Said Jeffrey S. Nestler, in the opening statement for the prosecution, quoted in "Prosecution Says Oath Keepers ‘Concocted a Plan for Armed Rebellion’ Defense lawyers said the far-right militia had assembled ahead of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol to await what they hoped would be a decision by Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act" (NYT).
If it was a plan for an armed rebellion, why weren't the protesters/revolutionaries using arms?
One answer is provided by the lawyer for the defense in his own opening statement:
... Phillip Linder, [the defendant Stewart] Rhodes’s lawyer, said Mr. Rhodes and his subordinates had never planned an attack against the government on Jan. 6. Instead, Mr. Linder said, the Oath Keepers were waiting for Mr. Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act — a move, they claim, that would have given the group standing as a militia to employ force of arms in support of Mr. Trump.
This is a delicate position to defend. It concedes that there was a plan to use force to engage in a military fight, but it was conditional on an action by Trump that would supposedly have legalized their fighting.
Calling the Oath Keepers a “peacekeeping force,” Mr. Linder also argued that the group did not go to Washington on Jan. 6 to storm the Capitol but to provide security at political rallies for speakers and dignitaries, like Roger J. Stone Jr., Mr. Trump’s longtime political adviser.
“Even though it may look inflammatory,” Mr. Linder told the jury, “they did nothing illegal.”
But they didn't peacefully await Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act or restrict themselves to providing security. According to the prosecutor Nestler, "more than a dozen members of the Oath Keepers advanced in military-style “stacks” into the Capitol itself — with some moving off in search of Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
There are 5 defendants, Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins and Thomas Caldwell. (Watkins is "a former Army Ranger and a transgender woman who had repeatedly struggled to fit in with the Oath Keepers.")
I'm not clear on whether any of the defendants entered the building. The NYT says, "the trial is less likely to focus on disputes over what the group did in the days and weeks leading up to Jan. 6 than it is to hinge on the question of why they did it."
The defense maintains that the Oath Keepers could not have seditiously sought to stop the transfer of power because they believed that the Insurrection Act would allow them to legally come to Mr. Trump’s aid....
ADDED: Did Trump ever talk about invoking the Insurrection Act? I see that during the riots in the summer of 2020, Trump said:
“Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled. If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.... I am mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans”...
A political commentator quoted in the Washington Post interpreted that statement to refer to invoking the Insurrection Act. I blogged about that here. At the time, Trump was criticized by Joe Biden for threatening to go military on the rioters. By the way, George W. Bush was criticized for not invoking the Insurrection Act after Hurricane Katrina. Blogged here.
So in recent years the Insurrection Act has been talked about as a way to deal with widespread disorder. Are the Oath Keepers in the present case saying they saw themselves as a potential security force if the peaceful protest broke into disorder, and they were simply ready to augment law enforcement, if the President called them into action?
Posts
78 comments:
Why were the National Guard not deployed? Smells like a set up. Heavily unarmed in typical military combat "style". Shiver me timbers.
Conspiracy requires the underlying crime to be committed or attempted by at least one conspirator. I'm struggling how the actions constitute the underlying crime.
" ... more than a dozen members of the Oath Keepers advanced in military-style 'stacks' ... "
Shouldn't we be embarrassed that the US Government is admitting that "more than a dozen" (13? 15?" Certainly, fewer than "almost two dozen") largely unarmed and poorly organized people came close to bringing down the entire US government? For perspective, the same group would likely have failed miserably had tried to board an airplane sitting at the gate of a major US airport.
There are 5 defendants .... I'm not clear on whether any of the defendants entered the building.
It will be interesting to see whether any FBI agents had infiltrated the Oath Keepers.
Conspiracy to commit law and order.
The tradition of massive fraud in elections is recent. The Constitution provides for evaluating fraud on January 6th, and since every court declined to get involved that must be the place for it.
My impression of the oath keepers is that they're nuts with fixation on being upright people in some visionary world.
A real world defense would have to bend things a lot to hook into the real world. A better defense is dismissing it as a political show trial, which it is.
They are lying as usual. It's the only way they have to win because everybody knows the left are the Radical RACISTS they claim everyone else is. THEY have a problem, yet the Propagandists in the media hide it from the masses. If there REALLY was an insurrection, show ALL the video and let US decide. Stop cherry picking it to fit YOUR agenda.
It's too bad that the prosecution could not point to some QAnon message signaling some Insurrection Act directive.
While "Q drops" became less frequent over the course of 2020, they stopped altogether on December 8, after "Q" posted a since-deleted pro-Trump YouTube video.
I myself have not confirmed that October 8 date. In general, though, QAnon stopped posting regularly in about 2019.
======
If you browse through a lot of Internet articles about QAnon, you will see quickly that a main idea is that QAnon supposedly is the Internet discussions about QAnon. So, if some people discuss QAnon on the Internet and some of those people propose some conspiracy, then that suggested theory is "a QAnon conspiracy theory".
In other words, the conspiracy theory was not proposed by QAnon himself in some QAnon post. Rather, the conspiracy theory was proposed by someone else, who frequents Internet discussions about QAnon.
In fact, QAnon himself never proposed any conspiracy theories himself. Rather, he only encouraged his readers to trust and support President Trump.
Hope is not a plan.
The transferal of power to Trump was NOT peaceful. Remember quite a few Progressives REFUSED to go to his Inauguration, and their little brown shirts rioted, looted and burned down limos and attacked people who went TO the Inauguration. WHY weren't THEY charged with insurrection??
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-inauguration-protest-damages-downtown-washington/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-inauguration-boycott-protest-congress/513623/
Insurrection? How about charging someone with it.
Compare to the J6 protesters....
https://neonnettle.com/features/1950-flashback-democrats-rioted-and-attacked-trump-supporters-during-trump-s-inauguration
That limo burning in connecticut avenue in 2017 was mostly peaceful
That custom is destroying government computers because you believe the incoming President was selected not elected? Or is it using our intelligence community to spy on the incoming administration and to entrap their replacement intelligence chief by claiming he lied to the FBI? I know it isn’t because people debated the certification of the electoral college that has been going on for decades whenever Republicans won the Presidential election.
If the case is being tried in Washington, then they will be found guilty regardless of the facts.
The prosecutor goes broad: "bedrock of democracy". The defense goes narrow, the specifics of the moment. I guess that's lawyer-speak. They'll lose, though, if they don't frame broadly. Take down that simp. You want to argue peaceful transfer of power? Let's talk Russiagate. But the entire system is designed for background motivation to be irrelevant.
How should a patriotic group defend their country against truly illegitimate presidential elections in several states, when the political class, the judiciary and the media won’t rise to do the same?
Pick and choose your rules. Move the goalposts. Fabricate whatever you need to advance your position. This has been the norm across the country and the world for a generation. The Oath Keepers may or may not be guilty here (I need the facts). They surely learned this strategy from Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama, James Comey, and the 51 intelligence officials who said the Hunter Biden story was fake.
[I exclude Trump because I don't believe that he ever understood the nuances of law or political diplomacy. He just DID things, and was perhaps copied by the Oath Keepers here.]
The Roman emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned, or he actually went to the beach and arranged for others to burn down all the buildings in an area that he wanted to redevelop. Would Nero be into blowing up gas pipelines too?
Also, as noted by Glenn Reynolds, where were these arms? A person was shot, but by the government. A woman was beaten, by the government. And tear gas and pepper spray was deployed, by the government. I’m hearing about arms by the government, but not an armed rebellion. Are cameras and selfie sticks armament now?
" ... more than a dozen members of the Oath Keepers advanced in military-style 'stacks' ... "
Did they mean slacks? I don’t know what a military stack is. Either way, stacks or slacks, none are armament.
The Oath Keepers are a tiny delusional group of middle-aged men who did not even enter the capitol. They are less than a gnat around an elephant. I am reminded of a party I was at and a woman started wailing about a huge spider on the carpet--it was half of a red grape. When we pointed out that it was a grape, she kept wailing. Same here. Almost 2 years to bring them to trial? huh
Not having the national guard was for sure a setup.
Wake me up when the jury reaches a verdict. Until then, it's just so much noise.
Errr, eh, where were the "arms" that were to have been employed by those inside the Capitol? Or are we referring to "bare" arms for this one?
"Darren Beattie’s article contains highlights of yesterday’s debate on Rep Gosar’s resolution directing DOJ to give Congress the information DOJ has on January 6th organizer Ray Epps. Why are Democrats defending the person who said 'Go INTO the Capitol!'"
- Rep. Thomas Massie
"Epps is the smoking gun."
(30 sec video of Epps)
- Darren Beattie
"J6 committee leader calls Ray Epps 'poor schmuck' who is 'just trying to survive.'"
- Cernovich
"Rep. Raskin seems to suggest he doesn't even know who Ray Epps is. Raskin is on the disgraced Jan 6 Committee. They want you to forget about Epps and the Pipe Bomber."
(30 sec video of Massie/Rankin)
- Darren Beattie
(Apologies for wall of links. Just want to illustrate that Democrats don't believe their own "insurrection" story. Their defense and misdirection away from Epps is so crude that it's practically a confession.)
Either way, the 'damage' done by those walking through the Capitol on January 6, 2021 pales in comparison to the arranged and encouraged riots which covered the entire country in the summer of 2020. Outrage enflamed by professionals, both in the media and political class. It spawned an entire industry. And it destroyed businesses, murdered people, destroyed entire sections of cities and neighborhoods. Backed, marketed, kept up by the Democrats and their media divisions. Coincidentally, the very same people perpetrating this theater on us now.
One of these things- January 6 or the George Floyd Riots- are empirically far worse than the other. By an order of magnitude. The entire Outrage over January 6 is just so much theater. Never in my life have I seen so many politicos with a history of denigrating our country and it's citizens, suddenly finding their patriotism come alive when they know they can play it up to alter not just one- but two elections if possible.
This is theater. A real insurrection would be felt by all and it would not require a constant debate on the nuances of walking through the Capitol and what it really meant. There is nothing nuanced about an actual insurrection, just as there is nothing nuanced about what took place in the summer of 2020, and the visible remains scattered in cities across our country.
That there is so much fear of a person even saying out loud that they have doubts about the outcome of the 2020 election tells me all I need to know. They protest too much. Well beyond the actual incident.
As for the plan for an armed attacked... too bad there weren't any wheelchair bound armless idividuals who rolled their way into the building through an ADA compliant entrance.
Is a DC jury really a jury of their peers?
Fantasyland. One big pretend attack put together by the CIA players for taking over a country. It’s like a Punch and Judy declaring Poland attacked Germany first. No wonder all Trump voters are now being declared criminals by the brain dead Biden.
Derp State sucks.
I see I missed references… ack.
"If it was a plan for an armed rebellion, why weren't the protesters/revolutionary using arms?"
It was the first #Insurrection in history in which the insurrectionists were unarmed.
"had never planned an attack against the government on Jan. 6"
Would exactly would an "attack against the government" in the form of unarmed entry in the Capitol look like? How does that attack "the government"?
"According to the prosecutor Nestler, "more than a dozen members of the Oath Keepers advanced in military-style “stacks” into the Capitol itself — with some moving off in search of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.""
So searching for an office is an attack against the government?
Actual congressional offices have been occupied by actual protesters before. To my knowledge, none has been charged with an "attack on the government" or any crime at all.
If it was a plan for an armed rebellion, why weren't the protesters/revolutionary using arms?
Because we said so. (Get back in line, bigot...!)
I am still shocked - as I was that day - that the U.S. Capitol did not have something as simple as steel shutters to close all entry ways. Good thing the real terrorists didn't know that. (Does it have them now?)
Some people behaved badly - but most of it was a set-up.
Look how the left are treating Roy Epps.
There is video of him telling people to "go into the capitol" all over the place.
There is video of Trump supporters begging for police to step in.
Why were people allowed into the capitol at all?
There was (gone now) video (I watched it) of capitol police letting people in.
Sort of like the election itself. The left had to close down the vote count in targeted states in order to make sure Biden "got" ahead in the vote totals.
Whole nations count their votes same day. We used to! Now that the left need to cheat to win, they need extra day to do their dirty work.
but it's a mind crime to think such a thing.
You cannot attempt to make sense of what goes on in a show trial.
This is the future of America - a Soviet-esque dictatorship run by a junta - unless we run these ratfucking weasels out of our public Capitol city.
Start in November.
Here in CO - actual criminals have been let out of prison early by gov Polis'(D) executive order. Most have gone on to do what they know - which is crime..
There are people who wandered into the Capitol building - stood there, took a few photos and then left - and they are being criminally charged. Some have ended their own lives over the Putin-esque Soviet-like destruction of their lives
Are there SIGNS outside the capitol building that state it is private property? No one allowed in?
All I know is that I'm scratching off DC from my bucket list. They may let me in a building and then who knows what can happen after.
You're still going to vote for the democrats, though. No matter how they trample the constitution, people's rights, election laws... doesn't matter, you're still going to vote for the people that hate the idea of America, you're still going to vote for the people who want to destroy the idea of freedom, you're still going to vote for the people grooming children.
Temujin - worth a double post!
Some people behaved badly - but most of it was a set-up.
Look how the left are treating Roy Epps.
There is video of him telling people to "go into the capitol" all over the place.
There is video of Trump supporters begging for police to step in.
Why were people allowed into the capitol at all?
There was (gone now) video (I watched it) of capitol police letting people in.
Sort of like the election itself. The left had to close down the vote count in targeted states in order to make sure Biden "got" ahead in the vote totals.
Whole nations count their votes same day. We used to! Now that the left need to cheat to win, they need extra days to do their dirty work.
Now it's a mind crime to think such a thing.
Political prisoners all. Why hasn’t the video been released. Since when is an unarmed “rebellion” become a huge threat when ONLY the capital police murdered a protestor.
There were violent protests in Washington DC on Inauguration Day in 2017. It's not hard to see how absence of a strong police presence on such a day could have generated an "insurrection."
I don't know if there were street protests on count day that year (January 6th, 2017), but I did find video of Biden presiding over the joint session of Congress. He was reading everything off a piece of paper, but he was more coherent and made fewer mistakes than he did even 3 years later, let alone today.
Trump was a fool to hold a rally in DC on that day.
Or was it something else he had in mind? Why did he wait four hours to tell his misguided supporters to go home?
I thought Trump was totally ineffective--or worse--at dealing with the fallout of a very strange election, where his opponents were much better organized than he was. They shredded his feeble attempts to put a competent legal team together. Why didn't he have is own vote harvesting operation? Didn't the 2018 election teach him anything?
Remember, they have a DC jury.
Loved your content, read this also you will find some interesting things about Phool Makhana
Loved your content, read this also you will find some interesting things about Phool Makhana
Nancy Pelosi planned the invasion. The FBI carried out the plan using Ray Epps and others. The doors to the Capitol are like bank vault doors. They can only be opened from a remote location or by using explosives. Someone opened those doors to let the crowd in. The few broken windows could have been protected by the Capitol Police, but they didn't.
Poor Ray Epps. Forced to go into hiding because he was part of a conspiracy to invade the Capitol. But, the Democrat Congress isn't interested in hearing from him and the FBI will not say if he is an confidential informant or not.
They can force the incident through any distorting prism they want, as is obvious. But what is also obvious is that the prosecution of misdemeanor crimes by imprisonment until trial of citizens with no past criminal record, using highly politically-skewed juries, manufactured evidence, and the deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence, are all hallmarks of a deeply unfair system. This is what the American people are seeing, a ruthless application of political power on display, using a judicial system that is constitutionally premised as being fair and impartial. They will not forget what is being done to these people, because at the same time they are watching hardened, violent, repeat felony offenders walking out of jail for known, documented violent crimes where people died at their hands, directly.
Temujin @7:47, excellent comment.
During the summer of 2020 BLM and antifa rioters killed people and destroyed downtowns. Democrat leaders encouraged them and paid to release them.
Unarmed people who are seen on video being encouraged to enter the Capital were shot, beaten and held in prison for two years.
The double-standard is obvious. These hypocrite politicians and their media circus trials disgust me.
Static Ping said...
If the case is being tried in Washington, then they will be found guilty regardless of the facts.
Yup. Beat me to it.
A DC jury?
They are so fucked.
Mike @ 8:44 knows the score...it was a setup and the rubes walked into it.
What's lost in all the noise (purposefully) is the fact that the election was rigged.
France can get same-day results, and even Brazil.
Here? Cheating takes time...
Florida 2000 may have inadvertently created a judicial defacto zero tolerance for election fraud claims. What was likely in the chief justice mind when fraud claims popped up again.
The good news: Florida 2000 was clean beyond a reasonable doubt.
The bad news: Florida 2000 was clean beyond a reasonable doubt.
An “armed insurrection” where no one brought any guns? That’s quaint. This in a nation where by most estimates there are at least 100 million more guns than people.
But I agree with the commentators upthread who point out that it’s a Washington, DC, jury (and Washington, DC judge for that matter), ergo the fix is in and these defendants are about to be railroaded into jail. So much for the Rule of Law in the era of Joe Biden.
What's the over/under on a DC jury voting to convict on all counts with less than 30 minutes of deliberation?
Point one:
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Audit the vote.
Point two:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Arms capable but not present.
Americans swear an oath to the Constitution, and by force of Constitution the president who upholds the principles. Democrats are accusing Americans of following the law.
“This is what the American people are seeing, a ruthless application of political power on display, using a judicial system that is constitutionally premised as being fair and impartial.”
This doesn’t speak for the American people ( the ones whose votes went to electing the current president)who saw with their own eyes an attempted coup on January 6th. These Americans don’t like having thugs storm the Capital trying to the certification of the electoral vote, a Constitutional procedure in the transfer of power.
Speaking of the judicial system, more than half of Americans don’t like having rights taken away from them.
The Leftwing DOJ with Biden's Gestapo, are going after Rightwing protesters and trying to imprison them. They refuse to arrest or investigate Antifa or BLM and THEIR violence. The defendants can't get a fair trial in DC. Everyone knows it. Republican Pols get a fair trial. The juries are biased. DC votes 93% Democrat.
Why dont' the Republicans congresss make an issue of it? Get the federal trials OUT of DC!
What this Insurrection Act defense amounts to is this: the Oath Keepers are saying they brought their weapons for the coup that didn’t happen, not for the riot to punish Pence, McCarthy, and McConnell for not supporting the coup. That may be true, but is it a defense to the charge of seditious conspiracy?
Firearms were left in VA, across the river and outside DC, because DC has draconian antigun laws that can put the non-permitted possessor of a bangstick in prison for years without regard to any intent or action.
"Ever since our government transferred power from George Washington to John Adams in the year 1797, we have had a core custom of routine and peaceful transfer of power...."
"These defendants tried to change that history. They concocted a plan for an armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of democracy."
No, the Democrats did that with their anti-Trump "Russian Collusion" Hoax and coup / #Resistance against the Trump Administration
Left Bank of the Charles said...
What this Insurrection Act defense amounts to is this: the Oath Keepers are saying they brought their weapons for the coup that didn’t happen, not for the riot to punish Pence, McCarthy, and McConnell for not supporting the coup. That may be true, but is it a defense to the charge of seditious conspiracy?
"Conspiring" to help the President enforce the law is not a criminal activity.
Any more than "conspiring" to take advantage of tax law changes that you expect to be passed is not tax fraud.
But they didn't peacefully await Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act or restrict themselves to providing security. According to the prosecutor Nestler, "more than a dozen members of the Oath Keepers advanced in military-style “stacks” into the Capitol itself — with some moving off in search of Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
Oh! "military-style 'stacks'"!
This is what you say when you're completely full of shit. "They walked together"
They wandered around looking for Pelosi?
1: Proof for this claim?
2: Were they planning on doing anything illegal if they found her? If so, what, and what's the proof for this claim?
I wouldn't mind finding Pelosi and getting to tell her what a garbage person she is. I'm sure the fascists of the Left would like to make that a crime, but I'm pretty sure that's still protected by the 1st Amendment
Howard said...
Wake me up when the jury reaches a verdict. Until then, it's just so much noise.
So, Howard thinks the charges are total garbage, and doesn't think he can defend any of them
Good to know
What is the applicable law here? What is the judge going to charge the jury on with respect to the intent required to convict for seditious conspiracy? It seems like the prosecution and the defense have very different ideas about the relevant law. Isn’t the judge supposed to clarify that before the trial starts so they know what the have to prove at trial?
Anyone who asserts the January 06 nitwits constituted an "armed insurrection" trying to take over the government is a lamebrain or a liar. They were a just a rabble of Trump's die-hard dunces and jerkoffs, teeming into D.C. like a pack of virgin boys on their first visit to a brothel: they didn't know quite what they were going to see or do or how they would do it. They just gawked at their surroundings as they stumbled haphazardly after one another, expecting and hoping satisfying excitement of some kind would ensue.
It's a DC trial. The guilty verdict is pre-ordained. The culture of corruption.
Are the Oath Keepers in the present case saying they saw themselves as a potential security force if the peaceful protest broke into disorder, and they were simply ready to augment law enforcement, if the President called them into action?
Sounds familiar:
“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened.
“But here’s a guy that says, you know, ‘I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent’ – he used the word ‘independent’ – ‘and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
Our crying congress, and it's barking harridans of revenge porn.
It's a DC judge and a DC jury. They're guilty of whatever the prosecution cares to charge them with. The judge may even throw in a few extras, which the jury will be happy to affirm.
It was probably not a great idea to establish a small quasi-state whose only industry is government. The Founders did not want the government to reside in any particular State, as they feared it would naturally favor the interests of that State. But it did not occur to them that they were creating a monster that favors its own interests over those of all the States.
Firearms were left in VA, across the river and outside DC, because DC has draconian antigun laws …
How draconian? You can do serious jail time for having an empty shotgun shell or cartridge case in your car. Doesn’t stop inner city teenagers from owning and using fully automatic AKs to settle disputes.
This doesn’t speak for the American people ( the ones whose votes went to electing the current president)who saw with their own eyes an attempted coup on January 6th.
Inga "saw" what she wanted to see. All those "votes" had a lot of absentee help.
What this Insurrection Act defense amounts to is this: the Oath Keepers are saying they brought their weapons for the coup that didn’t happen, not for the riot to punish Pence, McCarthy, and McConnell for not supporting the coup
But they didn't bring weapons no matter how you and Inga wish it had been true. This was a demonstration egged on by the FBI and aided by Pelosi's Capitol Police.
Law and consensual religion. Riot and disorder. Chaos and order, albeit unpredictable outside of a limited frame of reference. An oath taken to uphold the Constitution, less the now nonviable Twilight Amendment, stand with a president who follows principles. Following the precedents of civil rights.
Pointing to the 1797 Washington-Adams transition as a model for all the peaceful transitions that supposedly followed ignores the fact that Washington and Adams were both Federalists and that Adams was Washington's anointed presidential heir. Much more sensible to consider the transition of 1800 where Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican defeated the Federalist Adams and the transition was much more difficult. With Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College, the election shifted to the House, where supporters of the top three electoral vote winners (Jefferson, Burr, and Adams) jockeyed for position, hoping to affirm Jefferson's popular vote victory or to dislodge him.
The election may have ended with a peaceful transition from Adams to Jefferson, but it didn't happen as smoothly as most people assume. From the Encyclopedia of Virginia:
"Democratic-Republican governors were incensed, and reports suggested that some were ready to march with their militias if the Federalists stole the election from Jefferson. In a letter to Jefferson, dated March 21, 1801, Governor Thomas McKean of Pennsylvania described his plan to use the Pennsylvania militia to arrest for treason anyone involved in what Jefferson had previously termed a “usurpation.” In a letter to Governor James Monroe of Virginia, dated February 11, 1801, Samuel Tyler, observing the debate on Monroe’s behalf, told the governor that Pennsylvania already had 22,000 men ready to take up arms and that Virginia should be ready for action, including secession, if the Federalists tried to steal the election. In response to such rumors, the Washington Federalist openly boasted that any effort by Republicans to use force against the Constitution would be met by 60,000 trained militia men from Massachusetts who could easily defeat the untrained mob from Pennsylvania and Virginians practicing military maneuvers with “cornstalks.”
"Ever since our government transferred power from George Washington to John Adams in the year 1797, we have had a core custom of routine and peaceful transfer of power...."
"These defendants tried to change that history. They concocted a plan for an armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of democracy."
The hyperbole and ignorance of history with this statement is astounding. I can't help but wonder what the Democrat Party's reaction to the first Republican candidate being elected to the Presidency is supposed to be characterized as. A "mostly peaceful" protest? Standing up for a "lost cause"? A minor disagreement over who should run the country?
If 600,000 dead Americans is part of a "core custom of routine and peaceful transfer of power", shouldn't what happened on January 6th be considered a mere nosebleed?
"How draconian? You can do serious jail time for having an empty shotgun shell or cartridge case in your car. Doesn’t stop inner city teenagers from owning and using fully automatic AKs to settle disputes."
Yes, and driving home in NJ from the gun range with a pistol locked in a steel safe inside your trunk will get you more time than someone shooting a 7-11 clerk with a stolen gun.
I always have an immediate suspicion of anyone attempting to persuade by starting out with George Washington. (Or Lincoln, or Einstein.) They are pushing emotional and social buttons, not intellectual ones, generally.
““Conspiring" to help the President enforce the law is not a criminal activity.”
Nothing could possibly be criminal about using the Insurrection Act to deputize a private militia group like the Oath Keepers?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
““Conspiring" to help the President enforce the law is not a criminal activity.”
Nothing could possibly be criminal about using the Insurrection Act to deputize a private militia group like the Oath Keepers?
If the Insurrection Act gives the President that power, then of course there is nothing criminal about the President using it.
You are welcome to make the case that the Insurrection Act could not have given President Trump the power to do what they thought it could do.
But if you can't make that case "beyond a reasonable doubt", then they're not guilty of any crime.
Post a Comment