In order to go after the J6 defendants, the government has dangerously expanded the definition of “seditious conspiracy”
But I guess they don’t think it’s a dangerous expansion because they don’t intend it ever to apply to the left, only the right.
So, what was the crime of sedition? To help us understand, here are the instructions given to jurors for seditious conspiracy. The government’s burden of proof in this trial was basically nonexistent—not that a jury picked from a city of nearly all Democrats requires much evidence before finding a Trump supporter guilty of any concocted charge. In the indictment,
This essentially could apply to any protest in the future and certainly could have applied to the 2017 inauguration riots and 2018 Kavanaugh demonstrations.
What follows is a legal document that can’t be cut and pasted, and it’s well worth it to follow the link and read it. It’s not tremendously lengthy. The gist of it, however, is that – like conspiracy laws in general, which I’ve always found dangerously broad, even back when I was a Democrat and a law student – not all that much is required: at least two people getting together to oppose by force the authority of the government or to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the government. And though force is a required element of the conspiracy, the term is redefined as including the mere threat of violence without any actual acts of violence. Thus, protected speech and protest become crimes under the conspiracy umbrella, if and only if the government chooses to prosecute. In addition, these J6 defendants also got a terrorism enhancement in sentencing, which is highly inappropriate but expanded their sentence lengths very significantly.
Julie Kelly adds:
During closing arguments in the trial, one prosecutor told the jury a “wink and a nod” represented an agreement to join the conspiracy. What a joke.
The left would be outraged at such things if applied to them, but the J6 defendants are no leftists. The cases will be appealed, and one of the commenters to Kelly’s article maintains that SCOTUS will overrule this verdict:
Seditious conspiracy – up to 20 years imprisonment – will be tossed out 9-0 by Supreme Court as overly broad and vague statute, never successfully charged before like this (most all such charges dismissed), except for Puerto Rican nationalists firing 30 rounds onto the House of Reps floor from the gallery in 1954. Gotta get there fast through appeals process. This Civil War statute is a joke as the jury instructions illustrate, as so well pointed out by Julie.
Obstruction of an official proceeding felony (1512c2) – also up to 20 years imprisonment, will also be tossed out at least 6-3 (s/b 9-0) as inapplicable as it only involves the administration of justice where evidence is being presented – and never charged before like this. Two cert petitions have already been filed with SCOTUS as this issue has already been through the Cir Court.
Forget about Judge Kelly. He will be made to look like the fool that he is.
Would that this were true. Maybe it is true. I’m not anywhere near as sanguine as the commenter. And at least some of the overrulings had also better include concurrence from the liberal/left wing of the Court, because if they don’t join, watch for the left to up its campaign to delegitimize SCOTUS and to pack the Court if at all possible.
God bless Julie Kelly for exposing this injustice, which is being ignored by almost all the media. No matter what you think of the J6 defendants, they are entitled to the same basic Constitutional rights as every American. Can any sane person really believe that these defendants have been afforded the right of a speedy trial by an impartial jury as the 6th amendment should guarantee?
Where is the outrage by all the politicians who profess to love the Constitution?
There seems to be a word missing from the last paragraph.
bob:
Thanks, fixed.
Is a juror allowed to say, “That’s not a crime,”? or is he required to take the prosecution’s view of the issue.
A guy can be guilty of something, but if it’s not a crime….
OTOH, if you acknowledge the guy is guilty of whatever is charged but you don’t think it’s an actual crime, voting guilty means he’s punished as if it were an actual crime.
Is this were juror null comes in?
Richard Aubrey:
My recollection is that before the jury deliberates, the judge tells them the elements of the crime. Later, in deliberations, jury nullification comes in if they go against that in some way.
I’ve only served on two juries but in both cases the jurors pretty much ignored the judge’s instructions from the beginning of deliberations. Once juries begin deliberations they can pretty much do whatever they want. The longer the deliberations go, the more pressure builds to just reach some decision, regardless of what the law is or what the judge says.
I doubt very much that there was any real deliberating in any J6 case. These cases should never have been allowed to take place in Washington DC court.
For the current crop of post-coup Marxists in charge, a SCOTUS overturning of the verdict is as good as the verdict. More anti-Trump fodder, more expand SCOTUS energy, and more delegitimizing angst against SCOTUS… which may again put a “target” on the Trump-appointed Justices’ backs. They’ve got the wins stacked up all around.
AND…as has been noted before…if the anger around this travesty provides cover for another Reichstag Fire… well that’s ok too.
No matter what you think of the J6 defendants, they are entitled to the same basic Constitutional rights as every American
==
Well, your neighbors and family members who vote Democratic don’t think so. They just lie to themselves and insist his rights were not contravened. It’s the age of the jerk.
Neo
I guess I’m thinking of what jurors are expected to do. Suppose, for simplicity’s sake, the juror thinks, yeah, he’s guilty of parking in that spot, just like the prosecutor says. But there aren’t any No Parking signs, so what’s he actually guilty of?
I’m thinking of a case in our family where there were two years of hell and a six-figure legal bill. Yeah, the guy was driving along when the cop rear ended him. No question there. Too bad the cop died. No question there. But what’s the crime in driving along–no traffic violations proven– and getting rear-ended by a cop that makes it vehicular manslaughter?
The defense’s most lethal witness was the state’s expert witness. Jury didn’t take long to acquit.
But there’s the act and there’s a crime and if the first isn’t the second, what does the law expect the juror to do?
Circling back, to coin a phrase, to the J6 trials including especially the one in your post. Yeah, he did it, but was it illegal? Is that a proper question for a juror?
Contrast the non-coverage of this with the media coverage of the Chicago Seven conspiracy trial. For that matter, contrast the behavior of the defendants then and now. Two of the original eight defendants are still alive and in their eighties, but they probably won’t be objecting to this expansion of the definition of seditious conspiracy.
Contrast it as well with the DOJ’s recommendation of clemency for a BLM rioter who started a fire that killed a man.
As they have judged, so shall they be judged…
Not as an act of revenge but rather holding them to the same standard that they themselves have set.
GB. I fervently hope so. And the appeals for justice and fairness….will be HIGHlarious. Can hardly wait.
Matthew Graves ( what an eerily appropriate name) continues to destroy the Capitol, of what we might call Panem,
the navarro persecution is another part of that,
Both sides typically submit proposed jury instruction, and the judge gets to pick or do his own. Except that for most things, there are model jury instructions that are most often used. After a trial the loser can appeal the jury instructions, if he made a timely objection to them, and hopefully get a retrial (unless the prosecution is the aggrieved party). For the most part, they are supposed to parallel closely the statute allegedly violated.
DC juries are notorious. Greg Craig acquitted for the same crime Paul Manafort was convicted and spent some time in solitary. Both were FARA violations which are rarely criminalized.
Take it from a protest junkie: if you go apesh*t, that gives them an excuse to fight you.
-Sister Ingalls
Here in the strict law and order state of WA there have been two recent sentences of murderers to less than some of the J6 protestors are getting. One sentence was for twelve years, the other for fifteen. That’s for murder! 🙁
What are these J6 judges thinking? Oh, yes, they are sending a message. Don’t protest violently or even say you will protest violently, or we will throw the book at you. And we have strange rules about what we call violent protest – we’ll make them up as we go along.
These prosecutions are a travesty. If a protestor assaulted a cop, then give ’em a couple of years in jail. I’m not on board with assaulting cops.
If they trespassed and did property damage, an appropriate fine and probation.
All others who trespassed on Capitol grounds, a fine and/or community service.
They’ve ruined many people’s lives with their vindictive political show trials. It’s a shameful part of our history.
SCOTUS will NOT overturn this because …
SCOTUS is a 3-3-3 court. 3 Leftist. 3 Establishment. 3 Conservative.
The Establishment 3 will side with the 3 Leftists and maintain that any opposition to government is an act of treason.
The magic of find me the man and I will find you the crime of the Bolsheviks, now our Marxists, is the laws are what they say they are, nothing more and nothing less.
Momo may be correct, but it doesn’t matter much because the effect of the trial and conviction will be to destroy Trump’s chance to be elected. The Trumpkins won’t care but enough undecideds will shun him to get Brandon re-elected, together with the usual ballot shenanigans.
Related?
“FDA Refuses To Provide COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Data To US Senator”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fda-refuses-provide-covid-19-vaccine-safety-data-us-senator
File under: Don’t question anything you’re not supposed to know about. Especially about the most transparent, fairest and best-run election in American history. Oh, and especially about Covid-19.
well crimethink is a rather vast and varied category,
Nixon had more principles. He could have used this during his presidency, but didn’t.