Six Oath Keepers convicted in connection with January 6 US Capitol riot

Guess these fellows and ladies were not on just an unguided tour.

Indeed, 6 members of the Oath Keepers, an oxymoronically named group, were found guilty of various things involving 1/6, and I do not see trespassing on that list.

Simply more evidence of the violent nature of the MAGA insurrection.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/20/politics/oath-keepers-proud-boys/index.html


Six people affiliated with the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia, were convicted Monday of various charges related to the January 6, 2021, US Capitol insurrection.

Four of the defendants were found guilty on all of the charges they faced, including conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent a member of congress from doing their duty, destruction of government property and civil disorder.

The high-level convictions for four defendants is another significant win for the Justice Department, which has worked for years to bring consequences against people who they say plotted for violence at the Capitol that day – the largest criminal investigation in the department’s history – and comes as some conservatives continue to promote the false narrative the riots were peaceful.

Sandra Parker, Laura Steele, Connie Meggs and William Isaacs were accused of entering the Capitol during the riot and attempting to make their way to the Senate chamber before being deterred by pepper spray and police officers in the building. 

Two defendants were convicted of a lesser charge of entering and remaining on restricted grounds but acquitted of the most serious charges alleging the group conspired to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

 

Conspiracy you say…

Found guilt of conspiracy, and surely no conservative here will say that hate America by questioning the results of due process.

Can anyone tell us what conspiracy to prevent the inauguration of president by means of violence to force their own leader is called?

I think it starts with an i or maybe an s…

 

I for one am going to sleep better tonight knowing some Proud Boys are in the lock up. Now can we crack down on convenience store armed robberies and subway platform assaults please?

 

Yes by all means leave the right wing extremists alone / sarcasm

 

Did you think the local cops stopped doing that so the fbi could do this? Lol

 

Talk to your local police.
Those are local problems.

 

Hey, at least the article didn’t in headline irrationally refer to it as an insurrection lmao. Progress. The left is slowly retreating from its position.

 

Can't you read the OP itself, it literally said they weren't convicted of conspiracy. Because there wasn't one. And it's not me saying it, it's the freaking OP.

 

LINK: Understanding Insurrection and Sedition (csis.org)
LINK: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Insurrection is an actual charge that you can be charged with. Notice that no one has been charged with it? No one has been convicted of it?

 

I haven't heard anyone say that it was peaceful. I have heard the term "mostly peaceful" being used. Mostly in mocking reference to CNN's report of "mostly peaceful protests" during the "summer of love" in which the reporter was standing in front of several places being on fire.

Also, can you name one single person who has been charged with insurrection? One. Single. Person? Refer to post 9 if you want to know what the actual law says on insurrection.

 

“Four of the defendants were found guilty on all of the charges they faced, including conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent a member of congress from doing their duty, destruction of government property and civil disorder.”

 

"but acquitted of the most serious charges alleging the group conspired to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s electoral victory."

A quote for a quote(or perhaps more accurately, a conspiracy for a conspiracy.). But the crux of the DOJ argument(and indeed, the government that is enabling and pursuing the prosecutions) is the idea of the conspiracy to prevent Biden from being President. But no evidence has, or ever will establish this as a fact.(that's because it isn't one.)

The other conspiracies can be proven(although it can't be said to be a conspiracy since the actors didn't actually know the effect of charging into the capitol, just that they wanted to do so.). So honestly there's not really a 100% accurate charge that can be assessed towards what they did, but the obstruct official proceedings, prevent from doing their duty(as well as the obvious destruction of government property and civil disorder) come close to it.

The government should simply drop the 'certifying Biden's victory' propaganda claims in a court of law, because the evidence doesn't hold up. But that would be seen as an L to you and other democratic voters, so they don't lol. Instead, they want you to look at the other conspiracies convicted and play switch-a-roo with it.

 

You voted for a man who wants to pardon them as soon as he's re-elected in 2024....

 

So you acknowledge you were wrong. They were convicted on some conspiracy charges. Not all, but some.

 

The part you're quoting applies to two of the people out of the 6 that were convicted. You're missing part of what was said.

"Four of the defendants were found guilty on all of the charges they faced, including conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent a member of congress from doing their duty, destruction of government property and civil disorder."

 

What's crucial in writing is often what is omitted. If these four defendants were charged with conspiracy to prevent Biden's win, and if the jury felt they were guilty and convicted the four of it, the other two most certainly would have been convicted of the same.

The key to seeing this is 'all of the charges they(meaning the four defendants) faced.

Ergo and tldr, the four defendants did not face the same conspiracy charge.

 

I will not acknowledge I was 'wrong', because I wasn't. Just because the word 'conspiracy' was used, doesn't mean it was a conspiracy. And moreover, it's not even the conspiracy that the government itself alleges(or would love to allege, for the public consumption.). I'm not a sucker for propaganda, which is half of what the DOJ has been doing in a court of law. It literally doesn't matter whether convicted or not of that particular charge, just that the charge gets out there.

 

6 more people now will suffer due to Trump's temper tantrums. I remember MAGAs boasting no one was sentenced for anything so no crime was committed.

 

Which begs the question, who directly stood to benefit if they were successful and was that person or group involved in sending them there in the first place??

 

Insurrection isn't on the list, either. Why not?

 

So four people were found guilty of conspiracy charges, but there was no conspiracy????

 

Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Leftists do that all the time.

 

Physically speaking, no. A vast majority of these people didn't even know each other, let alone of what they were planning.(And hell, a lot of this is open sourced.). Many even testified that once the chaos ensued and they got inside, they didn't know what they were going to do.

The elements of a traditional conspiracy(planning, plotting, agreeing), don't really exist here. And that's the part that the government has tried to brush over. "Well, they did it." and yes, they did but not quite how it's described to have happened.

 

But what about.....

Note the failure. the patent failure, to condemn obvious criminality.

 

I posted this separately, but a huge part of many of the DOJ's convictions, relied upon the fact that the defense could not invoke Trump as a defense. And yet, the DOJ of recent had invoked 'stand down, and stand by' as a possible link to the motive for some 1/6 defendants. They cannot logically have it both ways. Either Trump is a material witness or a target of the investigation, or he's not.

The status of Donald Trump seems to blow whichever way the DOJ favors it to, and that is not a plausible trial in which facts can be sorted out. If Trump's a witness or a motivating factor, he must absolutely testify.