Fuckin’ A! There is justice.
Seditious conspiracy : guilty stewart rhodes (20 years possible) kelly meggs guilty, other three not guilty
Conspiracy to obstruct and obstructing an official proceeding : all five guilty
Conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties : 4 guilty
Destruction of government property and aiding and abetting
Civil disorder and aiding and abetting: all 5
Tampering with documents or proceedings and aiding and abetting : 4 guilty
that is what i heard so far.
Damn glad to hear it - thanks. 
Now to go after the members of Congress and executive branch staff and hangers-on who fomented it, not just the shock troops.
Are these the first 1/6 convictions for seditious conspiracy?
Amen to that.
Oh, thank fuck. These are such challenging charges on which to get a conviction. Their evidence was outstanding, but juries still sometimes struggle.
< swallowing the happy lump in my throat >
Justice. At least, a good start.
I have to think this loosens the jar marginally. I would think that – in situations like this (the 1/6 hearings and trials) – momentum has value and convictions would beget convictions as each successive jury finds it incrementally easier to deliver a guilty verdict.
He says … hopefully.
Phew.
Now that there’s been one major seditious conspiracy conviction, maybe it won’t seem so outlandish to charge others who deserve it.
Question for any legal types: with a conviction in hand, does this give the government any leverage to try to flip Rhodes and get his testimony in exchange for a lighter sentence?
As happy as I am to see him get convicted, there are bigger fish to go after…
My knowledge is based on state-level prosecutions, not federal, but I don’t think they’re that different in this regard.
The short answer is yes.
If Rhodes has information that provides direct evidence of higher-ups’ involvement in the scheme, such as testimony about conversations he may have had with Mark Meadows, e.g., and federal prosecutors feel his testimony is sufficiently valuable, it could work for him a little bit.
I’m not sure how much value his testimony provides, though. He’s a squirrel on the witness stand, from what I understand.
Recall that Paul Manafort was given this option after he was convicted for testimony that would incriminate Trump. Of course, he received a pardon, rendering the offer moot.
Well, in dream land, in a Trump trial, Rhodes gets to testify to the questions “seditious conspiracy with who?” and “seditious conspiracy for what ends?”
I kind of doubt his testimony will provide much value at this point. I think DOJ mostly have their case made.
^ This. Rhodes, at least, is highly likely to have coordinated with a White House or adjacent figure or figures. (Mark Meadows, is that you?)
IANAL but sentencing typically does take into consideration factors such as ‘cooperation.’
We can hope. The ‘white collar’ politically-connected planners have gotten off, to a large extent, with no consequences for their conduct. That must change if we are to have a rule-of-law system in fact, not just in lip-service.
Damn straight. Build those cases and keep going higher up the Trumpian food chain.
Yes, well, I’m sure Jack Smith was hired to knit booties.
The next group of oath keepers to go to trial is Monday.
Yes, this was the first one. More oath keepers and some proud boys are awaiting trials.
Paging Roger Stone, Mr. Roger Stone. Please report for your time in the barrel.
If this is the only Christmas present I receive this year, I’m pretty happy with it.
He is still in the Netherlands! So far I’m impressed by him and hope to see more of his knitting charges together abilities.
I think 2023 is going to feel quite festive for those of us who are waiting for prosecutions of the heavy hitters.
That said, it will still take years. Especially the January 6th charges.
I don’t care if he’s there for another 6 months, although I don’t expect he will be. He’s overseeing these cases, not trying them himself. He can oversee from anywhere, I imagine.
He is definitely aggressive. His whole career has been punctuated with going after tough cases. And winning them. Garland chose well.
ETA: I’m still chuckling over “anomalous jurisdiction.” 