• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#442]Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes arrested, charged in Jan. 6 conspiracy

Yes-- and in the USA the defendants do not need to prove their innocence-- the prosecutors have to prove guilt.
The burden is 100% on the prosecution.

And when the statute says that its a crime to conspire to, among other things, oppose lawful authority, the government has to prove that is what they were conspiring to do.
Which means the govt has to prove this is what they set out to do.
And as Baldwin v Bailey says, seditious conspiracy is not about violating a mere law.
Conspiring to unlawfully entering the Capitol and stopping Congress from performing their job l is not enough to prove seditious conspiracy.

As the evidence continues to pile up, and point straight in only one direction, I don’t think that will be especially difficult.

As for proving that they were conspiring to do so, we have the plans, and Trump just bellowed that that was what he wanted.
 
As the evidence continues to pile up, and point straight in only one direction, I don’t think that will be especially difficult.

As for proving that they were conspiring to do so, we have the plans, and Trump just bellowed that that was what he wanted.

We heard that story with respect to Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. When that failed to materialize, we heard conspiracy theories explaining that.

Perhaps the 'smoking gun' may yet appear. I doubt it.
Nevertheless, conspiracy to obstruct Congress is not the same as seditious conspiracy, despite the claims to the contrary of many hereabouts.
 
They weren't organizing the insurrectionists. That's not what I mean.

The actions of the Oathkeepers with respect to the mob who assaulted the capitol building are similar to the actions of Trump when he creates and spreads lies and propaganda about there being election fraud. Leadership isn't always about commanding people to do what you want. And Leadership isn't always the leadership of the organized and disciplined. Leadership, more often than not, is about inspiring people, persuading people, and encouraging people. Trump's former Twitter feed is a good example of that informal style of leadership. In that respect the presence and actions of the Oathkeepers at the January 6th insurrection, the assault on the Capitol Building, and even the public speeches and public interviews of Stewart Rhodes prior to Jan 6th represents a genuine act of leadership on their part.

It's also this aspect of the insurrection that the law has difficult dealing with. For instance, there is no law on the books that saws someone like Trump can't make a much of shit up about the election and inspire people to overturn the election. But that doesn't make Trump's actions any less dangerous to our Republic than that of an actual military coup.

And that summarizes a problem with prosecuting these guys for seditious conspiracy.

Meanwhile, what will those who bang the drum of 'voter suppression' wrought in 2022 and beyond?
 
A lot of supposedly progressive and liberal people on here, doing nothing more than just insulting and berating people that they've never met. Nor do they really know anything about them in general.

I'm not going to say that I'm happy, but it's good just what it takes to make posters like this fall from grace.
 
And that summarizes a problem with prosecuting these guys for seditious conspiracy.

Meanwhile, what will those who bang the drum of 'voter suppression' wrought in 2022 and beyond?
I find it interesting just how loose and broad an interpretation Heisenberg is playing here.
Pretty much makes it easy for them to claim that anyone is doing something worthy of being called a crime.

But what if that ruling was turned back inwards?
 
We heard that story with respect to Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. When that failed to materialize, we heard conspiracy theories explaining that.

Perhaps the 'smoking gun' may yet appear. I doubt it.
Nevertheless, conspiracy to obstruct Congress is not the same as seditious conspiracy, despite the claims to the contrary of many hereabouts.

”Didn’t fail to materialize”?

The evidence piled up on that one too. Trump and his henchmen not only colluded with the Russians, he continued to do so after he was elected.

And Trump publicly bragged about it and said he would do it again (at the same time Crazy Uncle Rudy was collaborating with the Russians over trying to bully Ukraine into helping him manufacture dirt on an opponent.

You can go on pretending that isn’t so. But the overwhelming evidence and trump’s own tendancy to advertise his guilt after he thinks he’s gotten away with it say otherwise.

The only reason trump remained in office was because McConnell rigged the trials.

He doesn’t have Barr to submarine the facts and pretend there is nothing to see this time.
 
We heard that story with respect to Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. When that failed to materialize, we heard conspiracy theories explaining that.

Perhaps the 'smoking gun' may yet appear. I doubt it.
Nevertheless, conspiracy to obstruct Congress is not the same as seditious conspiracy, despite the claims to the contrary of many hereabouts.
but as you've been shown, this was seditious conspiracy.
 
And that summarizes a problem with prosecuting these guys for seditious conspiracy.

Meanwhile, what will those who bang the drum of 'voter suppression' wrought in 2022 and beyond?

They were participants in a seditious conspiracy. Everyone saw the praetorian guard of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys standing around Trump. They were all at the strategy meeting at the Willard Hotel.

No one really cares about the right wing parsing the seditious conspiracy charges. If they had been charged under another statute, you’d all be here trying to rationalize that away too.

You second sentence makes no sense at all. That is unless you’re endorsing the GOP attempts to restrict voting and gerrymander strategic districts as part of a national campaign to undermine democracy.
 
I don‘t know that the Oath Keepers were in charge of anything, other than their own militias.

That’s all that was needed.

That Oath Keepers and other white supremacist were involved in the riot is obvious to anyone who owned a television that day,.

They stood on stage, surrounding Trump while he revved up the crowd.

The crowd wasn’t there to riot.

Rioting was what the white supremacists were there to start. Their job was to incite the riot.
Oh sure. No evidence that the Oath Keepers were "white supremacists" or in a conspiracy with white supremacists. What rot...
 
Yes-- and in the USA the defendants do not need to prove their innocence-- the prosecutors have to prove guilt.
The burden is 100% on the prosecution.

And when the statute says that its a crime to conspire to, among other things, oppose lawful authority, the government has to prove that is what they were conspiring to do.
Which means the govt has to prove this is what they set out to do.
And as Baldwin v Bailey says, seditious conspiracy is not about violating a mere law.
Conspiring to unlawfully entering the Capitol and stopping Congress from performing their job l is not enough to prove seditious conspiracy.
I love the fact that once again you are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom