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

[Athanasius68]

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

Nothing that has been presented this far would indicate that.

 

[Jacksprat]

Nothing that has been presented this far would indicate that.

They physically assault cops and tried to prevent the Electoral College be certified. Sedition.

 

[justabubba]

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

strongly disagree
tRump could confirm/deny there was a legitimate basis to conclude he was pondering invocation of the insurrection act
tRump could also speak to any communications he/staff had with the traitors

 

[Athanasius68]

They physically assault cops and tried to prevent the Electoral College be certified. Sedition.

These guys weren't even at the Capitol. So they assaulted nobody.

Preventing Congress from exercising its lawful authority is obstruction. It's against the law.

Sedition is about proving they did so because they rejected its authority.

 

[Jacksprat]

These guys weren't even at the Capitol. So they assaulted nobody.

Preventing Congress from exercising its lawful authority is obstruction. It's against the law.

Sedition is about proving that did so because they rejected its authority.

Obviously sedition. Trump and his supporters are fascists.

 

[Athanasius68]

strongly disagree
tRump could confirm/deny there was a legitimate basis to conclude he was pondering invocation of the insurrection act
tRump could also speak to any communications he/staff had with the traitors

Whether Trump was thinking about invoking it doesn't matter. What matters is what they thought.

 

[JMB802]

Nothing that has been presented this far would indicate that.

Are you saying that the Oath Keepers were not rejecting the authority of Congress to count Electoral votes?

 

[Athanasius68]

Are you saying that the Oath Keepers were not rejecting the authority of Congress to count Electoral votes?

I am saying that is what has to be proven.

I am also saying that what he have been hearing for the past year and half is that these guys thought Trump was the legitimate elected president and that he had been the victim of electoral fraud.
People are allowed to believe that.

That would tend to cut against the idea they were rejecting the authority of Congress.

 

[upsideguy]

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.

That is a pretty wild defense to put forth in a US Federal Court. You might as well be a pilot applying for a job with an international airline telling the interviewer that you believe the earth is flat. Good luck with that one.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

View attachment 67415950

It's like you read my mind. I was even pulling up the same meme.

 

[Rexedgar]

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.

Your lines 2, 3, 4& 5 negate each other………

 

[JMB802]

Your lines 2, 3, 4& 5 negate each other………

I know, trying to keep the discussion on track is like trying to pick up jello with a fork.

 

[post]

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

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.

Stick a fork in them....

Kellye SoRelle: Oath Keeper Capper or Potential Pivot? - emptywheel

Kellye SoRelle was charged, by herself, in a conspiracy to obstruct the vote count on January 6. Undoubtedly, DOJ believes it can prove she conspired with the Oath Keepers. But do they intend to prove she conspired with others, including lawyers involved in the fake elector plots?

www.emptywheel.net

September 2, 2022

 

[JMB802]

I am saying that is what has to be proven.

I am also saying that what he have been hearing for the past year and half is that these guys thought Trump was the legitimate elected president and that he had been the victim of electoral fraud.
People are allowed to believe that.

That would tend to cut against the idea they were rejecting the authority of Congress.

They can believe any fairy tale they want but believing fairy tales doesn't exempt them from facing consequences for their actions.

If someone told you it was okay to rob a bank and you robbed a bank and got caught, does that make you exempt from the crime?

 

[Jacksprat]

They can believe any fairy tale they want but believing fairy tales doesn't exempt them from facing consequences for their actions.

If someone told you it was okay to rob a bank and you robbed a bank and got caught, does that make you exempt from the crime?

What if it is the President of the United States?

 

[post]

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.

C-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y ...

Link to archived image of this article, https://archive.ph/0Okiy

https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2022 › 09 › 29 › ginni-thomas-jan6-election

Ginni Thomas told January 6 committee election was stolen, chairman ...​

2 days ago "Ginni Thomas falsely asserts to Jan. 6 panel that election was stolen, chairman says ... nearly two years after Joe Biden's victory, came during a five-hour closed-door interview with the committee...."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.239212/gov.uscourts.dcd.239212.60.0.pdf

"...
3. After the Presidential Election, Joshua James, Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, and others
conspired to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power. Rhodes, a 55-year-old
resident of Granbury, Texas, is the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, a large but loosely
organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias. James, a 33-year-
old military veteran and resident of Arab, Alabama, was the regional leader in charge of the
Alabama chapter of the Oath Keepers. Some members of the Oath Keepers believe that the federal
government has been coopted by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their
rights. Though the Oath Keepers will accept anyone as members, they explicitly focus on
recruiting current and former military, law enforcement, and first-responder personnel. The
organization’s name alludes to the oath sworn by members of the military and police to defend the
Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” On their website, the “Oath Keepers
declare they will not obey unconstitutional orders.”
.....
47. On January 8, 2021, James received a Signal message, in a group chat that included
Rhodes, from an individual he understood to be an attorney for the Oath Keepers that stated,
“STEWART: YOU ALL NEED TO DELETE ANY OF YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING
WHO DID WHAT. You are under zero obligation to leave them up. You/we have not yet gotten
a preservation order instructing us to retain those chat comments. So DELETE THEM. I can’t
delete them because this is a legacy Signal chat that doesn’t let me delete comments. Only the
comment author can delete a comment. So GET BUSY. DELETE your self-incriminating
comments or those that can incriminate others. Start now ...”

48. Thereafter, on January 8, 2021, James forwarded to Grods the message from the
attorney and instructed him to “make sure that all signal comms about the op has been deleted and
burned.” James also messaged Ulrich on Signal and instructed him to delete messages with
photographs that included their faces.
49. On January 8, 2021, James collected his firearms and Grods’s shotgun, and he
traveled to Texas where he met and stayed with Rhodes and others to, in part, serve as Rhodes’s..."

September 2, 2022
"...The government arrested Kellye SoRelle yesterday...

That she was arrested was not surprising. It has been known for some time that she’s the person who advised Rhodes to start deleting evidence of his activities on January 6, which he and others did. She even admitted it to MoJo’s Dan Friedman. Those who did delete their comms have all been charged for deleting evidence. The government even included that in Joshua James’ statement of offense, who is now cooperating with the government..."

 

[JMB802]

What if it is the President of the United States?

I'm not a prosecutor but I assume that would still not be okay. Because if it was, wouldn't have Trump told all his minions, "Rob a bank for me, I'll give you 10%"? (And then stiff them.)

 

[Jacksprat]

I'm not a prosecutor but I assume that would still not be okay. Because if it was, wouldn't have Trump told all his minions, "Rob a bank for me, I'll give you 10%"? (And then stiff them.)

'Rob our nation of democracy and I will be the President.'

 

[Galactic Spin]

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

The weapons caches easily prove the violent intent. As do their own words.

 

[justabubba]

Whether Trump was thinking about invoking it doesn't matter. What matters is what they thought.

what matters is did they have reason to believe the insurrection act was going to be invoked
tRump can help answer that question
if the traitors' defense is based on what they believed tRump would do, then who is better placed to testify what tRump intended/communicated than tRump?

 

[Athanasius68]

That is a pretty wild defense to put forth in a US Federal Court. You might as well be a pilot applying for a job with an international airline telling the interviewer that you believe the earth is flat. Good luck with that one.

That's what sedition is.
Sedition is not a mere crime. It's about motive.

 

[Galactic Spin]

what matters is did they have reason to believe the insurrection act was going to be invoked

That isn't going to get them out of it, when they were in the Capitol and talking violence outside of that.

 

[Athanasius68]

The weapons caches easily prove the violent intent. As do their own words.

The weapons would seem to prove an intent of violence.
But that alone isn't sedition.

 

[Galactic Spin]

The weapons would seem to prove an intent of violence.
But that alone isn't sedition.

Right, their own words do that.

"Insurrection:

"Civil war"

Etc

 

[Athanasius68]

That isn't going to get them out of it, when they were in the Capitol and talking violence outside of that.

A bunch of these guys who are being charged with seditious conspiracy were NOT in the Capitol on Jan 6.

Meanwhile, a number of people who were in the Capitol on Jan 6 were charged with obstructing Congress.
But not seditious conspiracy.
So there you go.