No. Planning to overthrow the government by force and taking steps to do that is the definition of seditious conspiracy. We know the definition and that they have indicted for it.
No one is questioning that.
This thread has taken a wild turn from the āLock her upā crowd.
2 Likes
Haā¦ someone is nervous
Here is Rhodesā lawyer.
He is using the āthey are delusional idiotsā defense.
I have my doubts it is going to go well for them at trial.
Whose government was being overthrown? Biden wasnāt even president on 6 Jan. Were Trump supporters overthrowing the Trump administration? Such an āinsurrectionā would be remarkable. Only progs slurping up a narrative till it drips from their chins would say such things.
1 Like
It all started with āherā. She poisoned the waters with her lies . The easy believers loved her so much that they hung on every slurred word out of her deranged head.
Always projection.
Always
Here is exactly the problem with using seditious conspiracy here from the viewpoint of the left. It not only criminalizes conspiracies to overthrow the government but also criminalizes those who conspire to hinder the execution of any law or to take federal property. It would be very easy to apply this same law to radical protesters throughout the country.
The entire civil rights protests could have been thrown in jail for seditious conspiracy.
1 Like
Why back in Dec of 2020 was the Trump White House publicly talking like there were legitimate alternate electors?
1 Like
That is a political disagreement over the legitimacy of an election. That happens all the time in this country.
For this myth of insurrection to be real, you need to show Bison man was seriously going to get rid of Congress and install himself as king, or something on that order.
We are criminalizing politics now.
2 Likes
Saying that there was a legitimate slate of alternate electors is not a political disagreementā¦ it is a bald faced lie.
Straw man
Lock Her Up
Did they lock her up?
Nopeā¦ because they couldnāt figure out what the actual crime was.
DIdnāt matter though.
It mattered to her.
Wow the lawyer is going with the they were delusional defense?
āIt was about their fanciful idea that the president was going to call them up under the insurrection act.ā
They thought that āTrump was going to activate them.ā
They were the heroes in the story that they were telling themselves.
No doubt- they were mainlining Tucker, Ingraham and Trump and were high as ā ā ā ā on the idea that they were refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
The actual release by the DOJ states that the charge is being brought not for trying to overthrow the government but for interfering with the enforcement of a lawā¦in this case the law for the peaceful transfer of power. So noā¦still no support for a legal allegation of insurrection.
The statute does make it illegal to conspire to interfere with the enforcement of a statute.
Now why would a leftist law scholar be opposed to using that law? (See my post and reference above).
You donāt think that law could be applied to those trying to interfere with ICE actions? What about those interfering with police when they enforce a riot act or try to clear an area of a protesting crowd? What about civil rights activists opposing laws they consider unfair?
If these people conspired to trespass on the Capitol to block an official proceeding, that charge would have been available. My guess, it was just considered politically advisable to get the word āseditionā in there.
1 Like
Seditious conspiracy has a very particular legal threshold for prosecutors to meet. If it was just politically advisable that would be stupid because a jury would say the prosecutors did not meet that threshold.
Did you notice he left out the part about them being FBI plantsā¦ very suspicious.
2 Likes
