Steward Rhodes charged with seditious conspiracy

[john doe 101]

You can't call anyone "traitors" unless the accusations in the indictment are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But you don't care about due process, you operate purely based on emotions alone.

I can call them whatever I want. I've seen the evidence and I'm giving my opinion based on that evidence. LOL thinking you can control what I say.

I fully believe he is getting due process like he should. At least your mind isnt totally gone like some mentally ill people on here who say he isnt. So I have to give credit where credit is due.

 

[Mac1958]

It doesn’t. Ever heard of a bloodless coup?

They have to make their definitions as they go, because they hate the word.

Tough shit. This was sedition and insurrection, whether they like it or not.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can call them whatever I want.

That's my point. You don't care about his legal rights.

You are consumed by hatred and are bent on his destruction.

You don't care if the accusations are true or not.

"But muh traitors!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've seen the evidence and I'm giving my opinion based on that evidence.

Post the evidence that doesn't include accusations made by the indictment. Post evidence supporting the accusations made in the indictment.

Or by all means, continue stamping your feet like an enraged, confused child.

 

[john doe 101]

That's my point. You don't care about his legal rights.

You are consumed by hatred and are bent on his destruction.

You don't care if the accusations are true or not.

"But muh traitors!"

I said he should get due process. I guess you missed that part when quoting my post. You disingenuous slob.

 

[john doe 101]

Post the evidence that doesn't include accusations made by the indictment. Post evidence supporting the accusations made in the indictment.

Or by all means, continue stamping your feet like an enraged, confused child.

We arent in a court room, boy. You sure do like giving instructions that I never follow, dont you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

But we care that you support and believe in a seditious conspirator. Are you a member of the lol "Oath Keepers" gang?

Nope. I am defending his right to due process. I have not made any commentary for or against his political beliefs.

My defense of his legal rights does not speak to my support or lack thereof of this person.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We arent in a court room, boy. You sure do like giving instructions that I never follow, dont you?

I operate based on evidence. If you can't provide evidence, you are nothing but an emotional political shill with no reasonable point to make.

So, do you have any evidence or not?

 

[john doe 101]

Nope. I am defending his right to due process. I have not made any commentary for or against his political beliefs.

My defense of his legal rights does not speak to my support or lack thereof of this person.

You do realize someone such as myself can believe he's guilty and still thinks he should get his due process? I guess you don't realize that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You do realize someone such as myself can believe he's guilty and still thinks he should get his due process? I guess you don't realize that.

That's the thing, you have made it quite clear you don't want due process.

Belief in guilt and proof of guilt are two things entirely, and things you cannot comprehend the difference between.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, not con-fident enough.

I don't need to make bets to shore up confidence.

Making bets is a sign of insecurity on your part.

 

[bodecea]

You'd be dumb enough to jump out of one without a parachute.

Not only defending the Oath Keepers but a supporter of someone who fantasizes about right wing death squads.......charming.

 

[john doe 101]

I operate based on evidence. If you can't provide evidence, you are nothing but an emotional political shill with no reasonable point to make.

So, do you have any evidence or not?

I dont need to present anything, dipshit. I'm not the prosecution. Some of the evidence has already been presented to the public. Looks guilty to me. That's just my first thought. But hey if he provides a reasonable excuse as to why he was in a chat room talking about organizing what happened on 1/6, I'll of course listen. But I'm guessing A. His lawyer would never allow him on the stand and B. My guess is he'll plead out for a lesser sentence than 20 years.

 

[bodecea]

I don't need to make bets to shore up confidence.

Making bets is a sign of insecurity on your part.

"Making bets is a sign of insecurity..." And in your world, up is down...black is white...and war is peace. Keep on supporting those Oath Keepers.

 

[Faun]

Oh, you again.

Stewart Rhodes.

I thought you learned your lesson from last night.

Defending traitors makes you a traitor.

 

[john doe 101]

That's the thing, you have made it quite clear you don't want due process.

Belief in guilt and proof of guilt are two things entirely, and things you cannot comprehend the difference between.

I literally said he should receive due process. I dont know what else to say, dumbfuck. That SHOULD plainly state my position on whether he should get a fair trial or not. But you're stupid. You think this message board is a place to conduct official Federal trials. You cant get past that just because people not involved in a trial have opinions on guilt or innocence doesnt mean they dont want people to receive a fair trial. Evidently you will never be able to move beyond your illogical position.

 

[Faun]

Post the evidence that doesn't include accusations made by the indictment. Post evidence supporting the accusations made in the indictment.

Or by all means, continue stamping your feet like an enraged, confused child.

The evidence against him are recordings from online meetings he held with other Oath Keepers where they planned their assault on the Capitol with the intentions of overturning the election.

 

[BackAgain]

They have to make their definitions as they go, because they hate the word.

Tough shit. This was sedition and insurrection, whether they like it or not.

It was neither — whether you admit it or not, see it or not or comprehend anything at all or not.

 

[Meister]

Keep the posts on topic going forward.
Thanks in advance

 

[BackAgain]

The evidence against him are recordings from online meetings he held with other Oath Keepers where they planned their assault on the Capitol with the intentions of overturning the election.

Inaccurate ^ as always. Some of the so-called evidence does include (or so the indictment claims) some online messaging where there were some plans to meet at the Capitol. There were allegedly some discussions about weapons, too. And the latter were a bit non-specific.

They did not say that their intentions were to overturn the election however, from what I can see. So, maybe missed it. Care to quote it and cite it?