Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

1
Opening arguments begin today in federal court in Washington, DC in the trial of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four associates on charges of seditious conspiracy.

Among the hundreds of defendants charged in relation to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, the Oath Keepers prosecution is the most significant to date. The far-right militia group founded in 2009 assembled a group largely comprised of military veterans in tactical gear who breached the Capitol in two separate military-style “stacks” and stashed weapons across the Potomac River in Virginia in preparation for a potential escalation of the hours-long assault.

Beyond the question of guilt or innocence for the individual defendants, the trial is likely to raise the curtain on an untested legal question — whether an extremist group like the Oath Keepers acting as an “unorganized militia” can exercise force as the “personal army” for an authoritarian president like Donald Trump who might consider invoking the Insurrection Act as a ploy to cling to power.

“They were hoping to have the militia go in and perform the violent coup to force Trump’s will to steal the election and end our democracy on Jan. 6,” said Kristofer Goldsmith, an Iraq combat veteran who is the CEO of Task Force Butler Institute, a veterans organization fighting extremism. “That was their objective. That’s why they had their quick reaction force with all their weapons in Virginia. They believed Trump was going to deputize them as his personal militia.”
Long article here. https://www.rawstory.com/oath-keepers-t ... president/

They call themselves a "militia". This is going to possibly bring up Second Amendment questions. Are they an “unorganized militia” or are they a "well regulated Militia" as documented in the Second Amendment. This could bring up the Peoples Right to keep and bear arms question. It relies on the definitions of the 18th century not of the 21st century.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

5
DOJ audio shows Oath Keepers' founder said he 'regretted' that Jan 6 rioters didn't bring more firearms

Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the right-wing militia group the Oath Keepers, was recorded on audio days after Jan. 6 Capitol riot saying that rioters should have brought more weapons, NBC News reports.

“My only regret is that they should have brought rifles,” Rhodes said in a recording from Jan. 10 played by the government during opening statements in the seditious conspiracy trial of Rhodes and his co-defendants Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins and Thomas Caldwell.

Rhodes added that rioters could’ve “fixed it right then and there” if they had weapons with them at the Capitol.

According to the Justice Department, Oath Keepers under the leadership pf Rhodes plotted to oppose the peaceful transfer of power, stockpiling guns in "quick reaction forces" just outside of D.C.
https://www.rawstory.com/oath-keepers-trial/

Those boys just don’t know when to keep their mouth shut.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

8
Yesterday the prosecution and the defense made opening statements which lays out their arguments about the charges. It's a road map for their side, it isn't evidence.
Two days after Election Day in 2020, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia, sent an urgent, encrypted message to high-ranking members of his group, telling them to resist allowing Joseph R. Biden Jr. to enter the White House. “We aren’t getting through this without a civil war,” he wrote. Setting out their opening statement in the trial of Mr. Rhodes and four other members of the Oath Keepers on charges of seditious conspiracy, federal prosecutors said on Monday that the message was an early step in a broad effort to stop the transfer of presidential power and to use the might of the far-right militia to keep President Donald J. Trump in office.
In his own opening statement, Phillip Linder, Mr. 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. 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.” Mr. Rhodes and his four followers are the first defendants in the sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack to face trial on charges of seditious conspiracy, a crime that traces back to the Union’s efforts to protect the federal government against secessionist rebels during the Civil War.

The proceeding, which is expected to last four to six weeks, will be both a primer on the inner workings of the Oath Keepers and a kind of test case for the sedition conspiracy charge. That is the most serious count the government has brought so far against any of the nearly 900 people charged in the Capitol assault.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/us/p ... trial.html

https://archive.ph/e0kx9

And after the trial and verdict, if the defense loses expect appeals. If the government loses it's pretty well over.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

9
This is sort of like the orange spirochete saying he declassified docs in his mind. The Oath Keepers were a militia in their minds. There's no documentation in either case, and each case requires documentation. His defense is "we were there just in case." Well, yeah. I'm at the Brinks truck with me and my armed buds in case the Brinks drivers want to give us all that money.

Let's see if it works. I'm betting it does not work.

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

11
FrontSight wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:19 am I think the fact they didn't have rifles reflects the fact they didn't themselves even believe their BS defense of being a called up militia. Good God these people are dumb.
Plus, it was legal in VA to keep rifles in hotels, but not in DC. So they knew.

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

12
TOS was playing president.
Oathkeepers were playing militias.
Same, same. “Just in case,” is a perfect rational when you are essentially cosplaying through life, not truly committed to anything of personal value. Any of these pudgy Oathkeepers would wet their pants if they were in Ukraine, really defending their homeland, going on offensives against invading Russian forces and getting shelled at.

“Just in case”… Really, f*ck that noise.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

13
Two days after Election Day in 2020, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia, sent an urgent, encrypted message to high-ranking members of his group, telling them to resist allowing Joseph R. Biden Jr. to enter the White House. “We aren’t getting through this without a civil war,” he wrote. Setting out their opening statement in the trial of Mr. Rhodes and four other members of the Oath Keepers on charges of seditious conspiracy, federal prosecutors said on Monday that the message was an early step in a broad effort to stop the transfer of presidential power and to use the might of the far-right militia to keep President Donald J. Trump in office.
And all because the orange turd and his acolytes said the election was stolen. These mouthbreathers see themselves as the 'patriots', when in fact, they are the traitors..all because trump, who is STILL pedaling the Big Lie...

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

14
Oathkeepers are proof positive that you don’t need brains to become a traitor. In fact, not thinking too critically is requisite for becoming a good tool.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

15
F4FEver wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:21 am And all because the orange turd and his acolytes said the election was stolen. These mouthbreathers see themselves as the 'patriots', when in fact, they are the traitors..all because trump, who is STILL pedaling the Big Lie...
Yeah, kinda embarrassing to be an American right now...I mean, the world is looking at us wondering when we're going to wake up.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

16
If Oath Keepers are a militia what congress or state authorized them? If they are I am. Pffffft!
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the
Congress power-"To provide for calling forth the Militia
to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing
such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such
forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second
Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and
applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they
2
Act December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785; February 24, 1919, c.
18, 40 Stat. 1057.
UNITED STATES v. MILLER.
174 Opinion of the Court.
were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.
A rain a-fall, but the dirt it tough
A yut a yook, but yood nah nuff
- Bob Marley

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

17
Groups call themselves a lot of things and some call themselves a militia. It's just a title, it has no legal standing, it's not like they are sanctioned and made official by their state governments. They could have called themselves the Oath Keepers Army, but they're not the US Army or US Army National Guard...
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

18
highdesert wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:41 am Groups call themselves a lot of things and some call themselves a militia. It's just a title, it has no legal standing, it's not like they are sanctioned and made official by their state governments. They could have called themselves the Oath Keepers Army, but they're not the US Army or US Army National Guard...
Just like TOS still calling himself President.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

19
Moronic argument when the President is commander in Chief the US Armed forces. It’s scary, but the orange god king could have (at least temporarily) declared martial law and suspended habeas corpus. Posse Comitatus Act can be specifically excluded by the insurrection act.

Rightly, the senior leadership of DoD saw this coming a mile away, and started issuing policy even before the election to ensure the dept of defense personnel played zero role in the election.

However, legally speaking trump could have played the military card as commander in Chief. Practically speaking the pentagon (especially the CJCS) pretty much had nothing but contempt for his administration by this time in late 2020. The JCS clearly distanced themselves from any shenao outside of normal, lawful DoD operations. He fired SECDEF Esper anyways and replaced him
With an “acting” hack. Commissioned Officers take their oaths to the US Constitution & not one man - trump never understood what that fundamentally means being essentially a mafia family leader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

21
Now that there's the Proud Boy guilty plea to seditious conspiracy, we must conclude that such a conspiracy did indeed take place. I'm sure magat heads will explode. The DOJ is on its way up the apple tree. It's like Socrates saying he feels his legs getting cold.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm ... osition_03

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Oath Keepers trial tests whether extremists can be called up as 'private army' by an authoritarian president

23
The interesting thing about the plea is, they don't give that out without strings attached...He's about to roll on his PB brothers and assist the prosecution. This is VERY good news...maybe we can put these anti-government extremists in jail where they belong.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Greengunner and 0 guests

cron