Six Oath Keepers convicted in connection with January 6 US Capitol riot

And his other words betray to the contrary of that. To be blunt: The defendant rioted, and perhaps one can even make the argument that there was a conspiracy for the riot. But the 'seditious' nature of it, boiled down to words and hypotheticals that they themselves didn't execute on. I disagree with the judge completely on the idea that you can judge, based on things that could have, but ultimately did not transpire.

That's like saying 'I want to axe someone's head off", buying the axe but ultimately not using it. In Metha's view, the fact that you brought the axe meant that you were in fact going to chop off their head. That to me is illogical, and a significant point of disagreement.

I also disagree with the so-called 'terror enhancements'. These too, were purely and only for political purposes and it's to the convenience of the prosecution and the judge to claim otherwise. It's a claim that's empty(especially considering there were those pressuring AG Garland for this particular purpose, including James Comey advocating for the same.)

Given that the sediitous conspiracy charges came later, it is abundantly clear without question that it was political in nature. One could argue the sentence itself is enough of a detterence. There was no need for the extras, unless it was to send a message.

The reason all of this is important, is that prior to these moments this was the ONE thing the judicial process could hang its hat on. Unlike its contemporaries overseas and around the world, claims of a political court could otherwise not exist in the US. But now, the prosecution and the judge wants to have its cake and eat it as well, by claiming that in spite of all of the hyperbole, including using as evidence, a vague 'stand back and stand by', without questioning the person who said it(Donald Trump) is patently absurd.

 

He was prosecuted for both. As the Meggs sentence(12 years) shows.

 

The prosecutors version?! HA!

 

The leader of a far-right militia has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the US Capitol riot.

Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, was convicted on charges of seditious conspiracy and other crimes.

The sentence is the longest yet given to a Capitol rioter. Prosecutors had asked for 25 years.

Meanwhile, Kelly Meggs, the leader of the militia's Florida chapter, was jailed for 12 years.


Heh heh heh

 

Just amazing how the facts/evidence presented to the jury that put both guys behind bars for years you just blow-off to resume your wishful thinking.
Here comes your trashing of jurors.
You use the same playbook with every high profile conviction that's discussed here.

Each defendant is different when it comes to sentencing and Meggs did express remorse which Rhodes never did.

Snip:

"Unlike Rhodes, Meggs showed contrition for his actions on January 6 and apologized to his family members in the courtroom through tears.

“I am sorry to be involved in an event that put such a black mark on our country,” Meggs told the judge.

Explaining the differing sentences Thursday, Mehta said Rhodes was a more dangerous person.

“It is astonishing to me how average Americans somehow transformed into criminals in the weeks before and on January 6,” the judge said. “Regrettably, Mr. Meggs, everything you worked for, everything you built … vanished in a couple of months.”

He added: “For reasons that are unclear to me, planning and scheming to bring rifles to Washington, DC, became more important than maybe even your own family.”

“He is not Mr. Rhodes. He’s just not,” the judge said of Meggs. “He does not pose the same kind of threat as Mr. Rhodes. He is not the intellectual and spiritual leader.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/poli...tencing-stewart-rhodes-kelly-meggs/index.html

 

Nope.
Thousands of protesters were on the capital grounds J6 believing everything Trump claimed yet none of their actions got them arrested and convicted.
Meggs was convicted and sentenced for his actions.

 

Prosecutor's evidence really sucks when it's your bros in spirit who get convicted.

 

"He is not the intellectual and spiritual leader", WHAT is that? Seriously. And all of that was being said, just as he and the jury concurred with the preponderence of the evidence. If they agreed to that, then there's no way they can just say "he's not the intellectual and spiritual leader". What they REALLY mean to say is: For Rhodes, who the prosecution wants to be the significator of this, we'll look past any and all exculpatory factors for a reduced sentence. But in the case of Meggs, we'll believe that you're some reformed family man.

It's a joke. Only if you're pro the prosecution, would you believe this fantastical fairy tale.

 

Trump:
They had "love in their hearts" and "it was a beautiful day"

snip:

"Rhodes and Meggs were found guilty on Nov. 29, 2022, following an eight-week trial and three days of deliberations. In addition to the seditious conspiracy charge, Rhodes was convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding and tampering with documents and proceedings. Meggs was also found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties, and tampering with documents or proceedings.

According to the government’s evidence, the Oath Keepers are a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias. Following the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election, Rhodes, Meggs, and others began plotting to oppose, by force, the lawful transfer of presidential power. Beginning in late December 2020, via encrypted and private communications applications, Rhodes, Meggs, and others coordinated and planned to travel to Washington, D.C., on or around Jan. 6, 2021, the date of the certification of the electoral college vote.

The defendants also, collectively, employed a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members and affiliates; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons, and supplies – including knives, batons, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment – to the Capitol grounds; breaching and attempting to take control of the Capitol grounds and building on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the electoral college vote; using force against law enforcement officers while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021;

continuing to plot, after Jan. 6, 2021, to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power, and using websites, social media, text messaging and encrypted messaging applications to communicate with each other and others.'

cont:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cour...uilty,tampering with documents or proceedings.

 

What exculpatory factors should have given Rhodes a reduced sentence? lol

Rhodes 18
Meggs 12

 

Theoretically speaking? If Megg's family life, etc can all be considered then regardless of what one might think of Rhodes's own rhetoric, it's no less exculpatory. Again, if it weren't political.

But the fact is, is that it was political. The judge admits to the politicization by viewing the need for a deterrent. This, even though all of the trials have gone through guilty verdicts.

I don't have any sympathy per se for the individuals, it's about the integrity of justice. It demands that it follows a straight and narrow line, it promises a dispassionate viewing of the facts and the conclusion. Judge Metha was far from dispassionate regarding the case.

 

So because you don't like the outcome, you are claiming all sorts of unproven innuendo:
The judge was political.
Justice wasn't objectively applied.

Too bad for you and the MAGA crowd. The outcome was correct. An Insurrectionist got what he deserved and if deterrence was part of the outcome, that's justice.
Isn't the threat of the Death Penalty supposed to be a deterrent ? And if the Death Penalty isn't actually applied, doesn't that remove the deterrence ?
The same can be said about this case.

In fact, of the Orange Stain isn't convicted and thrown in jail, you can be sure that other attempts will be made by other Republicans to subvert and pervert both justice and the US Constitution for their own absurd lust for power.

 

"It was justified because we said so!" Yeah, that's readily apparent by the outcome, but no that doesn't make it right morally. Unfortunately, even in a civilized nation like the United States, moral righteousness is secondary to the brute force of the state which can be legally carried through the justice system.

As I had previously pointed out, there was precedent involved in the vast majority of cases. Some of which, the precedent the DOJ(not a Trump-loving organization, or MAGA, or anyone else) had itself thrown out, for the convenience of the verdict and case they were trying to pursue. They claimed, only literally a year and a half ago, that Trump had no legal authority to issue any such orders.

Only to backtrack on that, as necessary for the seditious conspiracy arguments. Now, since the judge actually allowed this. 'All well and good', but philosophically it's a HUGE error for lawyers to make double-sided arguments, and even more shame to the court to actually accept them. The reason law, and court is held to a high standard is the belief that hypocrisy can't be found in a court, certainly not amongst its pompous dressed officials(ie: the judge, lawyers, etc.)

Those standards have flamed out, as a result of January 6th trials.(Hell, and I'll repeat this again: Judges actually made insinuating remarks, on circumstances that either weren't on their docket, or may NEVER be on their docket.) which violates that whole presumption of innocence thing, but we've long past that stage.

Regarding this saga in particular, the judge readily made(or accepted) excuses for Meggs, that he would not for Rhodes. And the reasoning concluded, was not "on the basis of the facts of the case" but rather on remorse for actions, or otherwise highlighting charitable things about Meggs that he could have, but chose not to highlight for Rhodes as well.

It's laughable to treat these two cases differently, unless there's a political bias in there. That the judge laughably tried to claim otherwise, is a fallacy in of itself. Either they were both terrorists who are 'threats to the republic', or they're not. To actually try to make a case that one wasn't the same as the other, is laughable.

And this has nothing to do with these two individuals, and everything to do with the nature of the J6 trials. It's clear that they are guilty of riots, and one could easily say a disturbance and that their actions certainly impeded the proceedings. But to make the argument for a seditious conspiracy, they had to take the texts, take their own interpretation of said texts and run with it(because again, meas rea is difficult to prove, especially with a lack of motive to proving otherwise.)

The reason this is a big deal, is that politically to claim a seditious conspiracy is to admit that there's underlying seeds against the government, and no you can't just stomp those out with a prison sentence. Think about the many riots we had prior to J6, and none of whom were charged with this. It's for a very valid reason. Claiming a seditious conspiracy, weakens the government's structure.

It's no different than a malrobe malfunction. Think about all of the "kill Bush/Dubya" rhetoric from 2006. None of that was charged with seditious conspiracy, but in today's climate? Who knows.

So yes, these actors are guilty of a lot. But they shouldn't be 'guilty of a conspiracy against the government', because the admission of such a conspiracy, despite what Biden, Garland and many Americans wanting retribution for the 6th may believe. This does not deter such a conspiracy, it admits it and lets it fester in society.

If we didn't claim that Kent State was a conspiracy, if we didn't even claim the OKC bombings as a conspiracy(though undoubtedly an act of terror), we must not and cannot allow this to be called a conspiracy.

 

Do you support the actions of Jan 6th?

 

Yea........

I mean no way he did it to himself huh?

 

The peaceful protests? Absolutely.

 

Why? The election wasn't "stolen," so what was there to protest?

 

Irrelevant. Peaceful protests are a right protected by law.

 

Sad little man.

 

Do you tell people that in real life, or just try to be a tough guy behind a screen?

 

You don't support people exercising their 1st Amendment rights?

 

And you righties holler about crime.

 

And you want to let murderers run loose.

 

The man is a head case, let alone the people that bought into the stolen election. It is political.

You`ve been making excuses for one of worst atrocities in USA history.

 

No, the seditious nature of their actions is in their intent.
One can riot for better social conditions or one can riot to overturn an election. One is patriotic and one is seditious, and anyone who understands our laws knows the difference.