Friday, January 14, 2022

Who Moved My Goalposts?

Not to give too much authority to Greenwald or Carlson, but this is why you don't levy charges like "sedition" without good evidence to present to the jury.  It is hard to prove; and white collar crime is the hardest of all to prove (sedition is more of an "idea" crime (no, not a legal term) than, say, stealing a loaf of bread).

That said, I think the indictment does present a pretty damning picture.  So far Stewart Rhode's defense seems to be he never entered the Capitol building.  Of course, neither did Donald Trump, but that doesn't mean Trump can't be brought up on similiar conspiracy charges.  According to the indictment Rhodes planned and organized groups with weapons and ammunition prepared to deliver them to the Capitol as needed (among other things.  That one has the advantage of being an act involving physical objects, not just ideas about "what we should do.")

That's pretty good evidence of intent, it seems to me.  Enough to make a jury go "hmmmm," anyway.

And this, by the way, is why "intent" is an important legal concept; and why "intent" and its cousin "motivation" are not what non-lawyers think it is:
Intent is revealed by actions, such as caching weapons and planning to make use of them, whether you do or not.  Intent is also revealed by actually breaking into the Capitol (through doors or windows matters not; the building was not open to the public at the time.  The police barricades made that point clear.)  Oath Keepers did more than "march around" and "send signals to each other."  They planned to obstruct an official act of Congress, and in fact they did.  "Sedition" under the statute is not the same as actually attempting to overthrow the legitimate government.  You don't have to go that far to commit the crime.  What they intended is borne out by their actions not just in the building, but in the planning and the effor they were prepared to carry out. They didn't have to accomplish it in order to violate the statute, or to have formed a conspiracy to violate the statute.  

It's worth keeping in mind (and this is where "conspiracy" is an inchoate crime) that the conspiracy itself is a criminal act.  The FBI, for example, arrested the conspirators who plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan (?; IIRC) when Trump was President.  Obviously they never kidnapped her; but the conspiracy to do so was a crime in itself.  They, too, assembled weapons and took actions to further the conspiracy.  That's really all the government has to show in the Oath Keepers case:  that they took actions to further the conspiracy.  Actions like illegally entering the Capitol and disrupting a Congressional session.

Whether they actually came close to overthrowing the U.S. government is irrelevant.  In fact, that would be another crime on top of the crimes they are already charged with. 

Regardless, the yammerings of the Byron Yorks and Greenwald of the world won't make a whit of difference in the courtroom.  What will matter is the evidence and arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense, and the charge to the jury by the court.
Again; not what they did in the building; still evidence of a conspiracy, which is itself a crime.  

Yeah, a lot more evidence to come. Wait; it gets better: Damned goalposts keep moving!
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Craig4:25 PM

    Less than 10% occupancy at Gitmo right now.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)