January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Remember when Salty's position was that no one had been charged with sedition?

How many have been charged with sedition ? How many convicted ?

How many have been charged with starting or participating in an insurrection ? How many convicted ?

Did a judge rule that Trump was involved in an insurrection?

[old salt]

Remember when Salty's position was that no one had been charged with sedition?

How many have been charged with sedition ? How many convicted ?

How many have been charged with starting or participating in an insurrection ? How many convicted ?

Did a judge rule that Trump was involved in an insurrection?

State judges opinion In a civil suit. Let's see what the appeals courts rule.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Remember when Salty's position was that no one had been charged with sedition?

How many have been charged with sedition ? How many convicted ?

How many have been charged with starting or participating in an insurrection ? How many convicted ?

Did a judge rule that Trump was involved in an insurrection?

State judges opinion In a civil suit. Let's see what the appeals courts rule.

So the answer is YES.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

[old salt]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

I scanned that list, but am not curious enough to wade through it in detail.

Since you are making the accusation of "insurrection", you should tell us how many times the charges listed include "insurrection" or even "seditious conspiracy".

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

I scanned that list, but am not curious enough to wade through it in detail.

Since you are making the accusation of "insurrection", you should tell us how many times the charges listed include "insurrection" or even "seditious conspiracy".

People in the judicial system are making those claims. I just read the articles like you do.

[RedFromMI]

Remember when Salty's position was that no one had been charged with sedition?

How many have been charged with sedition ? How many convicted ?

How many have been charged with starting or participating in an insurrection ? How many convicted ?

Did a judge rule that Trump was involved in an insurrection?

State judges opinion In a civil suit. Let's see what the appeals courts rule.

So the answer is YES.

Not the only ruling of that type - CO court case on 14th amendment also found that Trump engaged in an insurrection. More to the point of the upcoming SC case.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

Old Salt believes those good old boys and gals are getting a raw deal. The BLM folks got off easy.

[old salt]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

Old Salt believes those good old boys and gals are getting a raw deal. The BLM folks got off easy.

So if I read the above correctly, that's 4 for seditious conspiracy & 0 mentioning "insurrection". Right ?

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

Old Salt believes those good old boys and gals are getting a raw deal. The BLM folks got off easy.

So if I read the above correctly, that's 4 for seditious conspiracy & 0 mentioning "insurrection". Right ?

No, those are just some of the more prominent such. And Kelly Meggs. And Ethan Nordean. All convicted of seditious conspiracy. And Jeremy Bertino plead guilty to seditious conspiracy.

Here's another 4:

Roberto Minuta, 39, of Prosper, Texas, was sentenced June 1 to 54 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Edward Vallejo, 64, of Phoenix, Arizona, was sentenced on June 1 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, including the first 12 months to be served on home confinement.

David Moerschel, 45, of Punta Gorda, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Joseph Hackett, 53, of Sarasota, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 42 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

The four defendants were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties on Jan. 23, following a seven-week trial. Hackett was also found guilty of destruction of evidence.



Note:
Today’s verdict follows the Nov. 29, 2022, seditious conspiracy conviction of Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and Kelly Meggs – two leaders of the Oath Keepers. Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson, and Thomas Caldwell were also convicted of related felony charges in that first trial. All nine defendants were indicted as part of the same conspiracy on Jan. 12, 2022.

Seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct Congress, obstruction of Congress, and destruction of evidence all carry a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. All charges carry potential financial penalties. The court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta will schedule sentencing hearings at a later date.


You do realize that's a whole lot of seditious a-holes, right? And others plead out to lesser charges to avoid as much jail time?

Trump has been adjudicated by a court to have engaged in insurrection, but he was not criminally tried on that charge, at last not yet....the charges against him, currently, are easier to prove than that one. But they're quite serious.

[old salt]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

Old Salt believes those good old boys and gals are getting a raw deal. The BLM folks got off easy.

So if I read the above correctly, that's 4 for seditious conspiracy & 0 mentioning "insurrection". Right ?

No, those are just some of the more prominent such. And Kelly Meggs. And Ethan Nordean. All convicted of seditious conspiracy. And Jeremy Bertino plead guilty to seditious conspiracy.

Here's another 4:

Roberto Minuta, 39, of Prosper, Texas, was sentenced June 1 to 54 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Edward Vallejo, 64, of Phoenix, Arizona, was sentenced on June 1 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, including the first 12 months to be served on home confinement.

David Moerschel, 45, of Punta Gorda, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Joseph Hackett, 53, of Sarasota, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 42 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

The four defendants were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties on Jan. 23, following a seven-week trial. Hackett was also found guilty of destruction of evidence.



Note:
Today’s verdict follows the Nov. 29, 2022, seditious conspiracy conviction of Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and Kelly Meggs – two leaders of the Oath Keepers. Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson, and Thomas Caldwell were also convicted of related felony charges in that first trial. All nine defendants were indicted as part of the same conspiracy on Jan. 12, 2022.

Seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct Congress, obstruction of Congress, and destruction of evidence all carry a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. All charges carry potential financial penalties. The court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta will schedule sentencing hearings at a later date.


You do realize that's a whole lot of seditious a-holes, right? And others plead out to lesser charges to avoid as much jail time?

Trump has been adjudicated by a court to have engaged in insurrection, but he was not criminally tried on that charge, at last not yet....the charges against him, currently, are easier to prove than that one. But they're quite serious.

Yes, I understand all that. But a seditious conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy to conduct an insurrection -- an action to seize control of a government. Adjudication in a civil suit in a state court is a far cry from a conviction, let alone a charge, of conspiring or conducting an insurrection.
If Trump was fomenting, promoting, advocating or conducting an insurrection, Jack Smith should have charged, or even accused him of such.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

Old Salt believes those good old boys and gals are getting a raw deal. The BLM folks got off easy.

So if I read the above correctly, that's 4 for seditious conspiracy & 0 mentioning "insurrection". Right ?

No.

[RedFromMI]

[stuff omitted]

Yes, I understand all that. But a seditious conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy to conduct an insurrection -- an action to seize control of a government. Adjudication in a civil suit in a state court is a far cry from a conviction, let alone a charge, of conspiring or conducting an insurrection.
If Trump was fomenting, promoting, advocating or conducting an insurrection, Jack Smith should have charged, or even accused him of such.

No.

Trump was fomenting, promoting, and advocating for an insurrection by his actions before and during Jan. 6. But the _criminal_ code does not have that exact charge.

The Colorado judge when the lawsuit was brought to remove Trump from the Colorado primary ballot for taking part in an insurrection did in fact make a legal determination that Trump did take part in an insurrection, but punted the issue of whether the amendment specifically applied to him. The appeals process overturned the application part, but not the finding of fact (Trump did the insurrection). That is why this heads to the SC.

What Jack Smith should charge Trump with is anything he thinks he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury - and if that does not include seditious conspiracy, I am fine with that. I side with the more than one judge who has determined there was an insurrection and Trump was part of it.

[old salt]

[stuff omitted]

Yes, I understand all that. But a seditious conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy to conduct an insurrection -- an action to seize control of a government. Adjudication in a civil suit in a state court is a far cry from a conviction, let alone a charge, of conspiring or conducting an insurrection.
If Trump was fomenting, promoting, advocating or conducting an insurrection, Jack Smith should have charged, or even accused him of such.

No.

Trump was fomenting, promoting, and advocating for an insurrection by his actions before and during Jan. 6. But the _criminal_ code does not have that exact charge.

The Colorado judge when the lawsuit was brought to remove Trump from the Colorado primary ballot for taking part in an insurrection did in fact make a legal determination that Trump did take part in an insurrection, but punted the issue of whether the amendment specifically applied to him. The appeals process overturned the application part, but not the finding of fact (Trump did the insurrection). That is why this heads to the SC.

What Jack Smith should charge Trump with is anything he thinks he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury - and if that does not include seditious conspiracy, I am fine with that. I side with the more than one judge who has determined there was an insurrection and Trump was part of it.

No. That's what you & 5 CO state court judges think. BFD. Let's see what the Supremes think.

If Jack Smith could bring charges that include the word "insurrection", he surely would.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

Old Salt believes those good old boys and gals are getting a raw deal. The BLM folks got off easy.

So if I read the above correctly, that's 4 for seditious conspiracy & 0 mentioning "insurrection". Right ?

No, those are just some of the more prominent such. And Kelly Meggs. And Ethan Nordean. All convicted of seditious conspiracy. And Jeremy Bertino plead guilty to seditious conspiracy.

Here's another 4:

Roberto Minuta, 39, of Prosper, Texas, was sentenced June 1 to 54 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Edward Vallejo, 64, of Phoenix, Arizona, was sentenced on June 1 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, including the first 12 months to be served on home confinement.

David Moerschel, 45, of Punta Gorda, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Joseph Hackett, 53, of Sarasota, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 42 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

The four defendants were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties on Jan. 23, following a seven-week trial. Hackett was also found guilty of destruction of evidence.



Note:
Today’s verdict follows the Nov. 29, 2022, seditious conspiracy conviction of Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and Kelly Meggs – two leaders of the Oath Keepers. Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson, and Thomas Caldwell were also convicted of related felony charges in that first trial. All nine defendants were indicted as part of the same conspiracy on Jan. 12, 2022.

Seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct Congress, obstruction of Congress, and destruction of evidence all carry a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. All charges carry potential financial penalties. The court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta will schedule sentencing hearings at a later date.


You do realize that's a whole lot of seditious a-holes, right? And others plead out to lesser charges to avoid as much jail time?

Trump has been adjudicated by a court to have engaged in insurrection, but he was not criminally tried on that charge, at least not yet....the charges against him, currently, are easier to prove than that one. But they're quite serious.

Yes, I understand all that. But a seditious conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy to conduct an insurrection -- an action to seize control of a government. Adjudication in a civil suit in a state court is a far cry from a conviction, let alone a charge, of conspiring or conducting an insurrection.
If Trump was fomenting, promoting, advocating or conducting an insurrection, Jack Smith should have charged, or even accused him of such.

First, he was found to have engaged in insurrection...after a trial in which he had ample opportunity to mount a defense. He failed miserably on the underlying facts of that finding. Because there really isn't any reasonable doubt about those facts. (the legal ramifications re being on the ballot are more thorny). But yes, the criminal charge of insurrection has various elements that are more difficult to prove as evidence of that specific crime.

If Smith thought, with high confidence, that he could get a jury to convict on that specific charge, based on proof without a doubt of all elements of a specific crime, he should indeed charge that crime. My understanding (from other legal folks, Smith is silent) is that proving Trump's intent to commit insurrection is much more difficult than proving his actions and general intent to reverse the outcome of the election through non-legal means. But not necessarily through the violence that ensued. It's not as if they have him on tape declaring his intent that the rioters hang Mike Pence...etc...They do have multiple testimony that he refused to do what he could to tell his supporters to stop, but that's not the same as a direct declaration...Indeed, they have the very strong proof of the crimes they have indicted. It only takes one juror to have a doubt about a particular element in order to lose a conviction, so most prosecutors tend to avoid charges they don't have confidence of achieving the agreement of all 12 jurors.

Now, if in the process of ongoing discovery there is clear evidence developed, that is corroborated, that Trump openly declared his intent to commit insurrection, then Smith should be anticipated to add that charge. But Trump has always acted like a mob boss, a wink and a nod, rather than a direct stated intention of the crime.

But let's not be stupid and say that makes him actually innocent of his crimes.

Here's the seditious conspiracy statute:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
U.S. Code

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.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


These folks were convicted or plead guilty to this and got large sentences. Jury of their peers for those who went to trial.

The evidence showed that they conspired in advance to be violent, and their intention to prevent the proceeding of the Electoral vote count was proven as well. Overwhelming evidence of this threshold of the crime.

They were also convicted of multiple other felonies, mostly violence against police officers and lesser felonies as well.

I remember when you claimed that no one was trying to stop the count, no one was trying to commit sedition...because no one had yet been charged with sedition. Then you claimed no one had been convicted...now you're moving the bar to conviction of "insurrection".

Good thing you weren't a lawyer. You'd give Habba a run, though.
Man, she's a miserable attorney.

But that's because Trump won't listen to decent counsel, thinks he's above the law; he demands that they actually argue that he is...and this is the guy and his acolytes and rioters who you want to go to bat for?

[Typical Lax Dad]

[stuff omitted]

Yes, I understand all that. But a seditious conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy to conduct an insurrection -- an action to seize control of a government. Adjudication in a civil suit in a state court is a far cry from a conviction, let alone a charge, of conspiring or conducting an insurrection.
If Trump was fomenting, promoting, advocating or conducting an insurrection, Jack Smith should have charged, or even accused him of such.

No.

Trump was fomenting, promoting, and advocating for an insurrection by his actions before and during Jan. 6. But the _criminal_ code does not have that exact charge.

The Colorado judge when the lawsuit was brought to remove Trump from the Colorado primary ballot for taking part in an insurrection did in fact make a legal determination that Trump did take part in an insurrection, but punted the issue of whether the amendment specifically applied to him. The appeals process overturned the application part, but not the finding of fact (Trump did the insurrection). That is why this heads to the SC.

What Jack Smith should charge Trump with is anything he thinks he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury - and if that does not include seditious conspiracy, I am fine with that. I side with the more than one judge who has determined there was an insurrection and Trump was part of it.

No. That's what you & 5 CO state court judges think. BFD. Let's see what the Supremes think.

If Jack Smith could bring charges that include the word "insurrection", he surely would.

My Jack is going for lower hanging fruit. You should ask him.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

Old Salt believes those good old boys and gals are getting a raw deal. The BLM folks got off easy.

So if I read the above correctly, that's 4 for seditious conspiracy & 0 mentioning "insurrection". Right ?

No, those are just some of the more prominent such. And Kelly Meggs. And Ethan Nordean. All convicted of seditious conspiracy. And Jeremy Bertino plead guilty to seditious conspiracy.

Here's another 4:

Roberto Minuta, 39, of Prosper, Texas, was sentenced June 1 to 54 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Edward Vallejo, 64, of Phoenix, Arizona, was sentenced on June 1 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, including the first 12 months to be served on home confinement.

David Moerschel, 45, of Punta Gorda, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Joseph Hackett, 53, of Sarasota, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 42 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

The four defendants were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties on Jan. 23, following a seven-week trial. Hackett was also found guilty of destruction of evidence.



Note:
Today’s verdict follows the Nov. 29, 2022, seditious conspiracy conviction of Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and Kelly Meggs – two leaders of the Oath Keepers. Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson, and Thomas Caldwell were also convicted of related felony charges in that first trial. All nine defendants were indicted as part of the same conspiracy on Jan. 12, 2022.

Seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct Congress, obstruction of Congress, and destruction of evidence all carry a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. All charges carry potential financial penalties. The court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta will schedule sentencing hearings at a later date.


You do realize that's a whole lot of seditious a-holes, right? And others plead out to lesser charges to avoid as much jail time?

Trump has been adjudicated by a court to have engaged in insurrection, but he was not criminally tried on that charge, at last not yet....the charges against him, currently, are easier to prove than that one. But they're quite serious.

Yes, I understand all that. But a seditious conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy to conduct an insurrection -- an action to seize control of a government. Adjudication in a civil suit in a state court is a far cry from a conviction, let alone a charge, of conspiring or conducting an insurrection.
If Trump was fomenting, promoting, advocating or conducting an insurrection, Jack Smith should have charged, or even accused him of such.

I think it’s laughable that you still stand on a position that would describe his behavior anything other than fomenting.

Laughable. Unserious people make claims like that.

That or you so badly misunderstand English that you need a ten year refresh course. Which would explain a lot of posts here too.

[Farfromgeneva]

[stuff omitted]

Yes, I understand all that. But a seditious conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy to conduct an insurrection -- an action to seize control of a government. Adjudication in a civil suit in a state court is a far cry from a conviction, let alone a charge, of conspiring or conducting an insurrection.
If Trump was fomenting, promoting, advocating or conducting an insurrection, Jack Smith should have charged, or even accused him of such.

No.

Trump was fomenting, promoting, and advocating for an insurrection by his actions before and during Jan. 6. But the _criminal_ code does not have that exact charge.

The Colorado judge when the lawsuit was brought to remove Trump from the Colorado primary ballot for taking part in an insurrection did in fact make a legal determination that Trump did take part in an insurrection, but punted the issue of whether the amendment specifically applied to him. The appeals process overturned the application part, but not the finding of fact (Trump did the insurrection). That is why this heads to the SC.

What Jack Smith should charge Trump with is anything he thinks he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury - and if that does not include seditious conspiracy, I am fine with that. I side with the more than one judge who has determined there was an insurrection and Trump was part of it.

No. That's what you & 5 CO state court judges think. BFD. Let's see what the Supremes think.

If Jack Smith could bring charges that include the word "insurrection", he surely would.

Well the way certain folks jammed the SC. BFD what they think. They have no more definitely than cO judges tody. Your commentary on this is so biased as to be ridiculous. Weaponize, coming to conclusions without information etc. same thing but man it’s sad.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capi ... -6-1826075

The list doesn't include all the charges, for instance Tarrio was convicted for seditious conspiracy among other felonies. Same for Biggs and Rehl. And Rhodes.

Many plead out to lesser charges in order to reduce their sentences. Mostly for assault of police officers and obstructing a government proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding...what was the government proceeding? The orderly confirmation of the Electoral College votes and transfer of power by election. Others plead down to more innocuous charges having to do with disorderly conduct and unlawful entry and protesting in the Capitol building, etc. Whole lot plea deals to avoid conviction on greater charges.

A-holes like Alberts, carrying guns, were unrepentant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna94940

So, as previously noted, a small minority of 10,000 plus there provably had the intent of insurrection (the criminal charge of such is seditious conspiracy), but over 10% there had provable crimes, many violent, and the mob chanting certainly made their overall intentions of the violence clear. But many present likely never had such intent to commit violence to stop the transfer of power, nor got caught up in the violence directly themselves, and therefore haven't been charged for any crimes.

But those who have been convicted or plead out to crimes were a heck of a lot of people, not matter how you slice it...and the ongoing refrain was that they'd believed Donald Trump's lies and the right wing media's lies. They thought they were "patriots" and fighting for Donald Trump....because he told them to do so. That's what they claim to have believed at the time. Some still do...

Old Salt believes those good old boys and gals are getting a raw deal. The BLM folks got off easy.

So if I read the above correctly, that's 4 for seditious conspiracy & 0 mentioning "insurrection". Right ?

No, those are just some of the more prominent such. And Kelly Meggs. And Ethan Nordean. All convicted of seditious conspiracy. And Jeremy Bertino plead guilty to seditious conspiracy.

Here's another 4:

Roberto Minuta, 39, of Prosper, Texas, was sentenced June 1 to 54 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Edward Vallejo, 64, of Phoenix, Arizona, was sentenced on June 1 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, including the first 12 months to be served on home confinement.

David Moerschel, 45, of Punta Gorda, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Joseph Hackett, 53, of Sarasota, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 42 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

The four defendants were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties on Jan. 23, following a seven-week trial. Hackett was also found guilty of destruction of evidence.



Note:
Today’s verdict follows the Nov. 29, 2022, seditious conspiracy conviction of Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and Kelly Meggs – two leaders of the Oath Keepers. Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson, and Thomas Caldwell were also convicted of related felony charges in that first trial. All nine defendants were indicted as part of the same conspiracy on Jan. 12, 2022.

Seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct Congress, obstruction of Congress, and destruction of evidence all carry a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. All charges carry potential financial penalties. The court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta will schedule sentencing hearings at a later date.


You do realize that's a whole lot of seditious a-holes, right? And others plead out to lesser charges to avoid as much jail time?

Trump has been adjudicated by a court to have engaged in insurrection, but he was not criminally tried on that charge, at least not yet....the charges against him, currently, are easier to prove than that one. But they're quite serious.

Yes, I understand all that. But a seditious conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy to conduct an insurrection -- an action to seize control of a government. Adjudication in a civil suit in a state court is a far cry from a conviction, let alone a charge, of conspiring or conducting an insurrection.
If Trump was fomenting, promoting, advocating or conducting an insurrection, Jack Smith should have charged, or even accused him of such.

First, he was found to have engaged in insurrection...after a trial in which he had ample opportunity to mount a defense. He failed miserably on the underlying facts of that finding. Because there really isn't any reasonable doubt about those facts. (the legal ramifications re being on the ballot are more thorny). But yes, the criminal charge of insurrection has various elements that are more difficult to prove as evidence of that specific crime.

If Smith thought, with high confidence, that he could get a jury to convict on that specific charge, based on proof without a doubt of all elements of a specific crime, he should indeed charge that crime. My understanding (from other legal folks, Smith is silent) is that proving Trump's intent to commit insurrection is much more difficult than proving his actions and general intent to reverse the outcome of the election through non-legal means. But not necessarily through the violence that ensued. It's not as if they have him on tape declaring his intent that the rioters hang Mike Pence...etc...They do have multiple testimony that he refused to do what he could to tell his supporters to stop, but that's not the same as a direct declaration...Indeed, they have the very strong proof of the crimes they have indicted. It only takes one juror to have a doubt about a particular element in order to lose a conviction, so most prosecutors tend to avoid charges they don't have confidence of achieving the agreement of all 12 jurors.

Now, if in the process of ongoing discovery there is clear evidence developed, that is corroborated, that Trump openly declared his intent to commit insurrection, then Smith should be anticipated to add that charge. But Trump has always acted like a mob boss, a wink and a nod, rather than a direct stated intention of the crime.

But let's not be stupid and say that makes him actually innocent of his crimes.

Here's the seditious conspiracy statute:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
U.S. Code

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.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


These folks were convicted or plead guilty to this and got large sentences. Jury of their peers for those who went to trial.

The evidence showed that they conspired in advance to be violent, and their intention to prevent the proceeding of the Electoral vote count was proven as well. Overwhelming evidence of this threshold of the crime.

They were also convicted of multiple other felonies, mostly violence against police officers and lesser felonies as well.

I remember when you claimed that no one was trying to stop the count, no one was trying to commit sedition...because no one had yet been charged with sedition. Then you claimed no one had been convicted...now you're moving the bar to conviction of "insurrection".

Good thing you weren't a lawyer. You'd give Habba a run, though.
Man, she's a miserable attorney.

But that's because Trump won't listen to decent counsel, thinks he's above the law; he demands that they actually argue that he is...and this is the guy and his acolytes and rioters who you want to go to bat for?

Your trying to convince someone who refuses to be open minded. Don’t mean tech here though it would reply, he doesn’t understand he closes his mind to things faster than anyone he accuses of it when the source is unacceptable to him.