (even at the cost of protesters dying) there very likely would not have been a repeat on Jan. 6.
Do YOU see the distorted thinking, caused by a fixation on Trump, that causes you to dismiss any connection between a riot and a riot? That will not allow you to understand that allowing criminal activity promotes criminal activity? That insists burning federal buildings and breaking into a federal building to destroy the interior (or at least a tiny portion of it) are essentially the same thing?
The only real difference was the shouting by a tiny handful to kill people; that happened only in DC. Or course, there were very likely many, many calls to "GET THE PIGS" in Portland as well - we just didn't get any reports of that.So again you are saying if BLM didn't happen, Jan.6 wouldn't have happened and you think my logic has to do with my fixation on Trump.
Here is Jan. 6 by the numbers.
https://news.yahoo.com/jan-6-capitol-ri … 35360.htmlThat's twice you've said that I said if BLM didn't happen neither would the Capitol riot. I have not said that at all, and in fact DID say that it was not necessarily BLM that was rioting at all.
PP, you really need to work on getting your facts straight. In line with that, please copy/paste when you wish to tell me what I said. Maybe that way it will be correct.
Proud Boys leader pleads guilty to seditious conspiracy
A high-ranking leader of the right-wing Proud Boys pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, court documents revealed Thursday, making him the first member of the group to do so as its leader awaits trial.
Jeremy Bertino was a lieutenant to Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, who along with four other members of the group is awaiting trial in December for seditious conspiracy.
The agreement says Bertino “did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with” the plans of the other Proud Boys to “to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States and to delay by force the execution of the laws governing the transfer of power.”
The plea deal for Bertino comes as the Justice Department had opening arguments this week in its first seditious conspiracy case to go to trial. Far right militia group leader Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, is on trail along with four other members of the group.
Bertino previously spoke with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, telling the panel’s investigators in a video clip played in one of their hearings that the Proud Boys’ membership tripled after former President Trump told the group’s members to “stand back and stand by” during a 2020 presidential debate.
They had an alliance, so we'll see.Not sure I will ever put the attack to stop the legal certification of an American presidential election on the same footing as any other rioting. One where the losing candidate organized the attendance and unbeknownst to Capitol Police, had a plan to send the mob to the Capitol at the very moment they were scheduled to certify that loss. With the knowledge that he knew they were armed and personally prevented his Secret Service from disarming them.
And no, Trump is not gone. Not remotely. Most of the GOP midterm candidates are running on the Big Lie. That is Trumpism looking to get into better positions to overturn the next free and fair election they lose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPSeMbbZfTI&t=36sHow about one where rioters take over a section of city, refusing to allow any form of govt. entity entry? Even to the point of requiring ID from people that live there?
How about one that takes over police stations? Not just enter for a few hours and leaves, but for days?
How about one that repeatedly sets fire to federal buildings in an effort to destroy any form of govt. presence?
Do they line up better with a handful of people rioting to prevent an illegal (in their view) president from taking the office?
Related Discussions
- 301
Trump's Criminal Trials
by J Conn 10 hours ago
The country will get at least one verdict before the November election. The New York Hush Money/Election Interference case is set to kick off on March 25. Trump attorneys attempts to get charges dropped and the case delayed were struck...
- 51
Is President Trump an Agent of a Foreign Power, namely Russia?
by Allen Donald 5 years ago
Has President Trump been compromised? Does Russia have something on President Trump that would cause him to say things and create policy that favor Russia?After Helsinki, it's hard not to wonder if something is terribly wrong. Real Americans everywhere, regardless of party affiliation, should be...
- 4882
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
by Scott Belford 63 minutes ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
- 9
Where do people get their news? Who is it? Trust?
by Tim Mitchell 8 weeks ago
With a recent OP/Topic about ‘X’ my curiosity was piqued and went on an adventure. First I sought what social media sites are popular. I arrived with a Pew Research study/article; Americans’ Social Media Use (Jan 31, 2024).https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/20 … 01n40SKUAY The results...
- 262
Is the U.S. Constitution still being protected?
by KC McGee 24 months ago
It is sad to me to see those who took the oath to Uphold, Protect and Defend our Constitution failing the oath they took. Many from mayors of cities up to the current president are failing the oath they took. Even inside the military to the DOJ, CIA, FBI and even the SCOTUS itself has an agend to...
- 40
Congressional Resolution Declares No Insurrection by Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 7 weeks ago
Gaetz, Stefanik offer resolution declaring Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection’Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) unveiled a resolution Tuesday that declares former President Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”The resolution — which...