Jury convicted all five Oathkeepers of obstruction, and aiding and abetting for Jan 6 insurrection. Max penalty 20 years.

Two were also convicted of seditious conspiracy. Maximum penalty 20 more years added onto the first 20 years.

No response from the Republican traitors who claimed Jan 6 was a typical day of tourists taking pictures.

This is a blow for truth among the many falsehoods promulgated by the unhinged right-wing.

Seditious conspiracy ;insurrection . Must be for that big cache of weapons that were brought to DC and used in the "attack" on the Capitol.
Now don't get me wrong . Anyone who entered the Capitol Jan 6 should be charged with at least trespassing and any other crime they committed . Sedition and insurrection was not one of them .

Oh I know that one of the witnesses testified of seeing a hotel room of weapons . He also brought an AR15 that he said he had carried to DC . Was any physical evidence beyond his own personal weapon provided ? Were any pictures submitted as evidence ? No . Yes some personal weapons were seized by arresting police .

Weapons used included flag poles ; some pepper spray ,and selfie cameras . The only gun shot was by officer Michael Byrd who shot Ashley Babbit point blank as she entered the Capitol. Seems to me that if this were a REAL insurrection that the cache of weapons would've been employed .

Anyone who entered the Capitol Jan 6 should be charged with at least trespassing and any other crime they committed . Sedition and insurrection was not one of them .

Tell that to the jury who convicted the insurrectionists of seditious conspiracy and other charges. Max 40 years in jail. Pretty stiff penalty for trespassing.

DC jury DC judge nuff said

DC jury DC judge nuff said

Geez, tom, you'll reach for anything, say anything. The whole world is corrupt when things don't go the way you want them to go.

Go back to bed. You lost.

A fair minded judge would've granted a transfer of venue . The demonstration was held in DC ; the kangaroo court was ongoing , Find me 12 impartial jurors there and I'll find a unicorn and a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow .

The 6th amendment guarantees trial by an impartial jury. There is no way the jury in the Oath Keepers trial were impartial .

If you want precedence then look at

Delaney v. United States, 199 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1952) :: Justia (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/199/107/357435/)

Delaney was tried and convicted in a Boston court for corruption after a congressional hearing about Delaney that got a lot of coverage in the Boston press. The committee heard testimony linking Delaney “to a nationwide ‘shakedown’ plot” from many of the witnesses who later testified for the prosecution at his trial.
Delaney did not even ask for a change of venue. All he wanted was a continuance so some time would pass between the hearings and his trial.

That was not granted .

The appeals court unanimously overturned the conviction finding that the judge’s failure to grant the continuance had been “neither right, nor in harmony with the spirit of the Sixth Amendment for the United States to make him stand trial while the damaging effect of all that hostile publicity may reasonably be thought not to have been erased from the public mind.”

Of note the appellate court noted something very similar to the Jan 6 kangaroo court .

None of the testimony of witnesses heard at the committee hearing ran the gauntlet of defense cross-examination. Nor was the published evidence tempered, challenged, or minimized by evidence offered by the accused.

Early in Garland's career he was a prosecutor in the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols . He agreed that the case had to be moved because the circumstances made it impossible to try their cases fairly in the Western District of Oklahoma.

The lawyer for defendant Navy Vet Thomas Caldwell ;who prosecutors claim was going to bring a boat load of weapons up the Potomac River noted that in particular there is a huge case of TDS in Washington DC . He said in arguing for venue change that To deny that the lion’s share of potential District jurors will be highly predisposed against a Trump-supporting defendant is like denying that water is a liquid.

Given the circumstances ;this case is tailor made for reversal from SCOTUS on 6th amendment grounds.

All five were charged with "seditious conspiracy", an ancient law passed just after the Civil War and one that is difficult to prove since it is so broad in scope. Three were found not guilty, so that's a 60% failure rate for Garland. Of the two found guilty, the odds of having their convictions overturned are considerable.

The question of how they planned to have an insurrection when they were basically unarmed is a good one and one which should be answered. "Let's storm the Capitol with flag poles," just doesn't sound convincing.

A fair minded judge would've granted a transfer of venue . The demonstration was held in DC ; the kangaroo court was ongoing , Find me 12 impartial jurors there and I'll find a unicorn and a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow .

The 6th amendment guarantees trial by an impartial jury. There is no way the jury in the Oath Keepers trial were impartial .
Due to the nature of this case and the massive media interest, you'd be hard pushed to find an impartial jury no matter where the matter was heard.
Remember what impartial means, you'd be better off looking for 12 non-partisan or formally registered people. That's even more doubtful.
The judiciary and government wanted to make an example of these people and stamp their power on proceedings.
I doubt SCOTUS will hear anything concerning apparent civil rights breaches for these people.
Therein in lies the possibility of members of extremist political organisations seeing justice, especially in the polarised USA. You have Mr Trump to thank for that view point...

I was basically with you until your final sentence.

I was basically with you until your final sentence.

So, you believe that Mr Trump's presidential tenure hasn't exacerbated the polarization of American politics.

You initially said, "You have Mr Trump to thank for that view point," which makes it sound as though it's all on him. Now you are saying he exacerbated it. I could agree with that, but there are many others who hold responsibility, everyone from Hillary Clinton (basket of deplorables) to Maxine Waters to BLM to Antifa to two pointless, unfruitful impeachment efforts. It's been a team effort.

The judiciary and government wanted to make an example of these people and stamp their power on proceedings.

and here I thought they were charged with seeking justice. If the judiciary from the bottom to the top is that polarized then it confirms my contention that we live in a 3rd world banana republic . The judiciary could checked the excesses of the other branches .

and here I thought they were charged with seeking justice. If the judiciary from the bottom to the top is that polarized then it confirms my contention that we live in a 3rd world banana republic . The judiciary should checked the excesses of the other branches .
Yes, indeed, however the whole system is broken and extremely partisan. A sad time for impartial American Justice.

Ben

also the Oklahoma City bombing (in that case a REAL terrorist act of insurrection) the case was moved and it garnered as much national attention as the Jan 6 riot .

The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was clearly an act of domestic terrorism by a lone operator, unfortunately the overly partisan nature and magnitude of the Jan 6th riot makes it fall under the insurrection umbrella.

unfortunately the overly partisan nature and magnitude of the Jan 6th riot makes it fall under the insurrection umbrella.


An insurrection is an organized, typically violent attempt to overthrow an existing government. Jan. 6 fell far short of that.

Blah, blah, blah, wibble

Shhhh, adults are having a conversation...

Shhhh, adults are having a conversation...So that's how an adult acts? Would never have guessed it! You'll pardon me if I don't follow your example.

If January 6 was insurrection then you would agree that the occupation of the Wisconsin Capitol building by thousands of protesters
from February 14 to early March 2011 was an insurrection .

You would have to agree that the Antifa assaults that included setting fire to a Federal Court House in Portland ;and the violent assault on city hall was insurrection .

You would have to say that the BLM riots that caused billions in damage ;and in some cities occupiers declared the space they seized as their own sovereign nation.

Jl is right . Jan 6 turned violent . But there was no attempt at a government takeover .

As I have no links to the American judiciary, I can't comment on the charges, or lack there of.
As for the 2011 matter, as I understand the US law, insurrection and sedition are concerned with the Federal government, rather than merely state.

In the case of Jan 6th riot, as the focus was on stopping the official certification the the federal presidential election, this represents a whole other level of stupidity.
In the cold light of day, did they really think that this uprising would make any real difference to the election, especially after everything else that had preceded the certification...
The 60+ court actions really laid the path for what was happening.
Not helped in the slightest by, what basically amounts to, a childish case of bad sportsmanship.
Mr Trump lost the election, pure and simple, he just refused to see the truth of that cold hard fact.
You may not like the result, but that is irrelevant, as The People had spoken at the ballot.
Please don't roll out the rhetoric on how the election was stolen or a fraud as there is zero evidence to support that contention.
Yes, I guess the Dems covered it all up, really !!! [/Rant]

The crux of the disagreement. "You have Mr Trump to thank for that view point."

Trump played his part to be sure, but he was such a target of vitriol that you wonder how anyone else would have acted (reacted?). I do wish we would tone it down in politics, but it is far from a one-sided problem. And with a largely left-wing media to deal with, it makes it tough for conservatives.

Jan. 6 is referred to as an insurrection for largely political reasons, primarily to cast a dark shadow on Trump. If he elects to run again, then prepare for the volume to be doubled. Personally I hope he sits it out to make room for DeSantis.


In the cold light of day, did they really think that this uprising would make any real difference to the election,You are assuming it was an "uprising". For the vast majority of the people there, it does seem that it was nothing more than a protest march.

I don't know about state-sponsored voting discrepancies in 2020, but it is abundantly clear that there was a conspiracy amongst most of the media to promote Biden. Elon Musk is the latest confirmation of that.


Twitter owner and CEO Elon Musk (https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/elon-musk) on Wednesday acknowledged that prior to his takeover, the "obvious reality" was that Twitter "has interfered in elections" through its content moderation policies.

This is certainly part of that story.


During a sit down with journalist Kara Swisher, ex-Twitter safety chief Yoel Roth said that despite concerns about the authenticity of the laptop story, it still did not reach a point where he wanted to remove the content—which was later censored anyway. Initial reporting suggested that Roth blocked user access from the October 2020 story, but the former Twitter division lead said the decision was not up to him.

"We didn’t know what to believe, we didn’t know what was true, there was smoke—and ultimately for me, it didn’t reach a place where I was comfortable removing this content from Twitter," Roth said. "But it set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack and leak campaign alarm bells."

CBS, the Post, and NBC have all confirmed, far too late, that the laptop story was genuine. And of course it doesn't get much more official than this.


The FBI (https://www.dailywire.com/news/evidence-of-fbi-meddling-in-2020-election-mounts-after-zuckerbergs-hunter-biden-laptop-revelation) finally weighed in on Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that Facebook suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop (https://www.dailywire.com/topic/hunter-biden) story after being warned about “Russian propaganda” by the bureau ahead of the 2020 presidential election (https://www.dailywire.com/topic/2020-election).
Zuckerberg, who founded the company which is now known as Meta, told podcast giant Joe Rogan (https://www.dailywire.com/news/zuckerberg-fbi-pushed-facebook-to-crack-down-on-misinformation-before-hunter-biden-laptop-story-was-published) this week that Facebook restricted sharing of the story because the FBI had warned the company just before it broke that a Russian disinformation dump was coming. The revelation, coupled with whistleblowers’ allegations the bureau barred agents from investigating it, raises questions about the FBI’s role in the election.


Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but there is no doubt that there was a conspiracy amongst much of the media to get Biden elected. As close as the election was, the laptop story, if it had been as vigorously pursued as it would have been had it been the "Eric Trump laptop story", could easily have been a major difference maker.

Shay's Rebellion ; Whiskey Rebellion ;the American Civil War . Yes they were insurrections . Jan 6 does not come close to rising to that level.

Now you say I should not bring up the belief that the election was stolen . That would leave out a central motivation for the protest . So no ;it cannot be dismissed . The demonstrators ;even the ones who got violent ,were there not to overthrow the government . They were there because they believed that it was the Dems that executed a coup .They believed they were there to defend our constitutional system . All they accomplished was the temporary delay of normal Congressional process.

All the cases I cited in post #19 were revolts against civil authority All of them had violence and loss of life, injury, and damaged to property . Compare the damage of Jan 6 to the BLM riots .
Deaths BLM 18 Jan 6 one confirmed tied directly to the riot

Injuries BLM more than 2000 police officers were injured Jan 6 estimates are less than 150 police injured

property damage

BLM in the $1 billion range
Jan6 about $1.5 million

That sound logic will never work here. It is not an anti-Trump narrative, so it will be dismissed.

The demonstrators ;even the ones who got violent ,were there not to overthrow the government

What do you call an attempt to overthrow the duly-elected president of the US and replace him with a non-elected tyrant? What do you call an attempt to assassinate the VP of the United States because the VP refused to overthrow the president?

What do you call stashes of arms including Molotov cocktails found nearby stored by rioters and Oathkeepers, several of whom have been convicted. What do you call weaponizing pepper and bear sprays, police batons and flagpoles, fire extinguishers and shields, beating police officers so severely that one died from his injuries and three committed suicide and hundreds were injured?

At least you got the violent part right.


They were there because they believed that..................................

Their beliefs are irrelevant. Of course they had beliefs. Every insurrection in history had beliefs.


Compare the damage of Jan 6 to the BLM riots

Comparing the Jan6 insurrection with unrelated riots does not in the slightest diminish the fact of the Jan6 insurrection. That is the worst case of "whataboutism" ever seen on these pages. A riot cited by you had more property damage than the Jan6 insurrection. Therefore there was no Jan6 insurrection. Huh?

Your partisanship is leading you to faulty reasoning. You're on the dark side, tomder. Better to stand up for what's right than to be wrong and safely ensconced in the unhinged MAGA Republican herd. Plenty of good Republicans still around that are not part of the herd.

tom, I think you might have missed this part.

as I understand the US law, insurrection and sedition are concerned with the Federal government, rather than merely state.
So with regards the BLM and other riots they are just that, riots covered under a different set of laws.

While the event attendees may well have believed they were doing the right thing and protecting the constitution, the methods employed where the exact opposite. You can't employ violent measures in such an overtly partisan method and not be branded a revolutionary.
Remember one persons insurrectionist is another person freedom fighter, all a matter of context.

Our democracy and probably all of western democracies are not functioning as intended by the framers . I'm guessing that was inevitable . Various observers have commented through history that democracy has a short lifespan. It begins in liberty and over time gets ground down in exhaustion overburdened by legislation and entitlements .The services of such ultimately causes societal collapse. As was observed by Alexander Fraser Tytler ;It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. , Future generations be damned . Soon the cookie jar is close to empty and factions fight for the crumbs . The statist try to keep the system alive by printing monopoly money . This is a short term Band-Aid that in the long run contributes to the collapse. The benevolent guardrails they construct undermines the very thing they are elected to protect ;freedom and liberty .

That is where we are today . In the course you get more government by decree and fiat . Constitutions get destroyed as rules are rigged and distorted for control . Instead of we the people there is the governed and those who govern . This is true in either constitutional republics or constitutional monarchies . The distance between the governed and those who govern expands . The social contract on a thread or broken.

You see this in Great Britain where PMs get changed by the day but the parties in power remain in control . You see this in the US with what many people call the "uniparty "

Our democracy and probably all of western democracies are not functioning as intended by the framers . I'm guessing that was inevitable . Various observers have commented through history that democracy has a short lifespan. It begins in liberty and over time gets ground down in exhaustion overburdened by legislation and entitlements .The services of such ultimately causes societal collapse. As was observed by Alexander Fraser Tytler ;It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. , Future generations be damned . Soon the cookie jar is close to empty and factions fight for the crumbs . The statist try to keep the system alive by printing monopoly money . This is a short term Band-Aid that in the long run contributes to the collapse. The benevolent guardrails they construct undermines the very thing they are elected to protect ;freedom and liberty .

That is where we are today . In the course you get more government by decree and fiat . Constitutions get destroyed as rules are rigged and distorted for control . Instead of we the people there is the governed and those who govern . This is true in either constitutional republics or constitutional monarchies . The distance between the governed and those who govern expands . The social contract on a thread or broken.

You see this in Great Britain where PMs get changed by the day but the parties in power remain in control . You see this in the US with what many people call the "uniparty "

This is all very interesting, but what does it have to do with the topic which is the Jan6 insurrection? Nothing!

You used a lot of space to show that you didn't have an answer for the stated topic when you could have just written, "I was wrong".

it has everything to do with Jan 6

Constitutions get destroyed as rules are rigged and distorted for control .

it has everything to do with Jan 6

Constitutions get destroyed as rules are rigged and distorted for control .

You made extensive specific comments about the insurrection including it wasn't really an insurrection, other riots have been worse in bloodshed and property damage, the beliefs of the insurrectionists justified their insurrection, historical examples of fighting in the US past, and, most egregiously, that the insurrectionists were not there to overthrow the government WHEN THAT WAS PRECISELY THEIR STATED INTENTION!

Two detailed reactions were posted to refute your position, and you responded with platitudes so broad as to have no meaning. Trying to connect them to the insurrection, you lacked a single specific to accomplish that. You have previously swept with a broad brush without a modicum of specific rational support that one wonders why you post here at all.

When you are continuously stumped by comments from others here, it is time for you to rethink your positions.

I don't agree with your terminology . You say the protester's goal was insurrection . It was not . We fundamentally disagree with what happened on Jan 6 .

I also disagree with Ben who claims that the violent BLM riots and Antifa violent attacks on public institutions and people who do not conform to their beliefs were local and not national events and therefore do not qualify as attacks on the nation.

I don't agree with your terminology . You say the protester's goal was insurrection . It was not . We fundamentally disagree with what happened on Jan 6 .

Then please go to post # 25 and answer the questions in the first two paragraphs.

A partial reply to post 25.


What do you call stashes of arms including Molotov cocktails found nearby stored by rioters and Oathkeepers, several of whom have been convicted.That's inaccurate. One man has been convicted when it was found he had his pickup truck parked near the Capitol with material sufficient for 11 Molotov cocktails and several guns in it. There is no suggestion he was part of some broad conspiracy, and there is likewise no evidence any of the weapons left his truck. There were no "stashes of arms".
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/guilty-verdict-five-oathkeepers-850078-2.html


beating police officers so severely that one died from his injuries and three committed suicide and hundreds were injured?Also wrong. Brian Sicknick, a police officer, died the following day of natural causes as determined by the ME. 4 officers have since commited suicide, but there is no evidence linking their deaths to 1/6. And the correct number of injured officers is not "hundreds", but 114, and the great majority of those did not require medical attention. I know of no evidence suggesting any police officer was beaten "severely".
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/07/politics/capitol-police-injuries/index.html

So far unmentioned here is this curious fact. When was the last time you heard of such a bloodless insurrection? No police officers were killed or even fired upon. And the police seemed to see no need to shoot at supposed insurrectionists other than the one officer who needlessly killed a protestor. If the situation was as dire as some here suggest, then the reaction of the police was strange indeed. They seemed to sense no need to use gunfire to defend a Capitol building that had become, as some here say, the primary target of an "insurrection". If it was really that, it was a pathetic, disorganized, pitifully weak effort.


Their beliefs are irrelevant. Of course they had beliefs. Every insurrection in history had beliefs.Of course beliefs are relevant. Beliefs fuel motives, and motive is everything in an accusation of insurrection.

None of this is intended to suggest any approval of what those criminals did. Their actions were despicable and the guilty should be punished.

I also disagree with Ben who claims that the violent BLM riots and Antifa violent attacks on public institutions and people who do not conform to their beliefs were local and not national events and therefore do not qualify as attacks on the nation.
Disagree all you want, as I said it's my understanding of the relevant US statutes dealing with insurrection and seditious actions are concerned with Federal rather than State apparatus, otherwise they fall under the statutes of rioting.
I in no way condone these actions as violence begat more violence, it is in no way a legitimate means to an end.

To me there is only one unanswered question ,
We know for a fact that the FBI had infiltrated various organizations involved . So if there was a pre-planned "insurrection" then why was Trump's offer of providing additional security to the Capitol turned down by Madam Mimi Pelosi ?
If I were conspiracy minded I could conclude that this was a convenient Reichstag moment for the deep state . They certainly have reacted as if it were .

So if there was a pre-planned "insurrection" then why was Trump's offer of providing additional security to the Capitol turned down by Madam Mimi Pelosi ?That is indeed the great unanswered question. Both the mayor and Pelosi turned down offers of assistance prior to 1/6. Why?? And why would Trump make that offer if he wanted such an event to occur?

Ben the Insurrection Act as Jl explained is ancient ,outdated,and overly broad law that is ripe for abuse ,and begging for reform. Both the Shay's rebellion and Whiskey rebellions were local events that required Federal action.

Anytime the President authorizes the mobilization of the National Guard to quell domestic riots ,as has happened numerous times ,then the President is in fact authorizing an exception to Posse Comitatus and is invoking the Insurrection Act .

Anytime the President authorizes the mobilization of the National Guard to quell domestic riots ,as has happened numerous times ,then the President is in fact authorizing an exception to Posse Comitatus and is invoking the Insurrection Act .

Tomder, get back to the here and now. Stop avoiding.

On January 6, a mob of over one thousand people attacked the Capitol building of the US in order to overthrow the president of the US. The president is the most powerful individual in the US government - maybe in the entire world. They wanted to replace the president with their own non-elected choice who has consistently exhibited both tyrannical notions of government and just as clearly shown a marked inability to consider himself under the rule of law.

All your blathering about posses comitatus and Civil War disputes and Whiskey rebellions are not the issue. Country over party, Tomder.

Stop avoiding.Mr. Pot strikes again. You need to stop avoiding post 33.

If you are looking for an attempt to overthrow an elected President then I suggest you look at the 2016 Evita campaign and the subsequent attempt by the Justice Dept (proven in the McCabe, Strzok ,and Lisa Page "insurance policy "texts )to overthrow President Trump There is no longer any doubt that was a REAL "insurrection ".
Evita is also an election denier . To this day she says the election was stolen from her

if you are looking for an attempt to overthrow an elected president then i suggest you look at the 2016 evita campaign and the subsequent attempt by the justice dept (proven in the mccabe, strzok ,and lisa page "insurance policy "texts )to overthrow president trump there is no longer any doubt that was a real "insurrection ".
Evita is also an election denier . To this day she says the election was stolen from her

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is evidently what now passes for a well thought-out response by a liberal.

And still no response to post 33 by the guy who claimed someone else was avoiding answering. To quote a member, "Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

What is unbelievable is that we now have precedent that objecting to a stolen election is seditious conspiracy.

And with that, this thread is closed.