Oathkeepers trial - verdict being read now

[Canoez]

The charges of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and tampering with documents or proceedings each carry a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

A head on a pike would be better, but I'll take this.

Somewhere I was reading that with all of the various charges that Rhodes was found guilty of, he could be looking at 60 years. I don't think he'll get that, however.

[TomF]

Somewhere I was reading that with all of the various charges that Rhodes was found guilty of, he could be looking at 60 years. I don't think he'll get that, however.

He's not entirely a young man. A couple of decades should do it.

[Canoez]

He's not entirely a young man. A couple of decades should do it.

From your lips to a Federal Judge's ear...

[ron ll]

It occurs to me that if they can now send Roger Stone to prison, we’ll get a twofer. Finally Nixon would be in prison, although just a posthumous picture of him.

[L.W. Baxter]

it's wrong to dismiss these guys as underlings or mere "foot soldiers."

true that they were willing to be led, but they were also pushing. in a sense, leading the leader.

even our conspiratorial congress critters are servile, right? afraid to contradict any aspect of the movement.

and our would-be mussolini is servile as well. you think donald's not afraid of the masses "following" him? you think he's really free to speak his mind without fear, without servility?

the interplay, and responsibility, is complex.

stewart rhodes is as big a player as they get. as responsible as anybody, and more than most. a growed ass man playing at fascist revolutionary, as much as the donald himself.

[TomF]

Fair point.

But there's quite a normative barrier to jump over for a jury to convict someone of seditious conspiracy. They have to be calmed of their anxieties about doing such a momentous thing, and oriented to be able to look closely at the facts.

A couple of commentators said that juries inevitably assess degrees of accountability in group trials, and are often reluctant to convict everyone of the top charge (e.g. seditious conspiracy) even when everyone meets the legal standard. Psychologically, a jury doesn't feel good about punishing the "less guilty" as harshly as the "more guilty," even when they've all well and truly crossed the line. Those aquittals or conversions into convictions on lesser charges are often overturned on DoJ appeals, when there isn't a "more guilty" co-defendant making them look kinda innocent.

My hunch is that a sedition trial for Stone, Flynn, or anyone named Trump now looks much more winnable, because Rhodes/Meggs are proof that seditious conspiracy actually happened re J6. It isn't some political hyperbole, but a reality with two convicts facing 20 year max jail sentences.

That's going to situate every subsequent jury to be more able to ignore the defense's claims that J6 was merely a picnic that got a bit out of hand, and steel themselves to look at whatever evidence is presented. If they can do that, and believe that they and their families can be kept safe, I think they'll be able to convict.

That said, as you observe, Rhodes is a genuinely, independently dangerous guy. Who used Trump's presence to advance his already-held views.

[JimD]

I disagree. This trial was important partly to establish the precedents, respecting this instance of sedition, that it was sedition. In the trials coming shortly of another group of Oathkeepers, and of a group of Proud Boys, it will be easier to get convictions for seditious conspiracy because prosecutors will be able to point out that a cautious jury found that the evidence was sufficient to convict Rhodes and Meggs, and weren't emotionally overwhelmed into not distinguishing degrees of culpability for their fellows. So in cases where the evidence is even more comprehensive and damning, or where there's evidence of conspiring with already convicted seditionists, a jury will be more confident in their impulse to convict.

I think this may lead to some deal making and plea agreements too, pleading guilty with the promise of reduced sentences for substantial cooperation - but still and fully dependent upon pleading to sedition.

IMO, these are to establish the playing field for the indictments to follow, of those with whom these seditiinists liaise in Trump's circle, and hence to Trump himself. I think that without these convictions first - convictions mind you, not merely guilty pleas which could be dismissed as coerced - that it would be far more difficult for a jury to be willing to convict a former President, for fear of looking to be only politically motivated.

In this case I think the foot soldiers need to be convicted first, before the generals would be likely able to be held accountable. One must prime the pump, as it were.

This differs, e.g., from Nuremberg - where judges rather than juries administered justice.

Perhaps. The charges and convictions were a precedent because the crime was a precedent. So it's a hopeful sign that the jury recognised the obvious that the charges fit the crime and that sends a message to other soldiers that the next time your leader tells you to storm the Capitol and overthrow the government you might want to think twice. How much farther up the ladder it goes remains to be seen. My personal level of skepticism remains somewhere below the level of cautious optimism. Time will tell. Edited to add: I know it wasn't quite that simple. They were not simply Trump's assembled rabble. I offer the abridged version.

[ron ll]

This will be a big chapter in future history books. It’s starting to look like our experiment is still working in spite of some scary close calls.

[L.W. Baxter]

Fair point.

But there's quite a normative barrier to jump over for a jury to convict someone of seditious conspiracy. They have to be calmed of their anxieties about doing such a momentous thing, and oriented to be able to look closely at the facts.

A couple of commentators said that juries inevitably assess degrees of accountability in group trials, and are often reluctant to convict everyone of the top charge (e.g. seditious conspiracy) even when everyone meets the legal standard. Psychologically, a jury doesn't feel good about punishing the "less guilty" as harshly as the "more guilty," even when they've all well and truly crossed the line. Those aquittals or conversions into convictions on lesser charges are often overturned on DoJ appeals, when there isn't a "more guilty" co-defendant making them look kinda innocent.

My hunch is that a sedition trial for Stone, Flynn, or anyone named Trump now looks much more winnable, because Rhodes/Meggs are proof that seditious conspiracy actually happened re J6. It isn't some political hyperbole, but a reality with two convicts facing 20 year max jail sentences.

That's going to situate every subsequent jury to be more able to ignore the defense's claims that J6 was merely a picnic that got a bit out of hand, and steel themselves to look at whatever evidence is presented. If they can do that, and believe that they and their families can be kept safe, I think they'll be able to convict.

That said, as you observe, Rhodes is a genuinely, independently dangerous guy. Who used Trump's presence to advance his already-held views.

certainly, to all of that.

but, it may be harder to convict anybody named trump, or his inner circle, or members of congress, not because of their stature or position on the ladder, but simply because they were careful to not commit so explicitly. in other words, in the strictest legal proceeding, they may have plausible deniability. which won't make them innocent in the court of public opinion, or in the annals of history, but "not guilty" before the law of the moment.

some of the people we are referencing are going to live a long time yet. plenty of time for them to die friendless. all the way down to young master sandmann, who may one day dearly wish he had taken his hat off.

what got rhodes convicted was the undeniable intent of his own words and acts. no plausible deniability. he was an avatar for the hard core of the hard core; the nameless out there ready to kill their neighbors. it matters a lot that we finally got a meaningful conviction of a descendent of the bundy bund.

[sandtown]

Looks like the jury did not buy the argument that J6 was "legitimate political discourse", or that the jailed insurrectionists are political prisoners per CPAC (see photo below).

The really scary thing is that the GOPPER-Reich paid such a small political price for their actions.

[CWSmith]

^ Sickening!

[Joe (SoCal)]

WTF is that photo ? Is that a staged or wax museum exhibit or a photo of MTG about to give a hummer to staged crises actor with a F’n chalkboard in his cell ?

[sandtown]

WTF is that photo ? ?

It is sort of a living diorama from the CPAC convention a few months ago,

and they gave a warm welcome to Victor Orban

[CWSmith]

WTF is that photo ? Is that a staged or wax museum exhibit or a photo of MTG about to give a hummer to staged crises actor with a F’n chalkboard in his cell ?

It really does have a sexual overtone to it, doesn't it?

[Rich Jones]

WTF is that photo ? Is that a staged or wax museum exhibit or a photo of MTG about to give a hummer to staged crises actor with a F’n chalkboard in his cell ?

Probably their version of prayer but I like the hummer idea better!!
Of course, every jail cell has a chalkboard, complete with eraser and a non-bolted down
chair that can be used as a weapon.
Seems a bit fake to me. What's behind the blue curtain? Probably hides where they really are.

[Joe (SoCal)]

It really does have a sexual overtone to it, doesn't it?

Like a Conjugal visit with an out of cell videographer to post it on PornHub™

[L.W. Baxter]

is that cell from the set of silence of the lambs?

[Joe (SoCal)]

Probably their version of prayer but I like the hummer idea better!!
Of course, every jail cell has a chalkboard, complete with eraser and a non-bolted down
chair that can be used as a weapon.
Seems a bit fake to me. What's behind the blue curtain? Probably hides where they really are.

Odd given the fact that most of the trumps inner circle has been convicted and jailed you would think they knew how the system really works. It’s almost like non of them know what being incarcerated is REALLY like.

We need a new revised CPAC Diorama with the Oath Keepers incarnation

[TomF]

is that cell from the set of silence of the lambs?

it's Clarisse who ought to be wearing the mask/cage thing this time...

[Joe (SoCal)]

The question is "Does that make him more macho, or just more stupid?"

I vote stupid. He is a walking, talking advertisement for stricter gun control.

Actually this guy is a freaking suma cum laude graduate, then Yale Law graduate who wrote a brilliant paper condemning Bush era overreach on the Patriot Act.

He was initially a hard core Libertarian before he lost his mind down the Trump rabbit hole.

He’s dangerous because he’s NOT stupid.

[Osborne Russell]

But there's quite a normative barrier to jump over for a jury to convict someone of seditious conspiracy. They have to be calmed of their anxieties about doing such a momentous thing, and oriented to be able to look closely at the facts.

Who told them it was momentous? Who keeps telling them? Why? Just another crime, just another trial, just another conviction.

My hunch is that a sedition trial for Stone, Flynn, or anyone named Trump now looks much more winnable, because Rhodes/Meggs are proof that seditious conspiracy actually happened re J6. It isn't some political hyperbole, but a reality with two convicts facing 20 year max jail sentences.

These defendants were convicted, that's all; of conspiring with each other. As to other defendants, in other cases, what does it prove?

That's going to situate every subsequent jury to be more able to ignore the defense's claims that J6 was merely a picnic that got a bit out of hand, and steel themselves to look at whatever evidence is presented. If they can do that, and believe that they and their families can be kept safe, I think they'll be able to convict.

They couldn't bring themselves to be first? If they were that weak-minded, who cares? We're lost.

[CWSmith]

Actually this guy is a freaking suma cum laude graduate, then Yale Law graduate who wrote a brilliant paper condemning Bush era overreach on the Patriot Act.

He was initially a hard core Libertarian before he lost his mind down the Trump rabbit hole.

He’s dangerous because he’s NOT stupid.

Yeah, stupid is an unfortunate catch-all term for my monumental disrespect for the man.

He handled a firearm carelessly, lost an eye, and almost lost his life. That's the worst kind of macho behavior.

He claims to be a defender of The Constitution, but he tried to overthrow it on Jan 6 in order to get what he thought was important (the ends justify the means).

And he wears an eye patch behind glasses despite having a false eye because it draws attention to himself.

So, not stupid, but also not honest. While he may be able to craft an impressive legal argument, he is in very many ways a poser.

[Canoeyawl]

Yeah, there are no chairs in a jail cell...

I wonder if see keeps knee pads for the occasional "Prayer"

[Osborne Russell]

Actually this guy is a freaking suma cum laude graduate, then Yale Law graduate who wrote a brilliant paper condemning Bush era overreach on the Patriot Act.

Doesn't speak well for Yale Law.

[TomF]

What's momentous about it? Seditious conspiracy is conspiracy to commit murder. Not the murder of a person, but of the legitimate Constitutional government of a nation state. It doesn't really get much bigger.

These convictions don't just establish Rhodes'/Meggs' guilt, they establish what they're guilty of. Of the conspiracy to murder the legitimate Constitutional government of the United States. That Jan6 crime is a legal fact now, not a bit of partisan hyperbole, or even a prosecutorial proposition.

Future judges will instruct juries that the attempted murder occurred, and was an attempted murder. And that the jurors' role is to determine, based on the evidence, whether the accused played a criminal part in it.

That's significant. If there's evidence that the accused conspired with Rhodes or Meggs about Jan6, there's no arguing about what the day's objectives were. Etc.

And yeah, while it would be lovely if jurors were all brave enough to "be the first" to decide such things, they're not. Especially if they're afraid for their own safety, or their families'. It isn't like the risk isn't real, as Paul Pelosi found recently.

[Osborne Russell]

The conspiracy was complete before Jan 6. If each defendant had fallen into a coma on Jan 5, and an asteroid destroyed the Capitol on Jan 6, they would be still be guilty. If someone else should be charged with being part of that same conspiracy, their particular, individual acts and intent will have to be proven, and the conviction of Rhodes etc. is unlikely to be evidence. At subsequent trials, the question is not whether other people were previously convicted.

Jurors swear an oath to follow the law. If it puts them in danger, they are not relieved of their obligations, any more than a soldier would be.

I agree that the convictions are a cultural milestone.

[skuthorp]

What do you reckon the defence lawyer was gettig at with 'In a different jurisdiction the result would have been different".
If the trial had been held say in Florida he wouldn't have been convicted?

[Breakaway]

What do you reckon the defence lawyer was gettig at with 'In a different jurisdiction the result would have been different".
If the trial had been held say in Florida he wouldn't have been convicted?

He's saying that the jury pool from one place may be socially, culturally and economically different than the jury pool from a different place.

Kevin

[McMike]

The conviction is still not being reported on Fox News. Why are they trying to bury the story?

[sandtown]

The conviction is still not being reported on Fox News.

that is quite a puzzlement !!

[Peerie Maa]

Perhaps their brains are melting because they are between a rock and a hard place?

[Paul Pless]

The conviction is still not being reported on Fox News. Why are they trying to bury the story?

one of my in-laws is a big fox news watcher, he tried to get me to watch some with him during the recent thanksgiving holiday, i begged off to watch football instead; when i told him that i mostly get my news from npr and the bbc he started muttering about government propaganda as he left the room

[John hartmann]

Sophistry is seductive; much easier than actually thinking.

[willin woodworks]

Perhaps their brains are melting because they are between a rock and a hard place?

They might be a little worried that their names are being bandied about as potential Co-conspirators.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

There's an interesting interview of the three eldest Rhodes children in the Southern Poverty Law Center's latest edition of Hate And Extremism In 2022. Basically, they say their father is a very dangerous creep.