WhatFinger


The Seditious Conspiracy Act, Insurrection Act: One literally cannot be asking Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act while engaging in a Seditious Conspiracy.  The two are complete contradictions of each other

Trial of Oath Keepers Will Turn On Two Old Laws



Trial of Oath Keepers Will Turn On Two Old Laws
Curiously, two very old laws (if the D.C. jury is fair) will decide the January 6 trial of the Oath Keepers.  The trial is the leading edge and center of gravity of the entire January 6 McCarthyist campaign.  Prosecutors have treated this least-guilty group of demonstrators as the lynch-pin of their efforts.   Switching to a “seditious conspiracy” framework disconnected January 6 from events geographically focused on the U.S. Capitol so that the Merrick Garland Department of Justice can now prosecute anyone they don’t like.  The main goal of prosecuting the innocent Oath Keepers – and urgently prior to the mid-term -- is to justify an indictment of Donald Trump, perhaps before November 8.  The Oath Keepers are currently on trial this month, charged with a seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S. Code § 2384 from 1861.  However, the Oath Keepers have raised as their primary defense that they petitioned the Commander in Chief Donald Trump to invoke the “Insurrection Act” of 1807 under 10 U.S. Code Chapter 13.  Both statutes trace back to the early years of our Republic, although they have been amended over the decades. Related: Trial of Oath Keepers Founders on Two Old, Dusty Laws -- Part I Trial of Oath Keepers Founders on Two Old, Dusty Laws -- Part II

Democrats hope you are stupid

But, at least in this sense, these statutes are polar opposites, like matter and anti-matter.  The Insurrection Act empowers any President to prevent, stop, or put down an insurrection or sedition.  One cannot vigorously beg President Trump to use the [Anti] Insurrection Act while planning and carrying out an insurrection.  The Act is the antidote to an insurrection.  Even a non-lawyer clicking on the links can see the similar language in both. As early as November 2020, the Oath Keepers publicly petitioned the Commander in Chief to fight ANTIFA and the Deep State, through at least two [letter one]) so-called “open letters [letter two]  ”.  (A traditional “open letter” pretends to address a specific person, but actually the public generally.)  Stewart Rhodes petitioning the President for redress of grievances by using that power is the only real evidence the prosecutors have to try to suggest that the Oath Keepers were planning a seditious conspiracy … by asking Trump to prevent one. Yet the Democrats hope you are stupid.  Their argument is to try to seduce you into thinking that the Insurrection Act creates an insurrection.  That is absurd.  The Act does not impose martial law.  There is no such thing as martial law under U.S. law or government (historical mistakes notwithstanding).  The Act does not change any substantive law.  The Act only deputizes – pretty much exactly like old Western movies – more manpower to enforce existing law.  If existing law enforcement or government officials turn disloyal, or are overwhelmed, the President can deputize militia to enforce the already-existing law. The Insurrection Act would not add 1 second to President Trump’s term in office which ended at noon on January 20.  The dishonest prosecutors claim that the January 6 Defendants tried to use force to “prevent the transfer of presidential power.”  However, no power is transferred on January 6, as the Judge Amit Mehta has conceded.  We are instructed to believe that January 6 was a purely ceremonial gathering in which Mike Pence was a helpless bystander. Power is transferred on January 20 by the rotation of the Earth making the clock strike noon --  automatically ending any President’s term “by operation of law.”  The Defendants could not conspire to stop the Earth from rotating toward noon local time on January 20, 2021, any more than they could conspire to sell our moon to a star empire from a distant galaxy.  (Impossibility becomes significant where there is no clear evidence that there ever was a conspiracy or what precisely it was.)

Support Canada Free Press


Merrick Garland’s charges are absurd

So Merrick Garland’s charges are absurd.  The Defendants did not conspire to stop time.  (The DoJ also accuses the Oath Keepers of arriving at the Capitol at 2:26 PM and entering at 2:39 PM, and thereby obstructing the Joint Session that recessed at 2:18 PM.  Merrick Garland seems to have trouble with the concept of time.)  Of course, the idea that Pence could unilaterally decide the next President is equally absurd.  But nobody ever claimed that.  A topic for another day. The fatal conceit of the prosecution and everyone else is to assume that the Oath Keepers must be guilty, and then try to force-fit the actual evidence into their preconceived assumptions.  Viewed afresh, the evidence shows that the allegations do not support any guilt except of trespassing and saying awful things.   It is indisputable that: (1) The Oath Keepers planned, arranged, and implemented travel to the nation’s Capital.  In other words, they conspired to commit tourism.  No, really.  The evidence against them is that they made hotel reservations and coordinated who would ride in what cars.   (Note:  There is a serious problem in the evidence between talk about “the Capital” – meaning the city of Washington, D.C. and “the Capitol” – meaning the building where Congress meets.  Most people don’t know how to spell those two correctly.  So messages about the Oath Keepers going to “the Capital” are being confused with going to “the Capitol.”  Context is everything.) (2) The Oath Keepers clearly called upon Trump to call up militia under Trump’s authority under the Insurrection Act to stop the rampant rioting and violence from anarchists and ANTIFA raging since 2014 (really since the “Battle in Seattle” in 1999).  

One literally cannot be asking Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act while engaging in a Seditious Conspiracy

(3) The Oath Keepers prepared for the scenario in which they would be called up.  They got gun training (in September 2020).  They collected or bought weapons.  They brought weapons to Arlington, Virginia which they called a “Quick Reaction Force” explicitly discussed as “in case” or “if the s*$% hits the fan.”  They did advance planning.  But about what were they planning? (4) The Oath Keepers are extremely guilty of having potty mouths, saying to each other outrageous things.  However, that cannot constitute seditious conspiracy. In United States of America v. David Brian Stone, Et al.", U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division), Case No. 10-20123 (Hon. Victoria A. Roberts, March 27, 2012).  In that “Hutaree Tribe” case (just a weird name they made up), the defendants said horrible things – far more horrible than anything related to January 6 – and discussed wicked plans to lure law enforcement and slaughter them at police funerals.   Yet the judge there threw out the seditious conspiracy charge because it was all talk, no action.  That precedent is a low-level trial court, but there are very few precedents on this.  Therefore, again, the whole ball game here is going to be at the appeal level.  Here, the Oath Keepers similarly took none of the actions one associates with January 6.   In an interesting way, these two Acts are mirror images of each other.  The Seditious Conspiracy Act uses more or less the same language and speaks to the same circumstances as the Insurrection Act.  One literally cannot be asking Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act while engaging in a Seditious Conspiracy.  The two are complete contradictions of each other.  Space here being exhausted, hopefully more details can be offered in a subsequent article.


View Comments

Jonathon Moseley -- Bio and Archives

Jonathon Moseley is co-founder and Legal Counsel of Americans for the Trump Agenda, and Executive Director of the White House Defense Fund.  Moseley is serving as Legal Counsel for Americans for the Trump Agenda, and is also a Virginia business and criminal defense attorney. Moseley and a co-host with the “Conservative Commandos” radio show,  and an active member of the Northern Virginia Tea Party.  He studied Physics at Hampshire College, Finance at the University of Florida and law at George Mason University in Virginia. Moseley promoted Reagan’s policies at High Frontier and the Center for Peace in Freedom. He worked at the U.S. Department of Education, including at the Center for Choice in Education.


Sponsored