• 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

Clinton conceded the next day. Trump still hasn't conceded over a year later and is still lying today about the election being stolen. Trump is the standout anomaly. And let's finally put it to rest: it's all about the inability of the right to abide an election they plainly and simply lost. That's not very good sportsmanship, or very American.
I will concede to you the last word over this sidebar discussion. I'll simply cite this . . .



. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.

You may have the last word.
 
I will concede to you the last word over this sidebar discussion. I'll simply cite this . . .



. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.

You may have the last word.


She DID it when she was the top Democratic candidate and she even delivered the concession speech the night after the election loss urging her supporters to give Trump a chance.

LIsten to it




What Hillary says as a person AFTER she withdrew from politics and after she lost the power she had within the Democratic party is immaterial and cannot be equated to what Trump did as PRESIDENT of the US
 
Are you arguing that ignorance of the law is a defense?

No. I am saying that the Seditious Conspiracy act has two components-- the use of force and opposing the lawful authority of the USA.
Have to prove both.
But in order to prove that the accused are opposing the lawful authority of the USA, it needs to be proved that the accused knows that their actions are opposing the lawful authority of the USA. If that can't be shown, then you can't show that they are opposing the lawful authority of the USA. Maybe there is another statute around that would apply, but for this statute, no it can't.
Motive for the action has to be proven.

So when these Oathtaker types say that they took action because they think Trump is the lawful president and not Biden, have to prove that they knew that Biden was the lawful president-elect when they took their action and opposed the lawful authority of then USA.
That is what the Seditious conspiracy statute requires.
 
No. I am saying that the Seditious Conspiracy act has two components-- the use of force and opposing the lawful authority of the USA.
Have to prove both.
Easily managed. They conspired, and then 1/6 took place.

They're all going to some federal hellhole for 20 years or so.
 
No. I am saying that the Seditious Conspiracy act has two components-- the use of force and opposing the lawful authority of the USA.
Have to prove both.
But in order to prove that the accused are opposing the lawful authority of the USA, it needs to be proved that the accused knows that their actions are opposing the lawful authority of the USA. If that can't be shown, then you can't show that they are opposing the lawful authority of the USA. Maybe there is another statute around that would apply, but for this statute, no it can't.
Motive for the action has to be proven.

So when these Oathtaker types say that they took action because they think Trump is the lawful president and not Biden, have to prove that they knew that Biden was the lawful president-elect when they took their action and opposed the lawful authority of then USA.
That is what the Seditious conspiracy statute requires.
I’m not a lawyer, but because I think something doesn’t excuse me if I act on those thoughts. I think it is faulty logic to look at the events of 6JAN21 without taking into account all of the events that preceded and followed it.
 
The Seditious Conspiracy statute is not a general conspiracy law.
It is specific, concerning the use of force and in opposition to lawful USA authority.

I understand the logic of your argument. It’s the exact same logic other people have made in court about other types of conspiracies. The Courts have explicitly rejected your argument for at least approximately 70 years. And that is why your legal defense of your Oathkeeper friends is a very poor one.

If you want to persuade me or anyone else contributing to this thread that your opinion is correct about this legal issue you’re going to have to come to the table armed with case law and Supreme Court rulings — just as I’ve done — instead of just mindlessly repeating the same point over and over.
 
You made that up.

No mysterious “they” are investigating the Loudoun County BoE.

The right wing astroturf attack was first publicized in Loudoun County because Loudoun County would be a swing county in the upcoming gubernatorial election.

The GOP knew Youngkin needed to avoid falling into the trap of being forced to grovel to Trump.

But he needed Trump’s voters.

So, they needed to push the bigotry button without tying it to Trump.

The campaign triggered the trump base. That’s for sure.
Do you not keep up on the news?
 
I will concede to you the last word over this sidebar discussion. I'll simply cite this . . .



. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.

You may have the last word.

In the view of Democrats any Republican winning an election is illegitimate?
 
In the view of Democrats any Republican winning an election is illegitimate?
It seems that their choice of Party name was done with the sole intent of fooling their supporters into believing they stand for Democracy. The name is a gross misnomer, but the sheep continue to buy the deception. Being the Party of Democrac(y=t) gives rise to any other Party being illegitimate by being opposed to Democrac(y=t).
 
It seems that their choice of Party name was done with the sole intent of fooling their supporters into believing they stand for Democracy. The name is a gross misnomer, but the sheep continue to buy the deception. Being the Party of Democrac(y=t) gives rise to any other Party being illegitimate by being opposed to Democrac(y=t).
Especially so since it is the Democrats who are trying to ram through major election overhaul on single party vote, which, surprise surprise, would do little else than to advantage them, and the same level of deception, calling it a 'Voter Rights' bill, when it's nothing more than an 'Advantage Democrat's' bill.

Democrats are constantly pulling this kinda of crap, so much so, the safer, most prudent position is simply to not believe a word that comes from their mouths, unless proven by 3 reliable sources otherwise, and maybe even then not.
 
Especially so since it is the Democrats who are trying to ram through major election overhaul on single party vote, which, surprise surprise, would do little else than to advantage them, and the same level of deception, calling it a 'Voter Rights' bill, when it's nothing more than an 'Advantage Democrat's' bill.
So you are saying if more people vote, that’s bad for republicans? Lol
Democrats are constantly pulling this kinda of crap, so much so, the safer, most prudent position is simply to not believe a word that comes from their mouths, unless proven by 3 reliable sources otherwise, and maybe even then not.
Democrats are trying to make sure every eligible voter can vote. Why does that bother you?
 


Remember they where gonna stay there all night to delay.
The theory is based on what we know already.
 
I will concede to you the last word over this sidebar discussion. I'll simply cite this . . .



. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.

You may have the last word.


Hillary publicly conceded.

She did not declare her loss the result of a rigged election.

Her opponent had already done so. Claiming that the election was rigged, right up to the day he won it.

Clinton did not declare the election a fraud. Nor did she participate in a conspiracy to void that election either.

This false equivalancy is even more spectactularly dishonest and self serving than the general run of Trump loser rationalizations!
 
Lol right. Like Bannon and Stone and Jordan and Trump were counting on a dozen kooks from Oath Keepers to overthrow the government.
#1/6Truthers
There's a least a 10% chance they're actually that dumb.
 
. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.
1) Given that "THE STABLE GENIUS" failed to achieve a 50% approval rating just once in 4 years, the Republicans have effectively "painted themselves into a corner" come 2024!

2) The longer they choose remain locked into Trump's "CULT OF PERSONALITY," the more they will find themselves trapped on "A ONE-WAY BRIDGE LEADING TO NOWHERE!"

3) The prospect of a 2nd Trump Presidency will not only motivate the Democratic "faithful, but those conservatives and Independents not "intoxicated" by the Trump "COOL-AID" - they may not necessarily agree with a "progressive" ideology BUT the alternative represents an existential threat to "DEMOCRACY" - from which there may be no return!
 
Last edited:
1) Given that "THE STABLE GENIUS" failed to achieve a 50% approval rating just once in 4 years, the Republicans have effectively "painted themselves into a corner" come 2024!

2) The longer they choose remain locked into Trump's "CULT OF PERSONALITY," the more they will find themselves trapped on "A ONE-WAY BRIDGE LEADING TO NOWHERE!"

3) Those conservatives and Independents not "intoxicated" by the Trump "COOL-AID" will vote Democratic - not that they agree with their ideology BUT because they view the alternative as an existential threat to "DEMOCRACY!"

Don’t tell them!

The man in their AM radio told them that they were the “silent majority” for forty years.

And they knew their moment had come when Donald Trump pulled an inside straight in the Electoral Collage.

And for four years , they cheered his corruption, his vulgarity, and loved the open bigotry jingoism,and celebrated his tabloid star behavior.

And now it’s over. Trumpism and its namesake dishonored the Presidency and disgraced the nation he swore to serve.

And yet, dispite it all, the trump white resentment mob thinks it is still the only “real America”.

And Donald Trump is their fuhrer.
 
Don’t tell them!

The man in their AM radio told them that they were the “silent majority” for forty years.

And they knew their moment had come when Donald Trump pulled an inside straight in the Electoral Collage.

And for four years , they cheered his corruption, his vulgarity, and loved the open bigotry jingoism,and celebrated his tabloid star behavior.

And now it’s over. Trumpism and its namesake dishonored the Presidency and disgraced the nation he swore to serve.

And yet, dispite it all, the trump white resentment mob thinks it is still the only “real America”.

And Donald Trump is their fuhrer.
The real question is, who put all that nonsense into your head?
 
I’m not a lawyer, but because I think something doesn’t excuse me if I act on those thoughts. I think it is faulty logic to look at the events of 6JAN21 without taking into account all of the events that preceded and followed it.

The Seditious conspiracy charge will force the government to look at all the events-- including the motives of the accused.
 
I understand the logic of your argument. It’s the exact same logic other people have made in court about other types of conspiracies. The Courts have explicitly rejected your argument for at least approximately 70 years. And that is why your legal defense of your Oathkeeper friends is a very poor one.

If you want to persuade me or anyone else contributing to this thread that your opinion is correct about this legal issue you’re going to have to come to the table armed with case law and Supreme Court rulings — just as I’ve done — instead of just mindlessly repeating the same point over and over.

The Feola decsion references the specific general conspiracy statute.
Seditious Conspiracy is itself its own statute.
Its not relevant.

As far as seditious conspiracy itself, SCOTUS has ruled it is applied when the objective is to oppose by force the lawful authority of the USA.
 
Back
Top Bottom