Jump to content

Oath Keepers Leader Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy


Rebound

Recommended Posts

“Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, and one of his subordinates were convicted on Tuesday of seditious conspiracy as a jury found them guilty of seeking to keep former President Donald J. Trump in power through a plot that started after the 2020 election and culminated in the mob attack on the Capitol.“

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/us/politics/oath-keepers-trial-verdict-jan-6.html

2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sedition, yet he will go to prison saying he is the "real hero" and society are the traitors. 😅

Remember the above mental trick when the metal door shuts on you, that goes for any idealist that is willing to do prison for his/her "boss". 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

A non-leftist's chances of getting a fair trial in Washington DC is about equivalent to a snowball's chance in Hell or for that matter getting a fair election in Arizona, Michigan or Pennsylvania.

IF ^this is true, the Oath Keepers were really foolish to plan a major crime there.

But the FACT is, there is a pile of evidence against Rhodes & Co of which you are obviously ignorant.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IF ^this is true, the Oath Keepers were really foolish to plan a major crime there.

But the FACT is, there is a pile of evidence against Rhodes & Co of which you are obviously ignorant.

He wanted his side to win but they lost.

Therefore, conspiracy.  
 

Its as true for Rhodes as it is for Fiddle and the rest of the right 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

A non-leftist's chances of getting a fair trial in Washington DC is about equivalent to a snowball's chance in Hell or for that matter getting a fair election in Arizona, Michigan or Pennsylvania.

If there was something unfair about his trial, he can appeal, can’t he? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, robosmith said:

But the FACT is, there is a pile of evidence against Rhodes & Co of which you are obviously ignorant.

Show me how anything Rhodes did was worse than what Ray Epps or The Scaffold Commander did. Those two weren't charged. The Commander wasn't even sufficiently investigated.

Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Show me how anything Rhodes did was worse than what Ray Epps or The Scaffold Commander did. Those two weren't charged. The Commander wasn't even sufficiently investigated.

Why not?

Ahh… good old “Whataboutism”.

What you should be asking is why hasn’t Trump been charged with seditious conspiracy, don’t you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Finding a term and defining it to fit your purposes doesn't apply here as being meaningful.

If there's one law for one group and a different one for a favored group that's wrong. That's not whataboutism.

That says the law is meaningless because this "EVIDENCE" you claimed existed doesn't. Because it only applies to a law that is not actually a law. 2 tier justice is not justice.

You can't minimalize that by thinking your clever just because you know a word and like to believe you can adjust it's meaning to suit your purpose. "Whataboutism" suggest that's all it is but in this case it isn't. The existence of contrary application of the law negates the usefulness of what you call your "EVIDENCE"

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

No. Finding a term and defining it to fit your purposes doesn't apply here as being meaningful.

If there's one law for one group and a different one for a favored group that's wrong. That's not whataboutism.

That says the law is meaningless because this "EVIDENCE" you claimed existed doesn't. Because it only applies to a law that is not actually a law. 2 tier justice is not justice.

You can't minimalize that by thinking you’re clever just because you know a word and like to believe you can adjust it's meaning to suit your purpose. "Whataboutism" suggest that's all it is but in this case it isn't. The existence of contrary application of the law negates the usefulness of what you call your "EVIDENCE"

Given the point that Rhodes was convicted, your response was, “Oh, what about Scaffold Man?”

That is the very definition of Whataboutism.  As for Ray Epps, he’s one of you people. You guys just decided to throw him under the bus for no reason. I think all those people who rioted on Jan 6, or who conspired, ought to be in jail for 20 years or more. They’ve so far charged several hundred and they have several hundred more to go.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

No. Finding a term and defining it to fit your purposes doesn't apply here as being meaningful.

If there's one law for one group and a different one for a favored group that's wrong. That's not whataboutism.

That says the law is meaningless because this "EVIDENCE" you claimed existed doesn't. Because it only applies to a law that is not actually a law. 2 tier justice is not justice.

You can't minimalize that by thinking your clever just because you know a word and like to believe you can adjust it's meaning to suit your purpose. "Whataboutism" suggest that's all it is but in this case it isn't. The existence of contrary application of the law negates the usefulness of what you call your "EVIDENCE"

Have you reviewed ALL of the evidence against Rhodes at his trial?

Where is YOUR EVIDENCE EQUAL to that against Ray Epps and Scaffold Commander?

Standing OUTSIDE the Capitol and urging others to go inside DOES NOT equal what the evidence against Rhodes SHOWS he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Recordings released to defense lawyers directly challenge assertions by prominent Republicans that an Arizona man named Ray Epps was a federal informant and helped start the Capitol riot.

Prominent Republicans — including former President Donald J. Trump — have for months promoted a conspiracy theory that an Arizona man named Ray Epps was a federal informant who helped to instigate the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The claims, made in congressional hearing rooms, on Fox News and at Mr. Trump’s political rallies, have largely been based on a video taken just before violence erupted at the Capitol, showing Mr. Epps at the barricades outside the building whispering into the ear of a man named Ryan Samsel.

Within moments of the brief exchange, Mr. Samsel, a Pennsylvania barber, can be seen moving forward and confronting the police in what amounted to the tipping point of the riot. Despite lacking proof for their claims, many Republicans have surmised that Mr. Epps instructed Mr. Samsel to antagonize the officers. They have also pushed the notion that because Mr. Epps has not been arrested, he must have been working for the government.

But for more than a year, well before the name Ray Epps was widely known in right-wing circles, federal authorities have had information — from both him and Mr. Samsel — suggesting that he was not a government agent and did not encourage the younger man to engage with the police that day.

Just two days after the attack, when Mr. Epps saw himself on a list of suspects from Jan. 6, he called an F.B.I. tip line and told investigators that he had tried to calm Mr. Samsel down when they spoke, according to three people who have heard a recording of the call. Mr. Epps went on to say that he explained to Mr. Samsel that the police outside the building were merely doing their jobs, the people said.

Understand the Events on Jan. 6

Timeline: On Jan. 6, 2021, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump raided the Capitol. Here is a close look at how the attack unfolded.

A Day of Rage: Using thousands of videos and police radio communications, a Times investigation reconstructed in detail what happened — and why.

Lost Lives: A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people died in connection with the attack.

Jan. 6 Attendees: To many of those who attended the Trump rally but never breached the Capitol, that date wasn’t a dark day for the nation. It was a new start.

Then in late January of last year, in an interview with the F.B.I., Mr. Samsel said much the same thing, telling investigators that a man he did not know came up to him at the barricades and suggested he relax, according to a recording of the interview obtained by The New York Times.

Dig deeper into the moment.

Special offer: Subscribe for $1 a week.

“He came up to me and he said, ‘Dude’ — his entire words were, ‘Relax, the cops are doing their job,’” Mr. Samsel said.

The theories surrounding Mr. Epps have been debunked before, most notably after he spoke last year to investigators working with the House select committee examining the Jan. 6 attack. During the interview, committee officials said, Mr. Epps said that he was not an F.B.I. informant and denied reports that he had urged protesters to go into the Capitol at the behest of federal law enforcement agencies.

Still, the rumors about him have persisted, becoming regular fodder for right-wing politicians and media figures.

Conspiracy theories ABOUND and DIE HARD.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Have you reviewed ALL of the evidence against Rhodes at his trial?

Like I said, "show me."

You obviously can't or you would have just done it. More likely you won't because you know if you do I'll show you how some don't get charged or even investigated for doing worse. So is it a crime you think you have evidence of or isn't it?

I say it isn't. You have evidence of a guy with a big mouth mouthing off. Nothing more.

Rhodes is no Ray Epps or Scaffold Commander. They actually incited rioters to enter the Capitol building and riot. Something the apologetic in last spring's Times R&R posted above forgot to mention.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Like I said, "show me."

You obviously can't or you would have just done it. More likely you won't because you know if you do I'll show you how some don't get charged or even investigated for doing worse. So is it a crime you think you have evidence of or isn't it?

I say it isn't. You have evidence of a guy with a big mouth mouthing off. Nothing more.

Rhodes is no Ray Epps or Scaffold Commander. They actually incited rioters to enter the Capitol building and riot. Something the apologetic in last spring's Times R&R posted above forgot to mention.

Did you even read AND UNDERSTAND the NYT article I posted? If you had, you would know ^this is FoS.

The reason I have not posted the trial evidence is because you can google it just as easily as I can IF you know how.

Of course I have heard a lot of it on the news, because I PAY ATTENTION. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Did you even read AND UNDERSTAND the NYT article I posted? If you had, you would know ^this is FoS.

Of course. Both times you or one of you 2 posted it. The last time it was pretty much destroyed with multiple clips showing multiple incidents of damning evidence the NY Times (a former newspaper), forgot or didn't want to mention.

Why do you keep posting that rag apologizing for obvious liars anyway? I'm thinking it's a diversion here so nobody will call you out on the fact what you're calling "evidence" against Rhodes is pretty much just a big mouth saying stupid things when he thought nobody that mattered was listening.

Nothing as bad as swamp agents, Ray Epps and the Scaffold Commander loudly inciting the crowd to storm the capitol building though.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Of course. Both times you or one of you 2 posted it. The last time it was pretty much destroyed with multiple clips showing multiple incidents of damning evidence the NY Times (a former newspaper), forgot or didn't want to mention.

Why do you keep posting that rag apologizing for obvious liars anyway? I'm thinking it's a diversion here so nobody will call you out on the fact what you're calling "evidence" against Rhodes is pretty much just a big mouth saying stupid things when he thought nobody that mattered was listening.

Nothing as bad as swamp agents, Ray Epps and the Scaffold Commander loudly inciting the crowd to storm the capitol building though.

WHERE is the "proof" you  CLAIM was posted?

I'll take the NYT over your "CLAIMS" any day.

See, your OPINION of the NYT really doesn't matter cause they have a LOT MORE credibility than you (or any other poster here).  Question is, do the sources YOU BELIEVE over the NYT have ANY credibility, or just right wing PROPAGANDA sites with NO REPUTATION for integrity?

How about you right click on the little curly arrow in the upper right corner, choose 'copy link' and POST IT HERE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Of course. Both times you or one of you 2 posted it. The last time it was pretty much destroyed with multiple clips showing multiple incidents of damning evidence the NY Times (a former newspaper), forgot or didn't want to mention.

Why do you keep posting that rag apologizing for obvious liars anyway? I'm thinking it's a diversion here so nobody will call you out on the fact what you're calling "evidence" against Rhodes is pretty much just a big mouth saying stupid things when he thought nobody that mattered was listening.

Nothing as bad as swamp agents, Ray Epps and the Scaffold Commander loudly inciting the crowd to storm the capitol building though.

Epps voluntarily testified under oath, under penalty of perjury, and stated that he was not an FBI informant. If such evidence comes to light, he faces perjury charges, a felony.  So there’s that. 
 

Mr. Samsel, the man who Epps whispered to on Jan 6, told the FBI that Epps told him, “Dude, relax, the cops are just doing their jobs.” And we know this because the FBI released tapes of these interviews.

Mr. Samsel also told the F.B.I. that “another person in the crowd outside the Capitol, Joseph Biggs, a leader of the far-right group the Proud Boys, also pulled him aside that day and spoke to him just before he confronted the officers.

While Mr. Biggs has denied the account, Mr. Samsel told investigators that Mr. Biggs encouraged him to push at the barricades and that when he hesitated, the Proud Boys leader flashed a gun, questioned his manhood and repeated his request.”

I get that you guys want to wrap a conspiracy inside a riddle inside a what-if… “He lied, and they threatened his family, so he lied, and there’s a conspiracy that they paid so and so and he lied, and a plane didn’t really hit the World Trade Center either…”

What makes a lot more sense is that the supremacist groups that made all sorts of threats and wore body armor and said they would kill Nancy and hang Mike Pence needed no FBI encouragement at all.  

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that's the trick, eh? Every time you post that opinionated apologetic for Epps and Samsel from the fishwrap of record you're going to want me go go through my bookmarks and show you all the clips you should have seen by now of Epps inciting the crowd to storm the capitol?

Hoping to wear me down, are you?

Very well, I'll give you one clip the propogandizers at NYT didn't show you at a time. And every time I do I'm going to demand you post at least one bit of all this "evidence" you say you have that Rhodes is more than just another loud mouth.

Fair warning, I've got a lot. I even have one from Nancy Pelosi's office window where Epps is up on the scaffold in front of the building as the Scaffold Commander shouts demanding the crowd storm through.

Here ya go then. Here's the first one your Progressive Socialist scandal sheet didn't tell you about.

It's a quick one just for a taste:

Your turn. Give us a bit of all this evidence you say you have that Rhodes is more than just another loud mouth, now. 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

So that's the trick, eh? Every time you post that opinionated apologetic for Epps and Samsel from the fishwrap of record you're going to want me go go through my bookmarks and show you all the clips you should have seen by now of Epps inciting the crowd to storm the capitol?

Hoping to wear me down, are you?

Very well, I'll give you one clip the propogandizers at NYT didn't show you at a time. And every time I do I'm going to demand you post at least one bit of all this "evidence" you say you have that Rhodes is more than just another loud mouth.

Fair warning, I've got a lot. I even have one from Nancy Pelosi's office window where Epps is up on the scaffold in front of the building as the Scaffold Commander shouts demanding the crowd storm through.

Here ya go then. Here's the first one your Progressive Socialist scandal sheet didn't tell you about.

It's a quick one just for a taste:

Your turn. Give us a bit of all this evidence you say you have that Rhodes is more than just another loud mouth, now. 

Here is the QUOTE from your video "evidence:"

Quote

Ray Epps urged protestors to go into the Capitol on the night of January 5, and whispered in Ryan Samsel's ear right before Samsel breeched the first perimeter barrier. Though initially on the FBI's 20 most wanted capitol suspects list, Epps has not been arrested, and is suspected of being an FBI provocateur.

So ALL you've got is SUSPICIONS.

AFAIK, the FBI does NOT employ "provocateur" It's not like that crowd needed any encouragement.

As far as evidence against Rhodes, HE WAS CONVICTED of FELONIES IN FEDERAL COURT.

I'm sure the transcript will be released soon if you can't find it.

 

 

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Here is the QUOTE from your video "evidence:"

So ALL you've got is SUSPICIONS.

AFAIK, the FBI does NOT employ "provocateur" It's not like that crowd needed any encouragement.

As far as evidence against Rhodes, HE WAS CONVICTED of FELONIES IN FEDERAL COURT.

I'm sure the transcript will be released soon if you can't find it.

 

 

WTF are you talking about. The video evidence I gave you is a video. There's nothing to quote. That video shows Ray Epps with the rioters smashing a billboard into a barricade.

As far as Rhodes goes, I'll stand by my claim that started this mess. No non-Progressive can get a fair trial in Washington DC -  neither with a judge nor with a jury. A conservative would have as good a chance of getting a fair trial in DC as you'd have of getting a fair election in Arizona.

Still waiting to see all your evidence Rhodes was something more than a loud mouth.

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

WTF are you talking about. The video evidence I gave you is a video. There's nothing to quote. That video shows Ray Epps with the rioters smashing a billboard into a barricade.

Read the DESCRIPTION below the video. Are you ASKING ME, why Epps was not charged?

Could be MANY reasons. Maybe he COOPERATED and helped identify and convict the LEADERS.

SOP, happens all the time.

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

As far as Rhodes goes, I'll stand by my claim that started this mess. No non-Progressive can get a fair trial in Washington DC -  neither with a judge nor with a jury. A conservative would have as good a chance of getting a fair trial in DC as you'd have of getting a fair election in Arizona.

Since there IS NO EVIDENCE the election in AZ was unfair, I guess I'll have to agree with ^this.

Not even the Cyber Ninjas found evidence the count in AZ was erroneous. LMAO.

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Still waiting to see all your evidence Rhodes was something more than a loud mouth.

Since your google is broken, here ya go.

I'm sure there'll be more when the trial transcripts are released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Read the DESCRIPTION below the video. Are you ASKING ME, why Epps was not charged?

Why are you calling that video evidence? You specifically said "video evidence." The video evidence shows Epps helping smash a billboard into a barricade. 

As to your link to a google search on Rhodes I already did that. What I'm waiting for is this evidence you say you saw that shows Rhodes is something more than a big mouth. Because if that's a crime there aren't enough jails to hold all the big mouths.

So, I'm still waiting. Can't find it, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why are you calling that video evidence? You specifically said "video evidence." The video evidence shows Epps helping smash a billboard into a barricade.

It's A DESCRIPTION of the video evidence YOU CITED. What is your point? That Epps was PART OF the insurrection?

That is OBVIOUS.

31 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

As to your link to a google search on Rhodes I already did that. What I'm waiting for is this evidence you say you saw that shows Rhodes is something more than a big mouth. Because if that's a crime there aren't enough jails to hold all the big mouths.

Conspiracy to commit a crime IS a crime. In Rhodes' case, MULTIPLE FELONIES. 

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

31 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

So, I'm still waiting. Can't find it, eh?

The trial just ended. I'm sure the transcripts will be available soon. Meanwhile plenty of evidence in the google search.

Maybe if you were paying attention to the news like I do, you wouldn't have to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,430
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    MaryAshleyy
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • ThoughtsOnThoughts earned a badge
      First Post
    • Mako earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Manymoons11 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mako went up a rank
      Rookie
    • kashanali897 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...