January 6th Commission Thread

[Orygun]

@Samm

Fault for what?

“This wasn’t an insurrection!”

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Jezcoe

Would you say that maybe a plot does not require you to act. It is the act of conspiring, in this case to commit sedition?

Well, yes and no. You’re not far off.

You are correct that in any sort of “conspiracy” offense, the act bring criminalized is the conspiring. But in the US, in almost all cases, a crime of conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.

I don’t know if it’s accurate to call the target offense “sedition,” either - the target offenses are laid out in the statute, and don’t fit the definition of “sedition.”

So would you say that the act of training, gathering weapons and attacking the Capitol was what brought about the charge by if they had simply talked about doing such things they would have not been charged with this crime?

Missing the word allegedly.

Sure.

But they do have the recordings of their conversations on Jan 6, their communications, the social media posts where they talked about the crimes, the pictures on social media where they showed the weapons cache and the video of them moving not very well disguised weapons into the motel.

So yes … allegedly…. But they have a ton of evidence that allowed them to bring this charge.

That’s what Prosecutors do … tell their side (and only their side) of the story to get an indictment. The Defense is not part of that process. Perhaps they should be. It might save a lot of Court time and money.

[Orygun]

@Samm

That’s what Prosecutors do … tell their side (and only their side) of the story to get an indictment. The Defense is not part of that process. Perhaps they should be. It might save a lot of Court time and money.

They’ll get their day in Court- or if the evidence is overwhelming they’ll plea out or flip on other co-conspirators. We will see.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Jezcoe

Would you say that maybe a plot does not require you to act. It is the act of conspiring, in this case to commit sedition?

Well, yes and no. You’re not far off.

You are correct that in any sort of “conspiracy” offense, the act bring criminalized is the conspiring. But in the US, in almost all cases, a crime of conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.

I don’t know if it’s accurate to call the target offense “sedition,” either - the target offenses are laid out in the statute, and don’t fit the definition of “sedition.”

So would you say that the act of training, gathering weapons and attacking the Capitol was what brought about the charge by if they had simply talked about doing such things they would have not been charged with this crime?

Missing the word allegedly.

Sure.

But they do have the recordings of their conversations on Jan 6, their communications, the social media posts where they talked about the crimes, the pictures on social media where they showed the weapons cache and the video of them moving not very well disguised weapons into the motel.

So yes … allegedly…. But they have a ton of evidence that allowed them to bring this charge.

That’s what Prosecutors do … tell their side (and only their side) of the story to get an indictment. The Defense is not part of that process. Perhaps they should be. It might save a lot of Court time and money.

They do. It’s called a ‘trial’.

[Paul_Thomson]

@Orygun

They’ll get their day in Court- or if the evidence is overwhelming they’ll plea out or flip on other co-conspirators. We will see.

But you can assume they are guilty, because they’ve been indicted. Right?

[Samm]

@CanadianJudo

@zantax

@Orygun

First they are angry that the FBI caused January 6th. Now they are saying the FBI is incompetent for not having caught the seditioners beforehand.

Its almost as if they are throwing anything against the wall…

Hard to tell which it was when the FBI won’t answer questions.

Why should the FBI answer question not based in reality.

Why would the FBI answer questions they don’t want to answer? After all, they are beholding to no one.

[Orygun]

@Paul_Thomson

But you can assume they are guilty, because they’ve been indicted. Right?

Lots of evidence against them:

Rhodes: , “We will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them.”

[Samm]

@Orygun

@Samm

Then folks here should quit claiming that people have been charged with sedition, shouldn’t they.

Does seditious conspiracy sound less treasonous to you?

No. Treason is completely different animal.

[Orygun]

@Samm

No

Great.

[Samm]

@Orygun

@Samm

Fault for what?

“This wasn’t an insurrection!”

How does fault apply to that statement?

[Paul_Thomson]

@Orygun

Lots of evidence against them:

Rhodes: , “We will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them.”

Evidence of what? There is no context for that quote. Is it referring to some future need if the present Dem push for one party rule continues and is successful. Or is it referring to Let’s Go Brandon Day 2021?

[Samm]

@Orygun

@Samm

That’s what Prosecutors do … tell their side (and only their side) of the story to get an indictment. The Defense is not part of that process. Perhaps they should be. It might save a lot of Court time and money.

They’ll get their day in Court- or if the evidence is overwhelming they’ll plea out or flip on other co-conspirators. We will see.

Yes. So quit assuming guilt based on the indictment.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Jezcoe

Would you say that maybe a plot does not require you to act. It is the act of conspiring, in this case to commit sedition?

Well, yes and no. You’re not far off.

You are correct that in any sort of “conspiracy” offense, the act bring criminalized is the conspiring. But in the US, in almost all cases, a crime of conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.

I don’t know if it’s accurate to call the target offense “sedition,” either - the target offenses are laid out in the statute, and don’t fit the definition of “sedition.”

So would you say that the act of training, gathering weapons and attacking the Capitol was what brought about the charge by if they had simply talked about doing such things they would have not been charged with this crime?

Missing the word allegedly.

Sure.

But they do have the recordings of their conversations on Jan 6, their communications, the social media posts where they talked about the crimes, the pictures on social media where they showed the weapons cache and the video of them moving not very well disguised weapons into the motel.

So yes … allegedly…. But they have a ton of evidence that allowed them to bring this charge.

That’s what Prosecutors do … tell their side (and only their side) of the story to get an indictment. The Defense is not part of that process. Perhaps they should be. It might save a lot of Court time and money.

They do. It’s called a ‘trial’.

Same answer. Then quit assuming guilt based on the indictment.

[Samm]

@Orygun

@Paul_Thomson

But you can assume they are guilty, because they’ve been indicted. Right?

Lots of evidence against them:

Rhodes: , “We will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them.”

Did they?

[Orygun]

@Paul_Thomson

Evidence of what?

It’s part of numerous signal discussions Rhodes had with co-conspirators just after Biden won the election.

But here you can check out some of the mountain of evidence here…

Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for...

[Samm]

@Orygun

@Samm

No

Great.

Nice sidestep of the leap that you took to treason.

[Orygun]

@Samm

Yes. So quit assuming guilt based on the indictment.

You ever comment on any prior cases before a verdict here? Just checking.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

Where did that come from? I haven’t done anything of the sort.

You said:

@Samm

That’s what Prosecutors do … tell their side (and only their side) of the story to get an indictment. The Defense is not part of that process. Perhaps they should be. It might save a lot of Court time and money.

Prosecution v. Defense is a trial.

[Samm]

@Orygun

@Samm

Yes. So quit assuming guilt based on the indictment.

You ever comment on any prior cases before a verdict here? Just checking.

Comment, yes. Opine even. But I never assume guilt based on an indictment.

[Orygun]

Ha ha! Sure.