Steward Rhodes charged with seditious conspiracy

[TemplarKormac]

Do you (1) condemn the Oath Keepers entirely OR do you (2) agree with them with regard to their hatred of fascism?

Now...

I am curious how this conversation originated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am merely saying the government is charging the oath keepers with seditious conspiracy for essentially saying the same things the far righties do here.

No, it's because they actually went to the Capitol and planned to break into it , then did, and they planned for violence, and then they committed violence.

We don't prosecute thought crimes. You seem to be suggesting that's all this is. I would say that is a very weak defense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They're already condemned.

No they're not.

Not if you know the difference between indictments and convictions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it's because they actually went to the Capitol and planned to break into it and planned for violence and committed violence.

There is no provable evidence of that.

No evidence of planning, no evidence of coordination in planning, no weapons distribution. Nothing. Just obscure social media posts.

Hence why it is an indictment, an accusation, not a conviction.

 

[meaner gene]

Any reasonable person can say "our next Lexington is coming" or "it's time to take action NOW!"

PACs, lobbyists, and politicians on both sides of the aisle alike have all used such language, that doesn't mean they have any intent to overthrow the government.

"reasonable person" gone, "mens rea" gone.

We call it free speech. It's clear people have forgotten that.

All you're proved is that many people, within the conspiracy and without can all have the same mens rea. But only those that actually participated, instead of just dreamed, can be charged.

It's just like a Trump crowd chanting "Hang Mike Pence". Anyone shouting that would have the "mens rea" had Pence actually been hanged.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All you're proved is that many people, within the conspiracy and without can all have the same mens rea. But only those that actually participated, instead of just dreamed, can be charged.

Unless any of the alleged actions can be proven with tangible evidence, they were protesters who had every right to be there as anyone else peacefully protesting (and I don't use that phrase lightly, like CNN does).

 

[BackAgain]

You are either taking up arms against an enemy force, or against the US or allied force. You need government sanction for either one, or you would suffer being an unprotected illegal combatant in the former, and a seditionist in the later.

You are such a petty little mincer.

The 1/6 protestors including the much smaller contingent that broke some laws at the Capitol were not taking on any military, forces. We aren’t talking about civil war here. And no war at all was waged or attempted to be waged.

Try to stop being so petty for a moment. I know it will be monumentally difficult for you. Here is an extreme example or two:

1st scenario: If the Brandon regime somehow got a law passed requiring the Jews to be arrested and put into camps, I assume you’d recognize how unconstitutional and immoral it would be. Would a law enforcement officer sworn to uphold and enforce the laws be obliged to enforce that law? [Imagine the courts haven’t yet stayed it from being enforced.]

Right off the bat, even before the courts responded, I’d say that law enforcement officers (like the FBI) would be committing a violation of their oaths if they had the unmitigated gaul of enforcing that law.

2d scenario:

the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
laws passed in derogation of the Constiturion are void ab initio.
the second Amendment is in full force and effect as a component part of our Constitution.
Nevertheless, Congress passes and the President signs a law requiring that citizens and aliens surrender their guns to the local police: and cops and FBI AGENTS are empowered to come to our homes to enter and seize any guns.
before the courts can even hear an emergency application to stay the law, Brandon sends out the FBI to commence such raids.
Should the FBI agents so behave?

You know the answers. The only questions now are: will you answer them at all and will you have the nerve to be honest?

 

[TemplarKormac]

We don't prosecute thought crimes. You seem to be suggesting that's all this is. I would say that is a very weak defense.

No, what we are prosecuting, in my observation, is speech.

You seem to be suggesting that anything the government alleges against any Tom, Dick, or Harry, is true and immune to scrutiny. That within itself is a paltry defense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's just like a Trump crowd chanting "Hang Mike Pence". Anyone shouting that would have the "mens rea" had Pence actually been hanged.

Saying "hang Mike Pence" and acting on said words are two different things.

As violent and vulgar as that speech is, it is free speech, unless provable intent can be established which shows they intended to actually hang him. Then it ceases to be free speech and subsequently becomes a credible threat of violence.

 

[meaner gene]

You're repeating to me things I already read, and know. This is merely an accusation that needs to be proven. Indictments do not impart guilt or innocence.

What's your point?

Well you did say you read the indictment (singular) and not the half dozen indictments the case covers, including superseding indictments. Which is why I said I was reading the summary, and not the indictments themselves.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well you did say you read the indictment (singular) and not the half dozen indictments the case covers, including superseding indictments. Which is why I said I was reading the summary, and not the indictments themselves.

This is the only indictment I am interested in. The superseding indictments are superfluous in this discussion.

 

[meaner gene]

You weren't.

I am merely saying the government is charging the oath keepers with seditious conspiracy for essentially saying the same things the far righties do here.

Where are the men in black suits?

That's the difference between conspiracy, and free speech.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's the difference between conspiracy, and free speech.

What are you talking about?

At worse this is hateful diatribe, nothing more. It does not indicate a consipiracy.

 

[Leo123]

When will they charge Ray Epps and John Sullivan? They're the ones on video urging people to storm the Capitol.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no provable evidence of that.

Ha

You sure?

Okay.

I bet there is. And I bet the Feds have it.

 

[meaner gene]

Now...

I am curious how this conversation originated.

That's the question he accused me of running away from, and refusing to answer.

 

[Oddball]

Achieving justice is always important. Your repeated attempts to diminish this event won't change that.

But I get it. You're in a position where you cant defend these slobs, but at the same time you'll look weak to your fellow kool aid drinking trumpanzees if you say they belong in jail. So you're stuck skirting the line. Meanwhile you just attempt to diminish the event as if its no big deal. Pathetic.

Getting in the face of a maude is might bold of you, Jake.

You have a better VPN than your last sock puppet?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ha

You sure?

Okay.

I bet there is. And I bet the Feds have it.

You bet, which means you can't. Nor can the government.

Carry on.

 

[meaner gene]

No they're not.

Not if you know the difference between indictments and convictions.

I was answer BackAgain's question, where I condemned the oath keepers.

 

[Oddball]

Diminish what? A redefined word from liberals? Nothing new there, it's the only way they can connect it to their mantra.

Y'all haven't figured out that this yet another Starkey sock, huh?