Steward Rhodes charged with seditious conspiracy

[john doe 101]

You should rip up your note then. Are you defending the Oath Keepers?

I dont know about you but I dont lend Antifa any credence because there is no group named Antifa that exists.

 

[BackAgain]

They purchased a literal arsenal in support of their sedition. And the mens rea standard is if the person is of sound mind, and reason able intellect, whether or not a reasonable person would think what they were doing was wrong.

You are, as you so frequently do, conflating different concepts. If a person is not of sound mind sufficient to form a culpable mental state (among other things) then you are worrying about a mental disease or defect or insanity type defense. Not applicable here.

The reasonable person test may involve what a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have thought. But the test can also involve the question of whether “if the facts were as the defendant then understood them to be.”

I get that discussing any of this with you is pointless because you are incapable of admitting that you’re wrong. But your thick skulled ignorance and tendency to be obtuse doesn’t change anything. The point here remains:

How will the gubmint prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the newly charged defendants had an intent to violently interfere with the certification of the election in light of the fact that the defendants believed they were attempting to PRESERVE our Republic and the integrity of the election of the Executive Branch leaders?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You should rip up your note then. Are you defending the Oath Keepers?

Yeah, actually, I am. One of them anyway.

Sedition? For the leader?

Unless they can prove he had the capability of moving weapons to the capital and furnishing them to any number of people, it is a trumped-up charge.

 

[Coyote]

I dont know about you but I dont lend Antifa any credence because there is no group named Antifa that exists.

They are just thugs.

 

[BackAgain]

What part of I condemn the oath keepers don't you understand?

Just say it. Don’t be a bitch. Say it.

Do you condemn that part of the Oath Keepers that is anti-fascist? Very simple question. Yet you struggle so massively.

 

[BackAgain]

I dont know about you but I dont lend Antifa any credence because there is no group named Antifa that exists.

Another cowardly and dishonest reply. No surprise.

 

[meaner gene]

The question you had previously put to me was whether I condemned them. I responded by qualifying that portion of their position that I agreed with. I too oppose fascism. You then proceeded to try to say I was a fascist because I wouldn’t fully condemn them.

Please put down the crack pipe. I never asked you anything about the oath keepers.

For that, I call you a LIAR.

BTW: I did a search to make sure any time I used the term "oath keeper" it wasn't in the form of a question to anybody.

 

[john doe 101]

Yeah, actually, I am. One of them anyway.

Sedition? For the leader?

Unless they can prove he had the capability of moving weapons to the capital and furnishing them to any number of people, it is a trumped-up charge.

You obviously havent read what seditious conspiracy is in US law. The law makes no mention of moving weapons or furnishing weapons. It appears as though you are out of your element in this conversation.

 

[john doe 101]

Please put down the crack pipe. I never asked you anything about the oath keepers.

For that, I call you a LIAR.

BTW: I did a search to make sure any time I used the term "oath keeper" it wasn't in the form of a question to anybody.

Put this troll on ignore. I have a very good guess as to who that user is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You obviously havent read what seditious conspiracy is in US law. The law makes no mention of moving weapons or furnishing weapons. It appears as though you are out of your element in this conversation.

Uh no. I'm not.

You can try to prove it to me if you like.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They purchased a literal arsenal in support of their sedition. And the mens rea standard is if the person is of sound mind, and reason able intellect, whether or not a reasonable person would think what they were doing was wrong.

IOW, stupidity or self delusion is not a viable defense for a grown ass man.

 

[westwall]

January 6, 2021

No guns, no insurrection dumbfuck.

 

[john doe 101]

Uh no. I'm not.

You can try to prove it to me if you like.

Prove what? Is this a court of law? You can just as easily look up what seditious conspiracy actually is, because it isnt what you think it is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Prove what? Is this a court of law? You can just as easily look up what seditious conspiracy actually is, because it isnt what you think it is.

They are using "seditious conspiracy" to allege the man not only communicated his desire to harm the government, but also had the ability to do it.

I pay far more attention to these things than you obviously do.

 

[meaner gene]

The reasonable person test may involve what a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have thought. But the test can also involve the question of whether “if the facts were as the defendant then understood them to be.”

That's not the standard. Because as they say "ignorance of the law is no excuse" The person can't say he had no mens rea, because he didn't know what he did was against the law.

As such the "reasonable person" standard is used, since a reasonable person would be cognizant of the law.

 

[meaner gene]

Yeah, actually, I am. One of them anyway.

Sedition? For the leader?

Unless they can prove he had the capability of moving weapons to the capital and furnishing them to any number of people, it is a trumped-up charge.

Actually in federal law "impossibility" is not a defense.

They don't have to prove that he had the capability of moving the weapons, only that he had the intent to move the weapons.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They are using "seditious conspiracy" to allege the man not only communicated his desire to harm the government, but also had the ability to do it.

I pay far more attention to these things than you obviously do.

"The court papers said the defendants organized teams to use force and bring firearms to the Capitol, recruited members to participate, organized trainings [sic] and brought paramilitary gear, knives, batons and radio equipment to Washington."



So yeah, there's that.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, you do, but you seem to think you're Batman. Get it straight, magaturd. Protecting our Republic ain't your fucking job. No one voted you in as Sheriff. There are qualifications/experience necessary before you are able to legally roam the country side arresting people.

Relax, Felicia. It's just politics.

Fumbling dumbledickweed ^ just shit on the thread again. It doesn’t have to be my job, you massive shithead, for me to oppose anything that endangers our Republic.

Furthermore, nobody is talking about arresting people. So your bleating blathering bullshit response boils down to just more of your stinky shit. You are a void.

If the script was flipped and the jerkoffs on the far left had staged a protest like the one we saw on 1/6 because they felt that Trump had managed to steal lots of votes from their boy Brandon, you’d be insisting that the citizenry has a right to intervene to “protect our democracy!” In brief, you’re a liar and a hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually in federal law "impossibility" is not a defense.

They don't have to prove that he had the capability of moving the weapons, only that he had the intent to move the weapons.

Uh no. They have to prove he had the weapons at all. Or that he had any intent or capability to move these weapons or coordinate any sort of attack.

Mens rea (intent of the accused) is a concept in the court of law, and it applies here. There are multiple components of this allegation, to which no proof has been provided.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Why? As I've explained to the rest of your dummy buddies on here, it's pretty obvious these types of charges take a bit longer to build a rock solid case than just something like trespassing. You needed me to explain that to you? Awwww. Any other seemingly simple thing that I can explain to you?

Explain it to the judge. Call him/her “dummy” for not thinking like you.