Oathkeepers' Appeal Watch and Appeal Discussion

[MrNiceGuy]

The lawyer for Rhodes and others, will be appealing their convictions.

Attorneys for Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes plan to appeal after Rhodes is found guilty of seditious conspiracy

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, of Granbury, was convicted Tuesday of seditious conspiracy for a violent plot to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential win, handing the Justice Department a major victory in its massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

www.yahoo.com

I wish the trial had been televised. But, the appeals should be interesting.

 

[BlueTex]

The lawyer for Rhodes and others, will be appealing their convictions.

Attorneys for Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes plan to appeal after Rhodes is found guilty of seditious conspiracy

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, of Granbury, was convicted Tuesday of seditious conspiracy for a violent plot to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential win, handing the Justice Department a major victory in its massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

www.yahoo.com

I wish the trial had been televised. But, the appeals should be interesting.

Are we supposed to be surprised?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Are we supposed to be surprised?

No, it's quite expected. The interesting part will be what they argue on appeal. This was not a publicly televised trial. I mean, it wasn't as much "in the public interest" to see this trial as, say, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard airing their dirty laundry.

But, there will be appeal briefs filed, and possibly post trial motions. Will be interesting.

 

[BlueTex]

No, it's quite expected. The interesting part will be what they argue on appeal. This was not a publicly televised trial. I mean, it wasn't as much "in the public interest" to see this trial as, say, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard airing their dirty laundry.

But, there will be appeal briefs filed, and possibly post trial motions. Will be interesting.

Judges determine whether they allow a trial to be televised... There is no right to a televised trial...

 

[ecofarm]

No, it's quite expected. The interesting part will be what they argue on appeal. This was not a publicly televised trial. I mean, it wasn't as much "in the public interest" to see this trial as, say, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard airing their dirty laundry.

But, there will be appeal briefs filed, and possibly post trial motions. Will be interesting.

lol

 

[bongsaway]

No, it's quite expected. The interesting part will be what they argue on appeal. This was not a publicly televised trial. I mean, it wasn't as much "in the public interest" to see this trial as, say, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard airing their dirty laundry.

But, there will be appeal briefs filed, and possibly post trial motions. Will be interesting.

Yes it will be interesting, I don't see anything changing but it will be interesting to hear the dirt about the folks involved.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

The lawyer for Rhodes and others, will be appealing their convictions.

Attorneys for Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes plan to appeal after Rhodes is found guilty of seditious conspiracy

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, of Granbury, was convicted Tuesday of seditious conspiracy for a violent plot to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential win, handing the Justice Department a major victory in its massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

www.yahoo.com

I wish the trial had been televised. But, the appeals should be interesting.

On what grounds? They were convicted by a jury of their peers. Is Elmer claiming, "prosecutorial misconduct"? Good luck with that!

 

[ASHES]

No, it's quite expected. The interesting part will be what they argue on appeal. This was not a publicly televised trial. I mean, it wasn't as much "in the public interest" to see this trial as, say, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard airing their dirty laundry.

But, there will be appeal briefs filed, and possibly post trial motions. Will be interesting.

Federal trials generally aren't televised. Nothing to do with less public interest than the Depp case.

 

[gboisjo]

On what grounds? They were convicted by a jury of their peers. Is Elmer claiming, "prosecutorial misconduct"? Good luck with that!

Anyone who's convicted of a serious crime appeals, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

He needs to man up and do his time.

 

[Jay Falcon]

Imagine investing that much energy into hoping you see some low-life traitors get off on appeal.

I'd be embarrassed to even consider starting a thread like this.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Federal trials generally aren't televised. Nothing to do with less public interest than the Depp case.

Good point. Wish this one was.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Anyone who's convicted of a serious crime appeals, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

He needs to man up and do his time.

They have the right to appeal, it just seems like a waste of time and recourses at this point.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Imagine investing that much energy into hoping you see some low-life traitors get off on appeal.

I'd be embarrassed to even consider starting a thread like this.

Oh, sure, it is quite embarrassing to start a thread to discuss the appeal of criminal convictions for sedition in what was described as one of the most unprecedented and important politically-related criminal trials of the century, if not the history of the US. I mean, what self-respecting political discussion forum wouldn't want a discussion about that? LOL

 

[Jay Falcon]

Oh, sure, it is quite embarrassing to start a thread to discuss the appeal of criminal convictions for sedition in what was described as one of the most unprecedented and important politically-related criminal trials of the century, if not the history of the US. I mean, what self-respecting political discussion forum wouldn't want a discussion about that? LOL

Stop defending extremists. And hoping they get off. It makes my stomach hurt.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

On what grounds? They were convicted by a jury of their peers. Is Elmer claiming, "prosecutorial misconduct"? Good luck with that!

Everyone going to trial is convicted by a jury.

It's hard to know what the specific appealable issues were in this case, since we can't actually see the trial. However, typically, they involve (a) the weight of the evidence and propriety of the jury verdict, (b) court rulings on evidence (whether to include evidence over one side's objection, or to exclude evidence which could have supported a Defendant's case, etc), (c) the venue (in this case there was a motion to change venue which was denied) so that could be an issue), (d) prosecutorial misconduct (which could have something to do with the prosecutors warning witnesses not to testify or they might be prosecuted themselves), and (e) effective assistance of counsel in some cases.

 

[Callen]

Oh, sure, it is quite embarrassing to start a thread to discuss the appeal of criminal convictions for sedition in what was described as one of the most unprecedented and important politically-related criminal trials of the century, if not the history of the US. I mean, what self-respecting political discussion forum wouldn't want a discussion about that? LOL

Not sedition.....Seditious Conspiracy and Obstruction of an Official Proceeding. Wonder if they will appeal all of the convictions. If so it's hard to see it being based on evidence. Seems to me more likely to be procedural.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Stop defending extremists. And hoping they get off. It makes my stomach hurt.

LOL, stop being a child and thinking that finding a case interesting, important and worthy of discussion means that I'm "hoping" they get off.

And what is the difference what anyone in this discussion "hopes?" It's a discussion of a legal case. Even if you hope they rot in hell, it doesn't mean you can't look at the appealable issues and evaluate them.

Only an uneducated child cannot entertain a notion without accepting it.

What are you, on the prosecution team? You have some vested interest in this case? Why is it important to you that nobody talk about it?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Not sedition.....Seditious Conspiracy and Obstruction of an Official Procceding. Wonder if they will appeal all of the convictions.

I would expect so. They have no reason not to appeal.

 

[AGENT J]

The lawyer for Rhodes and others, will be appealing their convictions.

Attorneys for Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes plan to appeal after Rhodes is found guilty of seditious conspiracy

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, of Granbury, was convicted Tuesday of seditious conspiracy for a violent plot to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential win, handing the Justice Department a major victory in its massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

www.yahoo.com

I wish the trial had been televised. But, the appeals should be interesting.

people have the right to appeal
I'm glad the nut ball was convicted . . . .

The charges of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and tampering with documents or proceedings each carry a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The charge of conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties carries a statutory maximum of six years in prison. The charge of interfering with law enforcement officers during a civil disorder carries a statutory maximum of five years in prison. All of the charges also carry potential financial penalties.

i hope he spends the rest of his life in jail

Oath Keepers' Rhodes guilty of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy

WASHINGTON (AP) — Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was convicted Tuesday of seditious conspiracy for a violent plot to overturn President Joe Biden’s election, handing the Justice Department a major victory in its massive prosecution of the Jan.

apnews.com

Leader of Oath Keepers and Oath Keepers Member Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy and Other Charges Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, and Kelly Meggs, a member of the organization, were found guilty by a jury today of seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Their actions and the actions of...

www.justice.gov

 

[Callen]

I would expect so. They have no reason not to appeal.

Then it seems more likely the appeal is based on procedure than evidence.

 

[The AntiDonald]

They have the right to appeal, it just seems like a waste of time and recourses at this point.

Hopefully the higher court see's it the same way, by rejecting the appeal.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Then it seems more likely the appeal is based on procedure than evidence.

It will be both, as the lawyer already announced that he thinks there was insufficient evidence to show a conspiracy regarding a riot on January 6. So, that tells me that they will go after the weight of the evidence on the specific charges. It's not enough that these guys were shown to be bad guys or really vociferous election denying folks who used martial rhetoric to push people's buttons. There has to be proof of a conspiracy to do the deeds which occurred on 1/6. Now, I didn't see the evidence, and neither did anyone else posting here, but that is the defense's arguments. We will get to see the relevant evidence when they appeal and file briefs that we can actually read ourselves.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Hopefully the higher court see's it the same way, by rejecting the appeal.

Shouldn't your view be based on the merits of an appeal? Since none of us saw the trial, all you're going on is news reporting and the verdict, right?

 

[zincwarrior]

The lawyer for Rhodes and others, will be appealing their convictions.

Attorneys for Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes plan to appeal after Rhodes is found guilty of seditious conspiracy

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, of Granbury, was convicted Tuesday of seditious conspiracy for a violent plot to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential win, handing the Justice Department a major victory in its massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

www.yahoo.com

I wish the trial had been televised. But, the appeals should be interesting.

I too wish the trial had been televised.

 

[ecofarm]

Federal trials generally aren't televised. Nothing to do with less public interest than the Depp case.

Yeah, he tried to pretend lack of televising means people don't care.