Elmer Stewart Rhodes Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy

/104 Comments/in , /by

The verdicts are starting to come in on the Oath Keepers verdicts. The topline verdict: the jury found Elmer Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs guilty on the seditious conspiracy count. The other three defendants — Ken Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, and Thomas Caldwell — were found not guilty on that charge.

All five defendants were found guilty of some kind of obstruction, though not always as part of a conspiracy.

Here’s a thread with the verdicts from the superb Brandi Buchman.

Here’s a table of the verdicts from Jordan Fischer.

image_print
104 replies
  2. J R in WV says:

    Having a gin and tonic in honor of Elmer’s conviction~!~ Hurray for Justice, and hope these rascals are led away in handcuffs and sent to the super max prison in Florence CO.

    One of my best friends was an ER doc at the Pueblo hospital, treated lots of guys in chains with armed guards.

  7. Rugger_9 says:

    The verdicts do not bode well for Individual-1 when his time comes in the dock. It also makes me wonder when Rhodes will flip to try to reduce his sentence, because there are already indications of dissatisfaction with Individual-1 from evidence presented in the trial.

    Also not good for Individual-1, Judge Emmet Sullivan says no presidential immunity for civil rights lawsuits about Individual-1’s efforts to overturn the election because of the apparent criminality involved. I can see the response from M-a-L already, since Sullivan is also the judge that handled the Flynn case, forcing Individual-1 to pardon the still wayward general when AG Barr’s attempt to spike an accepted plea deal failed. ‘Biased’, of course but Judge Sullivan is known to be an independent thinker, not partisan.

    https://crooksandliars.com/2022/11/purely-political-judge-rejects-trumps

    • bmaz says:

      The verdicts as to Rhodes and Meggs are positive.

      But, in celebration thereof, be sure to pay attention to the greater findings of not guilty in these verdicts.

      Also, for the idiots that relentlessly argue the “rule of law is dead”, please shut up and take a seat. The “rule of law” happens in real courts and not by baying on the internets.

      • DaveC2022 says:

        Indeed. I would think the not guilty verdicts on Rhodes & Meggs would have a big impact on future charging decisions. Maybe not so much with Proud Boys trial, but I would think any future indictments would be influenced by all the OK verdicts taken as a whole.

      • AtticusFlinch says:

        [Apologies in advance (except to any “TL,DR” folks) for the length]

        To bmaz, respectfully …

        As one of the “idiots” you’ve recently scolded for expressing a related, though not identical, sentiment, I’m gonna take another whack at this, choosing my words more carefully this time.

        I completely understand your enthusiasm for the home team. Hell, you PLAYED for the home team, while most of us here are just fans sitting in the cheap seats.

        But Michael Cohen got his heapin helpin of the “rule of law.” In fact, as you know, he got seconds. After being cleared to go home early on COVID release, he was suddenly handed a ridiculous, coercive (and, illegal, yes?) waiver of his First Amendment rights to sign — in order to be allowed to exit the building as ordered by a federal judge. When he rightly refused, Trump’s DOJ slapped him back in irons and whisked him back to the slammer in defiance of a court ordered release. To my knowledge, no Court intervened for some time, and there were no consequences for DOJ’s rogue action at the behest of parties unknown. And, to this day, SDNY has NEVER explained why unindicted co-conspirator, Individual-1, was never charged for the same felony Cohen served time for — even AFTER leaving the White House when the statute still allowed it. Now that the clock has run out, it’s clear he never will be.

        Today, Rhodes and a few other very bad, not good (perhaps gullible) followers of TFG have tasted some “rule of law” too. Great. I hope the judge sends them away for a lonnnnnng time. I’m also prepared for the now-routine never-ending appeals circus that may intersect with the return of a certain “pardon machine” to power, so I’m not lighting any cigars just yet.

        Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Ginni Thomas, Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, Cleta Mitchell, John Eastman, Phil Waldron, Lindsey Graham, and countless others roam free, laughing their asses off at the “rule of law.”

        I’m sure you’ve got a suitably condescending smackdown all cued up in a keyboard macro for anyone ignorant or daring enough to bring this up. But, so far, the scoreboard reads, “Rule of Fuck You: 3,498 — Rule of Law: 7 or 8”.

        My issue is simple. Not brief, but simple. And, if I’ve missed something, I’m sure you’ll smash me with it. But it seems that since HE took power, TFG has employed on the national (and international) stage the same tactics learned from his father, Roy Cohn, et al to successfully avoid criminal consequences for his decades of serial crime in New York. He has perfected and leveled up the art of “criming in public” — every day, day after day — on the bet that NO authority will ever outlast him in a battle of attrition, financed by a seemingly infinite fountain of MAGA and dark money. He’s also poisoned the nationwide jury pool, such that any conviction at trial is seems like a pipe dream, even in deep-blue NY.

        My legal question for you, esteemed counselor, is this — has something changed in American jurisprudence over the past decade(s) (or was it always so) that the target of an investigation could repeatedly micro-litigate every single aspect of venue, jurisdiction, motion, filing, discovery, subpoena, order, warrant, ruling, indictment, conviction, sentence, etc — then appeal, in a never-ending cycle, any adverse result, ad nauseum, all the way up the line to the Supremes if amenable — fully expecting to lose at any and all venues along the way, but purposefully burning up precious time and public resources in the process? And, upon losing, simply move on to the next spurious item to be micro-litigated and appealed, rinse, repeat, until the government ultimately capitulates?

        If so, then, effectively, HE IS beyond the reach of the “law”, because he has exposed a system incapable of bringing HIM to justice and, no matter what we tell ourselves about the “rule of law,” he — for all his blazing ignorance, ineptitude and cognitive decay — has perfected a system to defeat ALL the laws, until after he’s dead and gone. And if the cowardly, treasonous, election-fixing GOP helps him return to the White House, is it not game over for the “rule of law,” for real? You don’t seem to believe this is a real possibility.

        I wish with every fiber of my being that everything I just wrote is wrong. But in the seven years I’ve been visiting this site, sadly, I’ve seen no evidence that it is.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, most of that is wrong. Yes, litigants, whether civil or criminal, have always been entitled to pursue an appellate path.

        • AtticusFlinch says:

          I think you know full well that I wasn’t asking if litigants had the right to appeal. The question underlying all of the above was whether something (other than Trumpification of the judicial branch with hacks like Aileen Cannon) changed to permit the weaponization of iterative, frivolous, appeals, as a legal end in themselves — simply as a way of running out the clock on EVERY legal threat. So far, the guy is batting nearly 1.000 — and his only “losses” have been out of court settlements. I’m looking forward to hearing how wrong I am when all of his cronies continue to skate — and he’s never indicted for anything, or thwarts any indictments in the same way he’s killed every other attempted prosecution to date. But thanks for ignoring all my legitimate questions to be snarky again.

        • bmaz says:

          No, I do not know “full well” anything you claim.

          “So far, the guy is batting nearly 1.000 — and his only “losses” have been out of court settlements.”

          No, that is inaccurate.

        • Rayne says:

          This nugget: “because he has exposed a system incapable of bringing HIM to justice” is the part you need to focus on.

          YOU are part of that same system, and a big factor in its existence is the pervasive learned helplessness which is encouraged as a means to avoid self reflection and personal accountability.

          Imagine every bit of energy you’ve just expended on your comment focused more directly on changing that system. Imagine spending one dollar for every word you just wrote in that comment — that’d be $766, by the way — on helping a progressive candidate win a race in order to change this system. Imagine every person who has bitched just as you have redirecting their energy in a constructive fashion.

          The system is flawed because good people find it easier to harangue faceless bloggers they don’t know than to acknowledge democracy requires more effort than bitching and their occasional vote. Changing and keeping a truly democratic system (as Ben Franklin warned so long ago) requires demands made of candidates, of elected officials, of its citizenry — not complaints to their most tolerant blog comment thread.

          You want accountability? Begin at home. Contact your state and federal representatives and vent your dissatisfaction with them. Find out who is thinking about running for their offices with the promise of changing the status quo and help them raise funds to run, because the race begins now. That includes races for state and local prosecutors and judges. There is no magic being which makes this happen; it’s the citizenry in democracy which does this. You get the leadership in which the citizens invested their efforts, if any.

          And don’t expect the next +300-word screed crying about the system to pass moderation. Someone with a fresh complaint we’ve never heard might need the space.

        • bmaz says:

          Dear AtticusFinch: No, we will not be approving your latest overly long screed. While you may not like the rules of the road here, it has worked just fine for 16, going on 17, years now. That is why we are still here. And, no, this is not an “echo chamber”, but it is a place that disfavors stupidity and baying out. Give it a rest.

        • Another dude from G-ville says:

          “Someone with a fresh complaint we’ve never heard might need the space.”

          *huge eye roll* +300 words is what, like 600 Bytes?
          Maybe change the section so only 100 words are seen and you’ll have to expand to see the rest of the comment.

          [A general rule of thumb for optimum comment length is 100 words with 300 words being a general maximum — and that assumes the comment is on topic (the measure isn’t bytes). Overlong and poorly edited comments abuse the resources of the site and annoy other readers especially if they’re on mobile devices. Repeated overlong and off-topic comments are forms of DDoS-ing a comment thread. You’ll note you haven’t been required to forfeit anything of value to participate here. If you do not like the moderation here or the way this site operates, you can take your rolling eyes and find the exit. /~Rayne]

  9. PieIsDamnGood says:

    Interesting mix of guilty and non-guilty verdicts. I didn’t follow the trial close enough to have a strong understanding of the probable reasons for the differences. For example, why was Meggs convicted of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding but Rhodes wasn’t? Hoping for a break down from Marcy!

    Very relieved DOJ managed to get a seditious conspiracy conviction.

  10. 90's Country says:

    Being a certified member of the Elmer Fudd generation – the last boom from my mother’s womb – this is even sweeter.

  13. Cranky B says:

    Eff Rhodes and be happy he is going to prison. But I don’t think the homophobic bullshit is necessary.

    Never mind. Seems the comment I was replying to is gone.

    • bmaz says:

      Where did you come from, and what comment are you talking about? Also, what “homophobic” part are you referencing?

      Don’t wander into here with that garbage.

      • Cranky B says:

        There was a comment that is no longer visible that said something about Proud Boy better watch out for Gay Boys in prison.

        Sorry for trying to call something out that I saw. My bad.

        I also literally said nevermind the comment is gone.

        My bad.

        Also what do you mean where did you come from?

        It’s a blog. Anyone can access it.

        I guess I’ll just go back to reading and keep my comments to myself.

      • Cranky B says:

        I didn’t wander in with garbage.

        Jesus.

        There was a homophobic comment by a commenter. It is gone.

        Thanks for being so welcoming.

        • bmaz says:

          I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to be welcomed, don’t be a pissy pain in the ass upon entry.

        • Cranky B says:

          So you think I am making it up?

          What the hell? Someone made a homophobic comment; I called it out. It is no longer visible.

          Sorry you think I am a pain in the ass.

          Goddamn, man.

          I will not comment again. You win.

        • bmaz says:

          There is no “win” here. You are referencing supposed “homophobic” content on this blog that I cannot find.

        • MarkPalm says:

          Poking up from my habitual posture of lurking here, I simply wish to note that I too saw the homophobic comment Cranky B referred to above. It appeared about one hour ago when I first scrolled through this thread. I was surprised to read it at the time; it was among the first dozen comments; don’t recall the poster’s nym. Glad that it’s disappeared. Know nothing about the mechanics of moderation of this site. Just enormously grateful for its content.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          ~Glares at bmaz and sighs loudly.~

          Way to be welcoming, dude.

          [Moderator’s note: Let it go. You’ve set an example for others to dogpile on moderation.

          As for others reading this, if moderation here isn’t to your taste, focus your comments on the post’s topic or move on. /~Rayne]

        • Another dude from G-ville says:

          I see my comment was deleted. bmaz deserves a dog-pile every once in a while…

          [Knock it off. I am binning any more piling on. If you don’t like the moderation here you can sit in moderation limbo or find something more constructive to do. /~Rayne]

  14. bmaz says:

    Alright, let me say this:

    The verdicts as to Rhodes and Meggs are positive.

    But, in celebration thereof, be sure to pay attention to the greater findings of not guilty in these verdicts.

    Also, for the idiots: And that is in general, not just those who relentlessly argue the “rule of law is dead”, please shut up and take a seat. The “rule of law” happens in real courts and not by baying on the internets.

    Juries take their job seriously.

    • Sparkedcat says:

      I am grateful that the jury took their job seriously and found Stewart Rhodes guilty of seditious conspiracy. May he rot in federal prison.

    • wiltmellow says:

      The not guilty verdicts are indeed meaningful but not because of a jury astutely separating chaff from grain. Rather sedition needs intent. If prosecutors can’t prove intent, then the jury must acquit.

      Rhodes conviction is most important. There was indeed a plot but if rioters weren’t aware of the plot, then they lack intent. Like prosecuting Russian troops for invading UKR — while they may be guilty of something, they weren’t in on the plot.

      But there’s a more spectacular event glossed by media today (bc Jan6 Cmte secrecy.)

      Tony Ornato deposition by J6C. Apparently he disputes Cassidy Hutchinson.

      Suddenly the entire Jan6 plot shifts into focus (for me, at least.) The goal was to shut down certification indirectly.

      If they convince Pence to let the Secret Service take him — and his family!! — to a “safe” location, he has no way of presiding over the certification ceremony.

      The rioter’s narrative purpose, the gallows, the hang Mike Pence chants, and Trump’s (preplanned) refusal to deploy NG for several hours all point to a conclusion that they wanted to keep Pence from his ceremonial duty of certification. If Pence gets in the SS car — to his immense credit, he refused — then no certification.

      That was the plot. Rhodes’ minions weren’t in on it.

      [THIRD REQUEST: Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your second user name; you’ve posted here more frequently as “milton wiltmellow” and “Milton Wiltmellow” (capitalization matters). Pick a name and stick with it. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • milton wiltmellow says:

        I apologize for any confusion I’ve caused. I use this unique name (and have for over 20 years) to avoid confusion. I’m poor with many punctuation details like capitalization or spacing. Since I rarely post here, I don’t remember which punctuation makes a difference. I’ll try to remember “lower case / with space.”
        I appreciate your forbearance.

    • Jim Luther says:

      Juries may take their jobs seriously, but the “rule of law” requires many more steps than the final act of the comedy, a mere jury, can take. Ample discretion is exercised at each step of the process by authoritarian biased forces every step of the way. Taking murder as the ultimate expression, nationally, the solved-murder rate has fallen from 79 percent in 1976 to 69 percent in 2019. While the solved rate for white victims has increased to 81 percent in 2019, it has fallen to 59 percent for Black victims (Murder Accountability Project). The rule of law is not dead, but it is very ill.

      We, the unwashed public, are not even permitted to ask why Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked at the monetary cost of – well we are not allowed to know but estimated up to $6T and a human cost of hundreds of thousands of lives (overwhelmingly foreign). Maybe the DoJ should simply prosecute the Jan 6 idiots under 40 U.S.C. §8103(b)(4) for injuring government owned lamps in the Capitol.

      Please forgive my disrespect for our hallowed institutions, but the glaringly obvious fact that crimes announced in advance, planned in public, committed on live TV – and still having no repercussions years afterward, leave me a touch jaded. But yeah, the brownshirts will be punished. Nice. just my opinion.

  15. cmarlowe says:

    It’s interesting that, according to Brandi Buchman, Meggs was convicted on the “conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding” charge but Rhodes was not convicted on that charge.

  16. Tech Support says:

    This is an excellent day.

    Also I think the $64,000 question is this: If Caldwell was not guilty of Conspiracy to Obstruct, and Meggs was… who was Meggs conspiring with, if not Caldwell?

    [image of dramatic hamster goes here.]

  17. dadidoc1 says:

    I’m not sure how things work, but if Stewart Rhodes “remembers” things between now and his sentencing, could that impact the length of his sentence?

    • bmaz says:

      Possibly. That is a hard question, because that depends on a lot of sentencing factors. Could Rhodes and Meggs help themselves? Sure, but such would probably negate any defenses on appeal they would hope to posit.

      • smf88011 says:

        That comes down to the overall strategy of their defense. If they think they can win on appeal, they will not do much in the cooperation side of the ball. However, and I think this is the route that I would take, I would definitely cooperate to see how much my sentence can be reduced while preparing to appeal the sentence. How many of these people have bottomless bags of cash they can use to fight this appeal to the Supreme Court and know that the book will be thrown at them if they don’t cooperate? How many of them are willing to risk long jail terms if they can get them reduced significantly by rolling on the bigger fish?

        bmaz, if you were one of the convicted’s attorneys, would you push them to cooperate enough to see what kind of reduction you would get while perfecting an appeal? Or would you recommend swinging for the fences hoping to win the case on appeal?

        • bmaz says:

          Yes I would. But I would have recommended cooperation long ago, it is a tad late now.

          Adding: Any competent attorney would at least have such a discussion with the prosecutors to see if there is there is any option, irrespective of whether the client would take it. You have to at least explore it.

        • smf88011 says:

          Glad you are not crazy. ;)

          On a different note not related to this thread, would you mind reading a couple of short lawsuit stories from WY that I think you might find interesting? It might be something you could write an article about. If you would like to read the stories, let me know where to send the links.

        • smf88011 says:

          I just realized I can give you 4 words and you can find the info about what I think you will find interesting. “Elk Mountain Corner crossing”.

  18. Ed Walker says:

    Bmaz reminds us that juries take their jobs seriously. I was listening to a podcast, Supreme Myths, hosted by Eric Segall, an avid and aggressive debunker of originalism, One of his guests, Jud Campbell, a lawyer and historian, says that at the founding, juries were seen as direct representatives of the community, in much the same way legislatures were thought to represent the community.

    It’s as if the community were passing judgment on these defendants. We have to take that seriously, and reinforce it when we hear about resistance from our MAGAt fellow citizens.

    • Doctor Cyclops says:

      Juries have always been the people. Most of the decisions of governing we delegate to our elected or appointed representatives, but the decision to convict someone of a crime we continue to reserve to the people.

    • emptywheel says:

      At the end of the trial Judge Mehta, whom all sides really respect, paid tribute to the degree to which the trial was about what trials are supposed to be.

      • Former AFPD says:

        Marcy, I learned the hard way that a good defense lawyer, especially after a hard fought loss, should never “bless” the judge or prosecutor after the verdict is announced. I was shocked that the lawyers went to the courthouse steps and told the press what a fair trial Judge Mehta had given their clients. Those comments show up at sentencing and on appeal and are used against your client. One of the lawyers also said he thought they might have been acquitted in another jurisdiction. I was very surprised that comment was made to the press right after the verdict.

        • Former AFPD says:

          bmaz, Indeed. “It was a difficult case. We are disappointed in the verdict. I have no further comment at this time.” Let your Motion for A New Trial speak for you after you’ve gathered your wits and reviewed the record. Geez. My aside: This jury had a tough job. The split verdicts in such a short time are very interesting. Split verdicts (for non-lawyers, guilty and not guilty verdicts) are harder to attack on appeal from a defense standpoint because they tend to show the jury carefully sifted the evidence on the specific counts and defendants. I see some long sentences in the future for some of these defendants, Rhodes, the Yale law graduate, especially. I wonder if his estranged family will write sentencing letters?

        • FL Resister says:

          Elmer’s estranged wife Tasha Adams, who filed for divorce in 2018, expressed joy and relief about Elmer finally being held accountable. (Multiple sources include CNN and Huffington Post)

        • Former AFPD says:

          Thanks FL. I read the reports that the estranged family was thrilled with the guilty verdicts. My comment was sarcastic. However, it’s possible the family could write in favor of a stiff sentence. The family background is certainly informative for the sentencing judge.

  20. Kalkaino says:

    I walk by Barrett Prettyman Courthouse every workday, and am often the target of the video crews, practicing pulling focus on an approacher. I chide the long-suffering cameramen and field producers ‘Get my good side,’ or ‘I’m ready for my close-up.’ We are all amused.

    Let us hope that this emboldens the DOJ to actually do something about the Trump, Stone, et al. who have been criming in plain sight all their lives. The old saying, ‘A grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich’ should come witha caveat: ‘Not if it’s on white bread.’ But we shall see….

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      I share your hopes as to getting the big wigs. As to the word “embolden,” I’ve see this take before. I’m cynical and can imagine many corruptions and incompetencies that would prevent Trump from ever facing justice. I can’t imagine that lack of boldness would be a thing affecting DOJ decision-making in the case of Trump. It just doesn’t feel like a real thing to me, this need for “boldness” in a highly bureaucratic, procedure-driven, agency in the face of such obvious, public, and damaging criminality. I may well be wrong about this, not knowing the DOJ.

      • smf88011 says:

        While I am a cynic, I actually think that Agent Orange is in for a world of hurt. All of this information has hurt him and deeply. Add to that his mid-term election crash and the number of lawsuits he is facing and I think he knows deep down that he will not win in 2024. That doesn’t mean that he won’t try and if he loses he will say the election was stolen again though. It just means that Trump is damaged goods, the GQP knows this, but have hitched their wagon to him for too long to jump off.

        On a different note, I saw a story earlier today about how some GOP in Congress have said they won’t support McCarthy for Speaker. I can see the party whip going to them and saying something along the lines of “get your butt over there and vote for McCarthy. If you don’t, we will vote for a moderate Democrat to be Speaker instead. If he gets it, it is your fault because you wouldn’t get in line.”

        I know I was dreaming in the above but it would be an interesting conversation to be a fly on the wall of….

  21. Molly Pitcher says:

    From The Daily Beast: “Oath Keepers Boss Guilty of Sedition—and His Fam Celebrates”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/oath-keepers-seditious-conspiracy-stewart-rhodes-trial-ends-with-verdict

    “Rhodes’ estranged wife, Tasha Adams, told The Daily Beast on Tuesday she is “beyond happy” about the verdict.

    “He has absolutely never had to face a consequence in his entire life. This will be the very first time,” Adams added. “He’s spent his life making others pay this was past due for him.” ”

    “After the verdict was read, Rhodes’ son took to Twitter to respond to the conviction—by posting a link to a YouTube video titled “Happy New Year to you….IN JAIL!” ”

    “So much weight is off now,” Dakota Adams, who along with his mother and siblings has previously described attempting to escape an abusive life at home with Rhodes, added in another tweet.

    • DaveC2022 says:

      Wow. Clearly Rhodes is disturbed by community standards that he would elicit those reactions.

      Marcy, & EW community thank you. I’m making a go of a Mastodon presence & following Marcy there, but it seems unlikely Mastadon will ever get to the quality of insight as regularly happens here. Maybe other platforms are better for inciting, but this site is a unique treasure. Thanks again.

      Marcy (or maybe Bmaz) would be interesting to see analysis of the OK verdicts might impact the PB & other pending J6 trials.

      • Rayne says:

        In re Mastodon: Don’t make a snap judgment about the platform now before you’ve really invested any effort in it. There’s a reason nearly all of Twitter’s former information security team is in Mastodon on their own server. Nearly half the academics I followed on Twitter are already there and I’m already having better dialog with them now because we’re not being interrupted by trolls. The feed you get at Mastodon is the one you shape, not the one shaped by Twitter’s algorithm which leans to the right and toward increasing conflict as a substitute for true engagement.

    • missinggeorgecarlin says:

      I went to middle and high school with Kelly Meggs. Didn’t know him very well, but knew his name and saw him around all the time. Hard to believe he’s going to prison for 20-60-80 years (he’s mid 50s so….any of these is basically a life sentence).

      I’m on a Class of ’87 Spanish River High School FB page (hate FB but was curious about our 30th reunion). Apparently the moderator or whomever runs the page, thinks deleting my stories about him, is a good idea.

      Very odd people who delete stories about the most famous (OK, infamous) person from our High School. Off topic, but our HS is about 10 miles away from Stoneman Douglas HS where he horrific slaughter took place. The same people who don’t want to talk about Kelly Meggs also don’t want to talk about gun violence in schools.

      I never once, not a single time, considered somebody would bring a gun to my middle or high school. Even living in FL-duh. What a shame we had more freedom and safety in the mid 80s.

  22. punaise says:

    Hit the jack, Rhodes
    And don’t you come back no more, no more
    Hit the jack, Rhodes
    And don’t you come back no more

  23. enakud says:

    So great to see these idiotic cos-play petty criminals going to prison. #FAFO indeed. Justice prevails. AGAIN.

  24. Bay State Librul says:

    Punaise @ 12:34 AM

    Thanks for reminding me of Percy and Ray Charles.
    I can hear this melody, as the opposing team “bad boy” is escorted to the penalty box
    Long live the organist and backup singers.
    A nice way to say fuck off.
    In the future, perhaps Don will be the recipient

    • punaise says:

      one can hope!

      Saw this in a comment at TPM:

      Merrick Garland shows up at prosecution team after-verdict celebration to congratulate the team on this key victory.

      Publicly. This tells me there’s blood in the water. The justice department is going for the kill.

      (fully cognizant that bmaz may have a different interpretation…)

  25. Nick Caraway says:

    After the verdict was read, defense counsel praised the judge and stated that his client had received a fair trial (even though he also said that a jury in another venue might not have found his client guilty).

    Just waiting to hear TFG say that the defendants were treated “very unfairly” after this.

    • Troutwaxer says:

      ~Laughs~ One wonders how the lawyer really felt about his client. (The lack of a question mark is deliberate.)

  26. DaveC says:

    Marcy, & EW community thank you. I’m making a go of a Mastodon presence & following Marcy there, but it seems unlikely Mastadon will ever get to the quality of insight as regularly happens here. Maybe other platforms are better for inciting, but this site is a unique treasure. Thanks again.

    Marcy (or maybe Bmaz) would be interesting to see analysis of the OK verdicts might impact the PB & other pending J6 trials.

  27. harpie says:

    https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1598001669899710464
    12:11 PM · Nov 30, 2022

    Here’s the OK jury verdict form. Interesting to me is that seditious conspiracy convictions of both Rhodes & Meggs were based on broader conspiracy to oppose by force the authority of the US (not to prevent, hinder or delay execution of US laws). /1 [link]

    Sounds to me like jurors were impressed by Rhodes’ & Meggs’ post-J6 efforts to continue to resist Biden transition–like Rhodes’ continued gun purchases & crazy diatribes, like this one from J14: /2-end [screenshot]

    The jury was instructed:

    i. If guilty of the conspiracy charged in Count One, which objects do you unanimously find the defendant conspired to achieve:
    – [checked] To oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States
    – [not checked] To use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States]

    • harpie says:

      Excerpts from the live tweet threads during
      Def Attorney Fischer’s [for Caldwell] cross of FBI Agent Sylvia Hilgeman, 10/17/22:

      https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1582066682155397121
      1:51 PM · Oct 17, 2022

      Agent: I don’t think the messages say that the purpose of the QRF is to go from hotel to Capitol.
      Fischer: [isn’t that the govt’s whole theory of the QRF?]
      Agent: That’s not my understanding.
      Sidebar. Overruled.
      Fischer: aware govt’s claim is purpose of QRF is to attack the Capitol?
      Agent: no, purpose was to prevent Biden from taking power.

      https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1582066847029284864
      1:51 PM · Oct 17, 2022

      Fischer asks her if the purpose of the QRF was to attack the Capitol.
      She says no, her understanding of the QRF was to support those trying to stop Biden from taking power.

      Fischer again asks her what purpose of QRF ws:
      “The QRF was meant to occupy DC,” she says.

      Somehow, occupying DC doesn’t sound a lot better than just occupying the Cap and def moved quickly off that Q to further review of maps […]

  28. Matt___B says:

    In regard to justice being served (or not) in the larger Jan. 6 scheme of things, I learned today that after the recent midterm elections that of the 147 House Republications who voted against certifying the 2020 election, now only 109 of them remain.

    So…glass half full…heading in the right direction?

    or

    Glass half empty…still way too many sedition-friendly congresspeople remaining? Basically the percentage of bad actors in congress went down from 33% to 25%.

    Assuming that Warnock wins this Tuesday, the $1000+ (drop in the bucket on a per-politician basis) I contributed to 23 candidates this cycle yielded a 11/23 win/lose ratio, that’s 47% – significantly better than I did in the 2018 “blue wave” where I contributed to a LOT of losing candidates.

    Still and all, seeing MTG get some kind of committee chairmanship next year will continue contribute to my ongoing 6-year case of political nausea.

  29. Marinela says:

    If they get sentenced to 20 years, Trump or the next republican president likely to pardon them or commute the sentences.
    In this scenario, can a case be made that the pardons were corrupt?
    Pardons would just embolden them.

Comments are closed.