Takeaways from the landmark sedition indictment against the Oath Keepers - CNNPolitics
By: Marshall Cohen (CNN)
The case resolves around the Oath Keepers, a far-right extremist group, and its leader Stewart Rhodes. Many of the defendants were already facing charges for storming the US Capitol building and deny wrongdoing. But the new indictment raises the stakes significantly and made public new details about their alleged plans for violence. Attorney General Merrick Garland had balked at the earlier efforts to bring the seditious conspiracy charge. But in the months since, people briefed on the matter say FBI investigators and DC federal prosecutors have spent much time building the case, at least in part with the help of cooperators and the benefit of internal communications among the Oath Keepers. Here are the key takeaways:
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
DOJ went there on sedition
Read More Federal prosecutors have been slammed -- by legal experts, Democratic lawmakers, Donald Trump critics, and media pundits -- for going easy on the rioters. That criticism has now been answered in a big way with the charges of "seditious conspiracy." Garland said in a major speech last week that prosecutors would go after the January 6 perpetrators "at any level... whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy." Thursday's indictment puts some meat on the bones. Oath Keepers leader and 10 others charged with 'seditious conspiracy' related to US Capitol attack Sedition is difficult to prove in court, and an indictment is only the very beginning of a legal case. There are many hoops that prosecutors will need to jump through before they win convictions. But this is a critical first step. It destroys, once and for all, the talking point from those downplaying the events of January 6 that the attack on the Capitol wasn't an insurrection because nobody has been charged with sedition. It took a while to reach this point in the investigation. Last March, it seemed like former US Attorney Michael Sherwin, who initially led the investigation, got out ahead of his skis when he said there should be sedition cases. Months passed without anything materializing to back up his assertions. With the new indictment, Sherwin has been vindicated.
Extent of preparation for January 6
One of the most debated questions about January 6 has been over how much planning there was to invade the Capitol. Thousands of Trump supporters breached Capitol grounds, and a couple thousand got inside the building. But was there a plan? And who knew about the plan? It's clear from court filings that for many of the rioters, there was no organized plan. But that's not the full story. The sedition case against the Oath Keepers highlights that there were hardened groups of alleged criminals within the mob that essentially planned for war.
JUST WATCHED
The extremist Oath Keepers who planned attack on Capitol
MUST WATCH
The extremist Oath Keepers who planned attack on Capitol 04:37 Rhodes, the Oath Keepers' leader, is quoted as telling his supporters that they should prepare for a "bloody" operation and that they would need to "fight" in a "war." One defendant allegedly took an early November trip to Washington to conduct recon for an upcoming "op." Communications about the "bloody" "fight" and "revolution" were accompanied by logistical planning, prosecutors alleged, with defendants discussing obtaining and bringing weapons to the Washington area.
It could have been worse
The indictment provided yet another reminder that January 6 could have been so much worse. Shortly after getting inside the Capitol, one group of Oath Keepers tried to make a coordinated move on the Senate chamber, seemingly as if they were executing a mission. According to the indictment, they "tried to push their way through" a line of police, but the officers "forcibly repelled their advance." (Other rioters eventually breached the Senate floor and gallery.) Prosecutors added more details of how the Oath Keepers allegedly stockpiled weapons at a nearby hotel in Virginia, just in case they needed to deploy a "quick reaction force" into DC. READ: Seditious conspiracy indictment related to US Capitol attack The charging documents say one defendant, Joshua James, got a message from a friend saying, "I have friends not far from DC with a lot of weapons and ammo if you get into trouble." James replied, "that might be helpful, but we have a s***load of QRF on standby with an arsenal." Rhodes also amassed weapons and other gear on his way to Washington, DC, before January 6, prosecutors said. He allegedly bought a rifle, a magazine, and other firearms equipment, including sights, mounts, triggers, slings, and an optic plate. Rhodes was on the Capitol grounds on January 6 but hasn't been accused of entering the building, though prosecutors have said he "directed" his supporters to do so.
The plot was bigger than Jan 6
Up to this point, federal prosecutors had been accusing conspiracy defendants of aiming to block Congress' vote to certify the election. But Thursday's case ups the ante, widening the conspiracy past January 6. The indictment says the Oath Keepers aimed for more than disruption of Congress. This group, prosecutors say, wanted to stop the transfer of presidential power from Trump to Joe Biden. After the insurrection, they gathered to celebrate, then continued talking. "We aren't quitting!! We are reloading!!," one of the defendants wrote in a Signal chat. In the week after the riot, Rhodes allegedly spent more than $17,500 on weapons, equipment, and ammunition. One member, according to the filings, said Rhodes should stay "below the radar," while another brought what he called "all available weapons" to Rhodes' home in Texas. Here's what 'insurrection,' 'coup' and 'sedition' mean Around Inauguration Day, January 20, Rhodes allegedly told associates to organize local militias to oppose the Biden administration. Another member allegedly said, "After this... if nothing happens...its war...Civil War 2.0." "Rhodes and certain co-conspirators ... planned to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power by January 20, 2021, which included multiple ways to deploy force," the indictment says.
Hunting for the bigger fish
The Justice Department spent all of 2021 rounding up nearly two dozen alleged members of the Oath Keepers. They secured the cooperation of a few people charged in the original Oath Keepers conspiracy case -- the one without the sedition charges -- which was a significant breakthrough. Now we know that prosecutors were building a bigger case, and moving up the chain, to the leader of the extremist organization. Rhodes has previously denied any wrongdoing regarding January 6. Booking photo of Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes.From Collin County, Texas The big question is: Is this the end of the road? Could Rhodes have information that implicates anyone else higher up? It has been widely reported that his organization was providing allies for Trump surrogates like Roger Stone and Ali Alexander. A major criminal case obviously ramps up the pressure on people like Rhodes to cut a deal with and become a government witness, if they have a story to tell.
CNN's Katelyn Polantz, Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
267 visitors
Trolling, taunting, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Any Comments or Postings that concern anything but the Article Topic In the opinion of the Seeder are subject to immediate deletion without warning as off topic....
Well there you go, people sworn to uphold their oath to the constitution are the first ones to be targeted in the Justice Department's sweep to destroy the "Insurrectionists" Those who now they choose to call "Seditionists" Swearing an oath to uphold the constitution is now considered sedition....
Yeah. people who weren't even there.... Now the truth comes out... they don't really care about 100 rioters, tie whole insurrection thing is a prelude to go after what they view as an group that is capable of resisting them in their socialist takeover of the nation....
What was the first thing the Soviets did when they took power?, eliminated all organizations that could organize opposition..
What is the first thing the Nazi's did? eliminate all opposition organizations that could organize resistance...
What's different here... Who's next?
I will assume that your praise here for the Oath Keepers is mere disingenuousness and not something even more disturbing.
Nope, sorry John, nothing of the sort, just reminding everyone who those Oath Keepers are...I wouldn't be surprised if we have a few right here on the board...
oh yeah, Reminding everyone who historically the Justice department is acting like as well... You are aware that NO ONE has ever been convicted of sedition or seditious conspiracy in over 100 years, and those that were were released...
All the charges of such brought over the last 60 years wound up being dropped? as pointless? or being laughed out of court?
Are the Oath Keepers anti-government extremists ?
nope, but I'm sure there are those from your side of the aisle that think otherwise...
Do you think that is an appropriate stance for peaceful American ciitzens ?
That isn't any more seditious that those who go around the board saying that all conservative should be shot, or expressing how they would like to... it isn't nothing... in fact it isn't anywhere near what some say on this board to us almost every day...
Well Hal there are several people on the board who have stated their absolute desire to put bullets in people.... If that is what your shaking your head for I agree..
Sorry, I didn’t realize that newstalkers is a militia and therefore not a false equivalency at all to the Oath Keepers.
Well hal, listening to some of them I highly doubt it as well NT isn't the equivalent of Oathkeepers more than half the people here wouldn't make it... They would refuse to support the oath required...
I’ve seen such “artfully” disguised comments here…
Unlocked
thank you..
Yep we are a long ways from a conviction and there is no evidence being revealed. an indictment, it is widely known they can indict a ham sandwich if they want...
They have to prove a specific act tied directly to someone doing something... They can thump their chests all they want, they can have truck loads of firearms right around the corner and as long as the firearms are legal it isn't a crime...
The problem is they have to prove an overt act, that the indicted actually DID something in furtherance of the conspiracy, and making speeches don't count no matter how nasty they are in your opinion...
Every seditious conspiracy case brought forth in the last 50 years has been dismissed as unfounded... ALL OF THEM.... including the one against The Order...
AN OVERT ACT is required and speech does not count as an overt act....
What's happening here is Mr Garland is under immense pressure to CHARGE someone with more than trespassing, something serious to establish a case for raising an insurrection... and after a whole year all they can come up with is Seditious Conspiracy...
He's got to know the legal history of sedition, so what this is being done for is to get the people off his back.... Another dog and pony show to make the rabble happy...