Trump at center of Oath Keepers novel defense in Jan. 6 case

[ouch]

Mr Rhodes is going for the dog ate my homework it's DJT's fault theory for what he and his assault team did at the Capitol but here's where all of this stands in my opinion. Both he and DJT are guilty in their part on 1/6/21. It's difficult for Me Rhodes to argue his theory based on what he believed and was going to take place that speaks for his actions on 1/6/21. What is important here as much as the trial against Mr Rhodes is the fact that DJT egged all of this on and those arrested so far are pretty much in agreement with that.

MSN

www.msn.com

Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist group, are poised to argue that jurors cannot find him guilty of seditious conspiracy because all the actions he took before the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, were in preparation for orders he anticipated from the then-president — orders that never came.





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.





“This is an incredibly complicated defense of theory and I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” one of Rhodes’ lawyers, James Lee Bright, told The Associated Press.

 

[Phys251]

Mr Rhodes is going for the dog ate my homework it's DJT's fault theory for what he and his assault team did at the Capitol but here's where all of this stands in my opinion. Both he and DJT are guilty in their part on 1/6/21. It's difficult for Me Rhodes to argue his theory based on what he believed and was going to take place that speaks for his actions on 1/6/21. What is important here as much as the trial against Mr Rhodes is the fact that DJT egged all of this on and those arrested so far are pretty much in agreement with that.

MSN

www.msn.com

Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist group, are poised to argue that jurors cannot find him guilty of seditious conspiracy because all the actions he took before the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, were in preparation for orders he anticipated from the then-president — orders that never came.





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.





“This is an incredibly complicated defense of theory and I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” one of Rhodes’ lawyers, James Lee Bright, told The Associated Press.

I'm sure no criminal has EVER thought of that. /s

"Your honor, the other defendant made me attack the victim! It's all his fault!"

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

 

[Athanasius68]

Seditious conspiracy is all about intent to use force or violence against the authority of the USA.
Planning a riot isn't sedition.

 

[JMB802]

Seditious conspiracy is all about intent to use force or violence against the authority of the USA.
Planning a riot isn't sedition.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

www.law.cornell.edu

Well, the evidence seems to suggest that they intended to use force to interrupt the US Congress' Constitutional duty to count electoral votes. YMMV

 

[Athanasius68]

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

www.law.cornell.edu

Well, the evidence seems to suggest that they intended to use force to interrupt the US Congress' Constitutional duty to count electoral votes. YMMV

The idea behind it would be because they rejected the authority of the USA government.
That's what has to be proven.

Obstructing Congress is itself a crime. And for which people who rioted have been charged.
In that statue, there is no need to prove the motive of why they obstructed Congress.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Mr Rhodes is going for the dog ate my homework it's DJT's fault theory for what he and his assault team did at the Capitol but here's where all of this stands in my opinion. Both he and DJT are guilty in their part on 1/6/21. It's difficult for Me Rhodes to argue his theory based on what he believed and was going to take place that speaks for his actions on 1/6/21. What is important here as much as the trial against Mr Rhodes is the fact that DJT egged all of this on and those arrested so far are pretty much in agreement with that.

MSN

www.msn.com

Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist group, are poised to argue that jurors cannot find him guilty of seditious conspiracy because all the actions he took before the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, were in preparation for orders he anticipated from the then-president — orders that never came.





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.





“This is an incredibly complicated defense of theory and I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” one of Rhodes’ lawyers, James Lee Bright, told The Associated Press.

Sounds like pretty shaky ground considering the former president's narrative about not inciting people to engage in a riot. I suspect this will not fare very well.

 

[Jacksprat]

Mr Rhodes is going for the dog ate my homework it's DJT's fault theory for what he and his assault team did at the Capitol but here's where all of this stands in my opinion. Both he and DJT are guilty in their part on 1/6/21. It's difficult for Me Rhodes to argue his theory based on what he believed and was going to take place that speaks for his actions on 1/6/21. What is important here as much as the trial against Mr Rhodes is the fact that DJT egged all of this on and those arrested so far are pretty much in agreement with that.

MSN

www.msn.com

Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist group, are poised to argue that jurors cannot find him guilty of seditious conspiracy because all the actions he took before the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, were in preparation for orders he anticipated from the then-president — orders that never came.





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.





“This is an incredibly complicated defense of theory and I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” one of Rhodes’ lawyers, James Lee Bright, told The Associated Press.

Trump

Seditious conspiracy is all about intent to use force or violence against the authority of the USA.
Planning a riot isn't sedition.

But what Trump did was sedition. Planning a riot to overthrow government.

 

[Athanasius68]

Trump

But what Trump did was sedition. Planning a riot to overthrow government.

Trump isn't being charged.
Nor does he factor in any of these Jan 6 prosecutions.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Seditious conspiracy is all about intent to use force or violence against the authority of the USA.

Their weapons caches and their own words easily prove that part. No, they do t get to say they "didn't believe congress was the authority". Youvtrumpers got your law degrees from Trump U.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Cute clever attempt, doubt it will work.

 

[Jacksprat]

Trump isn't being charged.
Nor does he factor in any of these Jan 6 prosecutions.

I did not say he was charged.

 

[Athanasius68]

Their weapons caches and their own words easily prove that part. No, they do t get to say they "didn't believe congress was the authority". Youvtrumpers got your law degrees from Trump U.

For the Seditious conspiracy charge, the prosecutors would have to prove that about the defenders.

 

[Athanasius68]

I did not say he was charged.

I know. I was pointing out that Trump has not factored into any of these Jan 6 prosecutions-- including the sedition charges these guys are facing.

 

[JMB802]

For the Seditious conspiracy charge, the prosecutors would have to prove that about the defenders.

Prove what, exactly, about the defendants.

 

[Athanasius68]

Prove what, exactly, about the defendants.

They have to prove that the intent of their actions was to against the USA government as the government.
Basically, that they are rejecting it's authority.

 

[JMB802]

They have to prove that the intent of their actions was to against the USA government as the government.
Basically, that they are rejecting it's authority.

Your first sentence makes no sense.

 

[Donatello]

I know. I was pointing out that Trump has not factored into any of these Jan 6 prosecutions-- including the sedition charges these guys are facing.

So what? "to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States." You don't believe Trump and his soldiers did those things?

 

[justabubba]

Mr Rhodes is going for the dog ate my homework it's DJT's fault theory for what he and his assault team did at the Capitol but here's where all of this stands in my opinion. Both he and DJT are guilty in their part on 1/6/21. It's difficult for Me Rhodes to argue his theory based on what he believed and was going to take place that speaks for his actions on 1/6/21. What is important here as much as the trial against Mr Rhodes is the fact that DJT egged all of this on and those arrested so far are pretty much in agreement with that.

MSN

www.msn.com

Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist group, are poised to argue that jurors cannot find him guilty of seditious conspiracy because all the actions he took before the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, were in preparation for orders he anticipated from the then-president — orders that never came.





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.





“This is an incredibly complicated defense of theory and I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” one of Rhodes’ lawyers, James Lee Bright, told The Associated Press.

is tRump summoned to testify as a sworn witness?
seems essential when presenting this argument before the court

 

[Athanasius68]

Your first sentence makes no sense.

People are allowed to protest actions of the government. Can't riot of course in such a protest, nor can one seek to stop government from exercising it's lawful authority.

But rioting or seeking to stop Congress from exercising it's lawful authority isn't sedition.

Sedition is rejecting that the authority exists.

So obstructing Congress from exercising it's lawful authority to count electoral votes is against the law.
But it's not sedition.

To prove sedition, it would have to be proven that the actions were done because the persons intent was against the authority of the USA.

That's why these guys are saying what it sounds like they will be saying.

 

[Athanasius68]

So what? "to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States." You don't believe Trump and his soldiers did those things?

All the evidence that seems to exist shows that these guys thought Trump was the victim of electoral fraud and that the election of Biden was the real theft.

 

[Athanasius68]

is tRump summoned to testify as a sworn witness?
seems essential when presenting this argument before the court

Whether Trump was going to invove the Insurrection Act is irrelevant as to what these guys thought.

 

[JMB802]

People are allowed to protest actions of the government. Can't riot of course in such a protest, nor can one seek to stop government from exercising it's lawful authority.

But rioting or seeking to stop Congress from exercising it's lawful authority isn't sedition.

Sedition is rejecting that the authority exists.

So obstructing Congress from exercising it's lawful authority to count electoral votes is against the law.
But it's not sedition.

To prove sedition, it would have to be proven that the actions were done because the persons intent was against the authority of the USA.

That's why these guys are saying what it sounds like they will be saying.

So, you're saying that the Oath Keepers accept the authority of the US government so what they did is not sedition?

 

[Athanasius68]

So, you're saying that the Oath Keepers accept the authority of the US government so what they did is not sedition?

I am saying that to prove sedition, it has to be proven the intent of their actions was against the authority of the USA.

 

[JMB802]

I am saying that to prove sedition, it has to be proven their intent of their actions was against the authority of the USA.

So, do YOU believe what the Oath Keepers did was not sedition?