US Capitol attack Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy

I think there was mention of Rhodes calling the White House from his cell during the insurrection.

 

Way to keep an open mind. The evidence says otherwise.

 

Interesting side note, Jesus probably wasn't a Capricorn.
https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/when-was-jesus-born
In fact, the year has been estimated in a span of 6 and 4 bc, and more than likely before October, so he probably wasn't a Capricorn.
Not arguing, just bringing up some interesting facts. (at least to me!)

 

I thought Stewart was already divorced. If the kids are young, then she should have grounds that no contact between him and the young kids with her having complete custody and he having no input.

 

Then why did you post an article making that claim Blues?

 

The evidence is clear that it was a riot, not a plan. Messages be damned. You cannot through a political show trial make people believe opposite to what occurred.

 

Makes no sense

 

I think the testimony days AFTER Jan 6 he tried to get a message to Trump saying he should call out the militia and they would be there to support and fight this "illegal" electoral vote count nonsense they believed. The messages were intercepted and never delivered.

The prosecution stated that there was no evidence that Trump was involved and objected to any defendents trying to inject him or blame him for what they did. There was not evidence of Trump or anyone at the WH involved with these guys AT ALL.

 

It doesn't.

"To the contrary (as we’ve previously detailed), the prosecutors concluded that Trump was not a member of the conspiracy and played no criminally culpable role in the violence. "

And


Militia group can’t blame Trump at Jan. 6 trial, Justice Department says
Members of a right-wing militia group facing trial on the most serious charges stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection should be barred from trying to blame former President Donald Trump for their actions, the Justice Department told a judge.

Trump, whose supporters laid siege to the U.S. Capitol to prevent the peaceful transition of power to Joe Biden, didn’t have the authority to order such an attack and therefore can’t be used in a so-called public-authority or entrapment defense, the U.S. said in a filing Friday in Washington.


The U.S. is seeking a court ruling to prevent lawyers for Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes and other members of the group from using the defense during its opening statement to the jury or while questioning witnesses during the seditious-conspiracy trial, set to begin Sept. 26.

“President Trump did not have the authority to permit or authorize a conspiracy to forcibly oppose the authority of the government or the execution of the laws of the United States, nor could he have lawfully sanctioned the attack on the United States Capitol on Jan. 6 or any of the other criminal conduct allegedly perpetrated by defendants,” the U.S. said in the filing....
https://www.pressherald.com/2022/07...trump-at-jan-6-trial-justice-department-says/

They have no evidence Trump or anyone at the White House was involved with or gave any orders or told anyone to riot at the Captial and take over the government or prevent the vote count.

 

It's interesting that he even had the White House phone number ... and then ... used it.

 

When you resort to irrelevant and just plain wrong deflection, you are announcing that you have lost.
I accept your capitulation.

 

Of geeezzzz

 

Running shoes noted

You said your right to vote for President, what right do you think you have can you show me in the Constitution?

Trump wanted to use the EVA to challenge electors just as the Dems did in the previous two elections.

You said

What evidence did the prosecution present that Trump was involved with any of the "seditionist"?

 

Good one, the one Rhodes used wasn't that.

 

This is totally false.

Repeating a lie several times will not make it true.

How many people close to Trump have testified under oath that he deliberately tried to prevent the democratic process against the law?

 

Let me get this straight: you contend that the Constitution does not protect my right to vote ?

The Orange Stain may have wanted to use the EVA to challenge electors but that ship sailed after the states certified the election results.

It’s a forum violation to re post an edited version of another users post. If you want to discuss my post, quote it in it’s entirety and don’t slice out portions to try and misrepresent what I said.

That is dishonest.

 

Could very well be.

The bigger point IMO is that all organized religions are irrelevant and trivia to the big picture painted by (to keep it simple) the Ancient Aliens theory.

Organized religion is just a manifestation of the human tendency to superstition and usurpation of power by "priests".

 

Religion can be very helpful and useful. It is used to control human behavior and give people something to make them feel better and not so isolated or alone.
Many find solace in religion. Unfortunately, other people use it to wield that control in negative ways, like getting money out of their pockets, or to make public laws.
The new testament is still a good guide for how to behave. Even if someone, like me, doesn't believe in the traditional sense of God, some religious tenants are good for people in general.
Ancient Aliens theory is interesting, but when you watch that show, be cautious. I've checked a few things out that they claim, and they will, shall we say, guild the lily.
Sometimes outright lie.
Interesting show though, IF................................

 

Mostly agree there.

AA always makes it clear that it's a THEORY, attempting to possibly explain all the facts that contradict the conventional archeological record and much of religious history. OTOH, organized religion insists upon dogma and theology.

Why did they remove the Book Of Enoch all those centuries ago? That amounted to censorship, which various religions have practiced since the beginning.

 

Makes me wonder what data/information we have missed out on because of censorship or just plain lost over the thousands of years humans have been evolving.

Thought this is an interesting take on a legendary story involving destruction of valuable information.
https://time.com/5912689/library-of-alexandria-burning/

 

For President? Where does it say you have a right to vote for President? The EVA under some legal theories including the ones the Dems had previously used allowed for challenges to those slates of electors and for it to be sent back to the respective state for the state legislature to act on it. And there is no rule that the other posters post has to be posted in it's entirety as long as it is not edited to change the point the poster was making or misrepresent it. I quoted the part to which I was specifically responding.

 

Oh please, go read the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, and 26th amendments.

By not quoting it entirely, you change the meaning. You don't get to judge what changes the point of someone else's post.

From the forum rules:
Stalking or harassing other members is forbidden, whether in the public forums, through PMs, or in social groups or albums. If you don't like someone, leave them alone or put them on ignore. Any attempts to bait or taunt another poster will be considered infractions, including posters who are banned from the forum or banned from a thread, and thus unable to reply. This includes quoting other members in your signature without permission, or mischaracterizing their statements by quoting them and changing the quotes. Disclosing personal or confidential information about other posters or staff - including but not limited to personal identities - or disclosing confidential communications may be considered harassment.

Omitting part of my post is a change.

 

Go read the Constitution and come back and show me where it says you have a right to vote for the President and Vice-President

No I did not I responded to those specific points

From the forum rules:
Stalking or harassing other members is forbidden, whether in the public forums, through PMs, or in social groups or albums. If you don't like someone, leave them alone or put them on ignore. Any attempts to bait or taunt another poster will be considered infractions, including posters who are banned from the forum or banned from a thread, and thus unable to reply. This includes quoting other members in your signature without permission, or mischaracterizing their statements by quoting them and changing the quotes. Disclosing personal or confidential information about other posters or staff - including but not limited to personal identities - or disclosing confidential communications may be considered harassment.

Omitting part of my post is a change.[/QUOTE]

I did not change or mischaracterize to that to which I was responding. Check my post count I think I know how to properly post here but feel free to report my post.

 

I did not change or mischaracterize to that to which I was responding. Check my post count I think I know how to properly post here but feel free to report my post.[/QUOTE]

Since I already responded to your post, I shouldn't report report it. Another forum rule from the Mods.

Ok, I'll use your own faulty logic against you, since you think it's valid. Show me where it says I DON'T have a right to vote for the President or
Vice-President. You see, the amendments I named(which you clearly haven't read) state what cannot be denied to a US citizen any why. Furthermore,
Congress has the authority to legislate and enforce legislation regarding voting rights.

You do know that it is a crime to deprive a citizen their right to vote ? (Well, maybe not since you are a Trump supporter.)

 

The part I highlighted in bold is the claim that you are making that the prosecutor, somehow, was trying to link Trump to the Oath Keeper's trial. That did not occur, they did not even mention Trump at all in the trial. Thus you cannot make that conclusion based on a trial that did not even attempt that way.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. If Trump is culpable to January 6th, it is with the testimony of Miller, Meadows, Ivanka, and others in the January 6th committee, not the trial of Stewart Rhodes.