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

I was talking about prosecutors not cops. Cops are doing their jobs but have to arrest the same people over and over.

 

So you think federal prosecutors are who charges shop lifters?

 

I didn't say federal prosecutors.

 

I went over this with other posters, but very basically these charges are meant to pull the wool over your eye. The 'conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding'(and all that it requires is that you partake in an action that can be said to be obstructive) is not the same thing as the 1/6 conspiracy of media consumption and much discussion. And the thing is, the media knows that and the DOJ knows that. They also know, you're not going to know the difference.

(You might not even care about the difference, no that's probably it.) And it's noteworthy that it was a 'conspiracy to prevent a member of congress from doing their duty' and not the so-called seditious charges. Why? Because the prosecution actually has to prove seditious behavior and didn't have Rhodes-like text in order to do so.

This is a basic switachroo for those who are prone to consumption without room for thought.

 

Those are the only ones involved in these Jan 6 cases

 

And what I'm discussing has nothing to do with the NY case.(Liberals, despite their love for 1/6, haven't kept up with the court documents.). Okay, so let me spell it out: In the early goings of the 1/6 trials, the defense lawyers and many defendants first tired to invoke Trump's name in defense. Either the 'if not for him', or at least speculating on what role his remarks would have on the trial. The DOJ Prosecution at that time, would have NONE of it. Effectively arguing verbatim that whatever the President did or didn't do, had no impact on their actions.

To quote the DOJ "The President could give no such legal order". This was their position, ironclad. Until the Enrique case. They don't have anything quite as juicy as the Rhodes texts, and they need to continue this streak of seditious conspiracy. So, they decided to open up Pandora's box and get Trump's one-liner comments from the 2020 Presidential debate admitted as evidence. Which is freaking absurd for so many reasons, several of which I mentioned but for the purpose of what I said/responded to, the main problem is that the DOJ argued for months, MONTHS that Trump wasn't a valid defense or a part of the cases.

Now, they reverse course. And this is not fair to the defendant. The way the DOJ's talking out of its mouth, they can use Trump's comments to infer motive. But the defendant cannot cross examine this critical witness to the leadup of the 1/6 incident? BS. And shame on the judge for accepting such twisted, foul logic in a court room.

 

...

 

What does this post have to do with the previous?

 

FYI, bottom line is, don't storm the Capital, period. Those yahoos have only themselves to blame.

BTW, here is another one.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/politica...s-for-attacking-police-at-jan-6-capitol-riot/

I guess attacking police is political. !!!

 

Conspiracy simply means it was planned and not some random event like your side likes to scream it was.

It’s funny how you are still slinging personal insults while exposing your own shortfall. There are a few names for that.

 

Not necessarily so. They could(and did) decide to enter the building, and for them that's enough for a conspiracy. But in real world terms, they wouldn't have entered the building if the opportunity to do so didn't exist. This is for public consumption, the entire trial is for public and media consumption. They heard that conservatives were pointing out that legally, it didn't appear to be a government conspiracy and so they set out to 'prove' just that.

Never underestimate the power of the government and its ability to weave narratives.

 

They literally showed that it was planned prior to the event

 

So why didn't they charge their beloved 'seditious conspiracy'? This is because the 'conspiracy' word, legally(not lingustically) is a catch-all phrase. If you and I agreed to play catch, we conspired to play catch! The government requires that this be the biggest, most epic case ever, to justify the hoopla, to make the administration a martyr administration. All of these factors are at play here, and motivating the media, the prosecution, etc.

Instead of neutrally observing what these people did wrong, their crimes are being made for a show.

 

You mean like this?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four...editious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach

 

And I read the actual readouts of the case, and not just the department's 'press release'(it literally says right there, press release.) so let's go over what they don't put in the release. The so-called 'weapons stash'(in Maryland) was virtually inaccessible to the 'oath keepers' participating in the criminal riot. Nor could the government ever actually show this so-called plan(because, again, it doesn't exist.) Literally, because they went through a barricade 'by force', that alone satisfies the 'seditious conspiracy' stature.

It doesn't mean they had a plan to overthrow the government(they didn't), nor did they have a plan to affect the elections(the Green Bay/Navarro plan, specifically outlined that the last thing they needed in the capitol was a disturbance of the capitol.). This is for show. The DOJ is putting on a show, and the proof that they're putting on a show is the hundreds to nearly thousands of offenders, on the same day not being charged with the 'seditious conspiracy'.

They are putting on a show, after pressure from Democratic voters who wanted this show from Merrick Garland.

 

So now you have moved to not everyone is being charged with seditious conspiracy so it really wasn’t one?

And you instead believe the Department of Justice as well as several courts and a jury in the District of Columbia are all engaged in a… conspiracy.

We will just have to agree to disagree

 

A conspiracy, and you literally agreed in your own words: Is an agreement. So yes, the DOJ and the jury are in agreement(a 'conspiracy) regarding the seditious charges. And there's low-hanging fruit for that. The very first seditious charge was not expected by Rhodes's lawyer, who up until that point was prepared for the misdemeanor charges that had, up until that point been the predominate charge used by the department of justice.

It absolutely is selective, and that's because the DOJ purposefully needs convictions on those charges(the numerous charges illustrate that they could easily do without 'seditious conspiracy' and still get them incarcerated. Again, as they did for thousands.). So why 'seditious conspiracy'.

Political consumption. That reason, and that reason alone. And I do have a problem that, after railing against the 2016-20 Trump Administration for 'weaponizing the department', the department weaponized itself against criminal defendants, who were already guilty, just to put on a political puppet show called 'look at all the insurrectionists!'

 

A conspiracy is a plan or plot.
Not an agreement

A plan was proven by the convicted working together to organize and direct the crowd as well as them dismantling barriers. They had also trained at their makeshift larping training grounds.

 

The thing is, you could get a conspiracy to trespass(every defendant has been found guilty of that.) And hell, you could even get the 'disrupting of an official proceeding'. But it's a huge step to go from that to 'they had a deliberate plan to overthrow the government and/or attack our democracy'. And I don't think their training, or the fanaticism of their cell phone messages apply(or should have applied, speaking in the past tense.)

(it should be noted in the Rhodes's case, his animosity was more strongly against Trump and was used as evidence in his trial. For a supposed plot for a coup, it's strange indeed that his ire was towards Trump(until of course, one considers that Trump at that time, was the sitting seat of government. So for any seditious conspiracy to have occurred, it could only have occurred against the Trump WH. Biden was just POTUS-elect.

The point isn't that these people are innocent, they are not. The point is, they are being used as caricultures to make an argument about a 'threat to democracy' that didn't really exist even in those 3 hours, and certainly doesn't exist after the fact. Basically, it's the government fear mongering. There's little difference from the Biden term and the GWB term.

 

Some Trump goons blame Trump, some demand that he testify on their behalf, others confess and accept their punishment. Every case has its own prosecutorial and defense strategy, but the important thing is that the goons are still being brought to justice.

Rioter charged in Pelosi laptop theft sentenced to prison
​

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Pennsylvania woman linked to a far-right extremist movement was sentenced on Thursday to three years in prison for storming the U.S. Capitol, where she invaded then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office with other rioters...

Williams was an ardent supporter of the white nationalist “Groyper” movement led by internet personality Nick Fuentes, according to prosecutors. They said Williams was “obsessed" with Fuentes and fixated on baseless claims — amplified by Fuentes — that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.​

​

​

 

In the Trump DOJ? LOL.

I think they were removed, not arrested. Removed is not the same as what happened since the hearing was open to the public unlike the Joint Session of Congress which was closed to the Public. Protesters outside the capitol, some 169 ranged from crowding to unlawful conduct, all misdemeanors. Some were prosecuted and fined for their participation, while others were arrested and released for various reasons. And most importantly, there were no instances of them damaging any government property that day.

You have a nasty habit of leaving out important details. And details is everything.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...naugh-protests-meme-lacks-context/4343790001/

 

You should see. There was no armed or organized assault. What there was, was a protest which unfortunately turned into a riot. There was no attempt to overthrow government.

 

That was a pretty dumb analogy.

Did you get pulled over? If you did, did you receive a ticket for speeding, but actually failed to use a turn signal?

There’s a reason no one has been charged with participating in an insurrection. That’s because there was no insurrection. Facts are tough to refute.

 

There was a violent attempt to prevent the United States Congress from recognizing the results of a democratic election certified by all fifty states, incited by a loser's lie.

The Trump goons failed, but ended America's proud tradition of peaceful transfers of power, 1789-2021.

 

Truth, in historical context.