Today is a big day in Garlands J6 investigation.

[fightforfreedom]

Today the seditious conspiracy trial for the oath keepers begins. There is a lot riding on this trial. If successful, this trial will set the stage for future indictments of Trump and his inner circle.

This trial will most likely tie the oath keepers to people in Trumps White House and his inner circle. This trial is a big deal. The Oath Keepers are blaming Trump as their defense.

If the oath keepers are convicted for seditious conspiracy, Trump and his merry band of traitors will be in deep shit.

For all the people complaining about Garland not doing enough, today is the day you have been waiting for.

[calimary]

1. I hope to all Heaven that you're right.

[Botany]

2. I hope this gets them (oath keepers) to roll on this pompous asshole too.

[gab13by13]

4. I hope they nail Stone too,

but he will go to jail before he flips on Trump. Mark Meadows is the key man.

[fightforfreedom]

6. There are some oath keepers who will testify as part of their plea deals.

It was also reported Elmer the leader of the Oath Keepers called someone in the White House during the riot. He wanted to talk to Trump. The FBI confiscated the oath keepers phones , computers, no telling what they found.

Hopefully a lot more evidence will come out during the trial. Yes, I want Roger Stone nailed to the wall. He is a traitor.

[3Hotdogs]

18. You spelled "Oaf" wrong in Oaf Keeper.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. :). yikes who gets named Elmer anymore?

[mountain grammy]

26. hahaha

I know a couple but that was funny!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. When I lived in Birmingham I made the mistake of laughing at a name

Waymond. Like the mother meant Raymond but screwed up somehow. I thought it was hysterical until my coworker said my father's name is Waymond.

Actually like old names that few use anymore. We have a list of names for future pets. Our last dog was named Larry

[mountain grammy]

73. haha again..

just saw glue sniffer! I know a man named Elmer and that's a great description of him..

[Laura PourMeADrink]

81. Does anyone sniff glue anymore? Remember as a kid

walking over to glue and taking a tiny quick sniff a foot from container and quickly running away. Like we thought that was how they did it

[ChazInAz]

27. Kind of explains everything about him, doesn't it?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. Yes :). Actually my first thought was glue sniffer

[rambler_american]

82. Be vewey quiet!

I'm hunting wabbitt.

[rubbersole]

8. Somehow it seems ol' Rog has been rolled on already...

He was squealing awfully loudly in the press recently. Might be going through some things...

[Stuart G]

71. Kick for all to see...no text

[gab13by13]

3. The pyramid strategy has been a failure.

The J6 committee, with less resources, less manpower, turned over more evidence than DOJ because it went after all of the traitors, from the top down, not bottom up.

When Ms. Hutchinson gave her testimony to the J6 committee, DOJ was shocked with her testimony. The J6 committee has run rings around DOJ.

All that DOJ has to do is put Mark Meadows before a grand jury, he is the key to indicting Trump.

Indicting Trump has nothing to do with evidence, it has to with the will to indict a former president. The stolen top secret document crime reveals that, and Meadows was involved there also.

When Meadows goes before a grand jury we will know that Garland has made up his mind.

[fightforfreedom]

12. No, it has not been a failure. That's how criminal investigations are done, from the bottom up.

You cannot compare the committee investigation to Garlands investigation. One is a large criminal investigation and the other is not. Do you believe arresting hundreds of people across the country, collecting evidence, putting them on trial, convicting them is a walk in the park? It's unprecedented what Garland has done so far. Now he is about to prosecute people for seditious conspiracy. Once again unprecedented. Do have any idea how many people and resources this takes?

While Garland has been doing this he has also been investigating the fake electors, the stolen documents. By the way, Garland has to deal with all other crimes across the country.

You are searching for anything to blame Garland. You are not looking at the big picture.

[ancianita]

19. +1

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. You and OP have really made me think! The whole subject of top down versus bottom up

is really fascinating. Could J6 and DOJ be working together so much more closely then we ever thought? ( hoping against hope?) J6 keeping the top in the news, in the bullseye? (trying to keep politics out of it) While the DOJ methodically works up the chain? (by the book)?

I am hoping that this is all true. Because it really stuck out to me that J6 seems to be ending prematurely. Is it possible that their missions have collided? Because to me, there is no other explanation for why J6 didn't present testimony as to the direct connection between the WH and the hate group insurrectionists when it is common knowledge/evidence that there is one.

I don't believe this has all played out yet. And it hasn't been underestimated what a slippery eel the FG POS is. Hell he had top secret documents and we are having a hard time nailing him.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. J6 committee faces MUCH LOWER standard. Doesn't have to try cases in front of judge and jury. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. Yup. How does that tie in?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

68. The bar is much higher for the DoJ. Heard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

69. Yes understood. My point was only about scope and mission

Not about legal authorities.

[jaxexpat]

33. Mr Meadows on the stand, actually answering questions.....

is a moment sceptics have been anticipating for over 20 months.

[Beastly Boy]

41. It has been a wild success.

Very few of the insurrectionists, to the utter outrage of some DUers, would have become defendants without it.

You have to keep reminding yourself that the J6 committee did not prosecute anyone. Makes me wonder what possible criteria point to J6 running rings around DOJ. They don't have to meet any burden of proof to any jury. SAnd they are only accountable to themselves. All they were tasked with is to collect evidence and report their findings. DOJ and J6, two different missions, two different skill sets. Collecting the evidence is where the J6 work ends, but for DOJ it would be just the beginning of their job.

As you almost correctly pointed out, indicting Trump has nothing to do with evidence (it actually does, but evidence is just one requirement among many others). And while none of us have any friggin idea whether J6 turned over more evidence than DOJ, all the evidence in the world is insufficient to get Meadows, or anyone else, prosecuted, much less convicted.

When Meadows goes before a grand jury, we will know Garland is confident he can convict Meadows. And the J6 Committee will be entirely out of the picture at that point.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. You made some good points except I hate that expression

"to the utter outrage of some DUers"

We are ALL outraged I hope

[Beastly Boy]

50. We are probably talking about different outrage.

I am takling of DUers who get outraged with DOJ doing its job because, in their minds, DOJ is either doing nothing or not doing things quickly enough. This has been going on for months, despite DOJ consistently addressing the sources of such outrage, only in due course and by following well established rules.

Being aware of the unprecedented scope and complexity of the task before them, I am not at all outraged with DOJ in any way. I am, however, outraged at the magnitude of lawlessness Trump and co presume they are entitled to. If that's what you mean, it makes two of us. But my outrage doesn't compel me to demand shortcuts in due process of law.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

63. Think we've been disappointed over and over again

So I think it's 100% okay to now think that once again we'll be left with no justice. It doesn't bother everyone but for some of us getting justice outweighs blind faith

[ShazzieB]

76. +1!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

53. Just give it up. The J6 committee can do that because they can't indict and don't indict

The J6 committee does not have to win cases.

Please get real.

[kentuck]

5. If they can get a conviction on seditious conspiracy...

...then it is a big deal. Because they will learn if they did it alone or on orders from someone above them?

[fightforfreedom]

13. Exactly.

[Effete Snob]

36. No

The conspiracy - among these people - to interfere with the electoral certification is laid out in the indictment.

The government's case to prove that these people conspired together does not involve anyone else.

There are people who believe weird things about how trials work generally, but it does not work as shown in movies and TV. There are no surprise witnesses or evidence that is going to magically appear beyond that needed to prove the charges in the indictment.

[kentuck]

40. How do you know that?

No other evidence is going to appear from these charges?

[Effete Snob]

42. Because I read the indictment

And because all of the evidence to be used in the trial has already been provided to the other side.

The alleged conspiracy - the thing the government is setting out to prove - is among the people charged. No one else is named or identified as having been part of the agreement or acts alleged to have been committed among the people charged.

A trial is not some adventure to set off in search of additional defendants.

Also the DoJ has already argued that the trial should not include the Oath Keeper's belief they were authorized by Trump:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.239208/gov.uscourts.dcd.239208.331.0_2.pdf

First, Rhodes suggests (ECF No. 324 at 33) that he has “maintained” since being charged that “the
QRFs were not to be engaged unless Trump did, in fact, invoke the Insurrection Act.” But
Rhodes’s self-serving statements made a year or more after the end of the charged conspiracy bear
no relevance to his state of mind during the time period covering the charged conspiracy. In fact,
the evidence (some of which is noted above) will show that Rhodes viewed the Insurrection Act
as “legal cover” and not a prerequisite for his and his co-conspirators’ plans to use force against
the government. As Rhodes made clear when speaking through an encrypted chat, if the President
“fail[ed] to act, then we will.” And on January 6, absent any invocation of the Insurrection Act,
Rhodes ordered his co-conspirators to the Capitol, where they forcibly occupied the building and
delayed the Certification of the Electoral College vote.


Rhodes’s argument fails for a second factual reason. Even assuming arguendo that some
evidence supported Rhodes’s contention that any use of the QRFs was contingent only on the
President’s invocation of the Insurrection Act, Rhodes acknowledges (ECF No. 324 at 33) that the
President never in fact invoked the Insurrection Act. Nonetheless, Rhodes and the other
defendants amassed firearms just aside the District of Columbia and launched an attack on the
Capitol on January 6 in the full knowledge that the President had not called them (or anyone) into
service under the Insurrection Act.

Part of the DoJ's case here is that they knew they were not somehow authorized or requested by Trump to do what they did.

But, somehow, people think this trial is going to convict people who aren't even part of it.

[triron]

51. Trump may be implicated.

After all he encouraged the insurrection.

[Effete Snob]

52. Well, then you go argue with the DoJ

Because the DoJ has argued against the court allowing that argument by the defense.

You can believe what you want, but it helps to actually read the documents filed in the case.

[triron]

56. That doesn't exclude the defense from using that argument.

Judge may allow it.

[kentuck]

59. That quote by Rhodes does sound rather incriminating...

As Rhodes made clear when speaking through an encrypted chat, if the President
“fail[ed] to act, then we will.”

Yes, they have agreed upon the evidence for "this" trial but does that mean if new information or evidence comes up, they cannot use it in a "new" trial?

[Effete Snob]

61. The DoJ is not aiming to make themselves look stupid

Every person live tweeting the proceeding has said the DoJ started by telling the jury that these defendants came up with a plan to interfere with the electoral system:

Link to tweet

"These defendants concocted a plan for an armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of democracy, US prosecutor Nestler tells jurors."

Link to tweet

Then, Rhodes, again on 1.6:
"All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no attempt by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands"

Link to tweet

"These defendants tried to change that history...They concocted an armed rebellion to shatter the bedrock of democracy.”

Link to tweet

Assistant US Attorney Jeff Nestler tells the jury the defendants "concocted a plan for an armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of American democracy."

Link to tweet

Nestler: “These defendants concocted a plan..


---------


So, yeah, the DoJ is going to open the proceeding by saying "These people came up with a conspiracy" and then "new evidence" is going to somehow show up and the DoJ is going to say "We don't know what we're talking about."

I doubt that.

[kentuck]

74. Of course, they would not try to go after Donald Trump in this case.

It wouldn't make sense.

However, it doesn't mean that if information is discovered in the future that might incriminate Trump or his allies, that it would not be used or could not be used. Right?

[Effete Snob]

78. Yes, sure

But discovery in this case closed long ago and the object of the game is to convict these people of having conspired together to do what they did.

There's been a whole run of posts at DU over time in relation to this proceeding that have been to the effect of "Oooooohhhh, they are being tried for CONSPIRACY" as if that means the trial itself is going to be some rolling snowball of participants other than the people who have in fact been charged with engaging in the conspiracy described in the indictment and in the opening statement today.

In point of fact, the DoJ has successfully sought to prevent these defendants from arguing that they had some kind of official commission to do what they were doing by Trump, and the DoJ has emphasized the communications among them to the effect that they were operating on their own and independent of any instruction or authorization by Trump.

[kentuck]

83. It makes sense...

..that you can only try those that have been charged.

However, some may look at it as working their way up.

The DOJ is following the law, wherever it leads, just as Merrick Garland said he would do, in my opinion.

[Effete Snob]

44. And...

The evidence list was settled weeks ago.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.239208/gov.uscourts.dcd.239208.300.0_1.pdf

So, no, no new evidence is going to "appear" in this trial.

[fightforfreedom]

45. A witness could say something that is new evidence, you never know.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

64. Perry Mason moments throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings.

Things come to a screeching halt when that happens, until lawyers and the judge work out what's fair.

[Emile]

7. I thought you were going to say Garland will arrest Trump.

[magicarpet]

9. Roger Stone was the master mind of the J-6 US Capitol riots,...

.... just like Stone was the master mind of the Brooks Brothers riots down in Florida to steal the bush/cheney election.

Rat fucking Fascist political operative Roger Stone is. When ever they need a nasty, unethical, dirty job done,.. they dial up Roger.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. And Rudy

[magicarpet]

11. Roger Stone was the master mind of the J-6 US Capitol riots,...

.... just like Stone was the master mind of the Brooks Brothers riots down in Florida to steal the bush/cheney election.

Rat fucking Fascist political operative Roger Stone is. When ever they need a nasty, unethical, dirty job done,.. they dial up Roger.

[Effete Snob]

62. Well that's not what the DoJ is arguing today

[gab13by13]

14. IMO Donald Trump will not be arrested for seditious conspiracy,

1. It is too difficult, too complicated to prove.
2. Why indict Trump on a complicated crime when he can be indicted on a cut and dried crime? Trump fucked up when he stole classified documents. If anyone else had done what Trump did, he/she would be in jail, right now, or out on bail with an ankle monitor.

I expect Trump to be indicted in 2023 for his classified documents crimes. Trump handed DOJ a gift wrapped indictment.

[fightforfreedom]

17. There are other types of conspiracies Trump can be charged with, it doesn't have to be for sedition.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Like what?

[fightforfreedom]

25. Conspiracy to defraud the government. Conspiracy to commit election fraud.

Conspiracy to obstruct congress in an official act.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

70. #2 and #3 !!

[CaptainTruth]

15. True. First you legally establish that...

...1) sedition took place (ie what happened meets the legal definition of sedition), & 2) it was a conspiracy (multiple people were involved). Those facts are established in courtrooms, not by TV pundits or folks on social media who "say so" because they "know."

A good prosecutor knows you build a case from the ground up, especially in conspiracy cases where the success of future indictments depends on a solid foundation of established facts (which means successful prosecutions of others involved).

[fightforfreedom]

16. You get it, this trial is a really big deal.

It is a big test for Garlands entire investigation.

[Scrivener7]

72. If so, that's a problem. Because the DOJ is explicitly and specifically keeping tfg out of it.

See Effete Snob's posts above.

[karin_sj]

24. Fingers crossed...

... that they finally get to the top of the food chain of this traitorous bunch.

[William769]

28. K&R.

[fightforfreedom]

29. I know this is true when it comes to this trial.

You don't want your name mentioned. I have a feeling Trumps name is going to be mentioned a lot. We will have to wait and see what other names are mentioned.

[secondwind]

30. Is this trial gong to be televised?

Asking for a friend.

[blogslug]

31. Kelly Meggs requested a bench trial at the last minute. DENIED

Link to tweet

Scott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNews

7:13 AM

And..... at 11th hour.... one of the defendants, Kelly Meggs, requests a "bench trial" (trial by judge, not by jury)

Very, very late request. We'll see how judge responds, when court opens next hour

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.239209/gov.uscourts.dcd.239209.364.0_2.pdf

DENIED
8:30 AM

[fightforfreedom]

32. The pressure must be a getting intense for the oath keepers. It's game time.

One or more may crack, make a plea deal.

[gab13by13]

34. Mark Meadows is the buffer

between Trump and the traitors. When we see Mark Meadows before a grand jury then we will know that DOJ is serious about indicting Trump.

9 months ago the J6 committee laid out the evidence to indict Trump for obstruction of an official act of Congress, that is still a possibility, but DOJ is not going to indict Trump for seditious conspiracy.

What is going on with the Oath Keeper trial could nail the people at the Willard Hotel, which is fantastic, but Meadows keeps Trump's hands clean.

Look for an indictment of Trump over his theft of top secret documents and obstruction of justice in the winter of 2023, and Meadows is also a key participant in this crime.

[fightforfreedom]

35. Meadows may have already appeared before a grand jury.

They are secret and sometimes we don't know who has or has not testified.

[Scrivener7]

75. And then again, he may not have.

Almost 2 years later.

[blogslug]

37. More tweets from Scott MacFarlane

Scott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNews

9:07 am

Here comes the jury. To be sworn-in this morning by judge.

These accused OathKeepers conspirators spent a lot of time and reams of paper on court motions trying to get their trial moved. Claiming bias in the DC jury pool.

9:09 AM

Here we are .. a DC jury is being sworn-in right now. Trial is a “go”

[lees1975]

38. It's long past time to put this treasonous slob behind bars.

And stop all of the rallies and all of the speculation about whether he runs in 2024 or not. He's never, never, never, NEVER going back to the White House as President, so all of his loonie bin followers need to get over themselves and either get on with life or move to Russia or North Korea.

[triron]

55. You're right but we have a weak DOJ.

[Silent3]

39. If we had a truly "just" justice system, Trump would be in jail for secret documents possession...

...already while awaiting the results of this J6 trial.

Please don't deny that "Trump and his merry band" aren't getting special treatment. Please don't claim it's merely a matter of fairness and due process that the DoJ has been so timid and cautious about bringing charges against the big fish.

[triron]

49. I fear you are correct.

[progressoid]

43. No. Not holding my breath for "Trump and his merry band of traitors will be in deep shit."

[Lucinda]

57. ...

[malaise]

58. Live Blog

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217218799#post1

[Hermit-The-Prog]

65. Thanks! Found threadreaderapp link there, too.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1576919747647614978

[malaise]

66. Cool

Thanks

[867-5309.]

77. lolz

[BlackSkimmer]

79. Same. nt

[Torchlight]

80. Sounds serious.

Good luck.

xxyrw