The issue isn't whether it is lawful or not to storm the Capitol.
The issue is the statute used to prosecute.
Storming the Capitol could indeed be seditious conspiracy. It could also be general conspiracy statute (which the Feola ruling specifically referenced) or obstruction of Congress. One doesn't need to be conspiring to oppose the lawful authority of the USA to be guilty of those.
One cannot inadevertently conspire to overthrow the government by force or to oppose its lawful authority by force. It has to be proven that was the objective. Otherwise ithe actions would constitute another crime.
1. I understand your logic. You've explained your logic several times. You don't need to explain your logic again. Your logic just doesn't matter because the Courts have already ruled against your logic. That's why I asked you to come to the table with court rulings that contradict Feola (1975), but you couldn't do it because they don't exist. You are arguing that prosecutors need to prove motive or specific intent, but it's not there. The statute and the case law does not support your argument. Every conspiracy is essentially the same in the abstract. You can make the same argument about other conspiracies. For instance, in Feola (1975), the conspirators
inadvertently conspired to assault federal officer(s), as they agreed on a plan to assault someone they didn't know was a federal officer(s), yet the Supreme Court still upheld the verdict.
2. Also, you keep using the word "objective" but that word is not in the statute. That word is not in Baldwin case from the 1800s. And the judge in the Michigan case is not using that word in the way you think he is (or maybe you already know this). When the judge in the Michigan case is describing "objective", he is describing the
action to be undertaken through the conspiracy, not the motive behind the conspiracy. And, while it's true that if you can show a jury why the Oathkeepers did what they did,
their motive, it
can help prove their intent. But prosecutors
don't need to prove anyone's motive to prove their intent. It's not necessary. With respect to the Seditious Conspiracy charge, the prosecutors only need to prove they intended to engage in the
action that opposed the lawful authority of the U.S. or delayed the execution of the law.
3. Again, I must point this out, just in terms of the facts, you are incorrect. There is evidence in the indictment itself that the Oathkeepers knew what they were doing was not lawful despite the fact they thought the election was rigged. The Oathkeepers knew it was the role of Congress to confirm Biden's victory on January 6th. The Oathkeepers knew if there was a dispute it was the role of Congress, not the Oathkeepers, to resolve that dispute. And they revealed this knowledge in their communications with each other. Furthermore, there's nothing about them thinking the election was rigged that transformed their unlawful behavior into lawful behavior. And, also, let's imagine a scenario where the election actually was rigged, the Oathkeepers still can't do what they tried to do! It's still not their job to resolve the dispute. That's what Congress is for.
Given the facts outlined in the indictment, the Seditious Conspiracy charge is appropriate.
