Oath Keepers Leader Charged With Seditious Conspiracy
- Written by: John Galt
- Published in Police State
MSN.com | Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and former military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", was arrested and charged, along with 10 others, with "seditious conspiracy" for allegedly organizing a plot to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6 of 2021.
Proving "seditious conspiracy" requires showing that multiple people agreed to use force to overthrow government authority or delay the execution of US law. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prision. The last time the federal govenment brought this type of case was in 2010 when they accused members of a Michigan militia of plotting to provoke an armed conflict with the government. They were acquitted in the end.
A quick read of the indictment reveals a couple interesting points. Much of the evidence appears to be from comments made on the encrypted Signal app which leads many of us here to believe these conversations were simply taken down by either undercover federal agents of federal confidential informats who were part of the chat versus being intercepted and decrypted using technical means. This aligns with our belief that the vast majority of these situations are planned and instigated by these same undercover agents/informants.
In addition, part of the "call for violence" that Stewart is alleged to have made is using the phrase "We aren't getting through this without a civil war" which is a VERY old and common phrase in patriot/three percent communities which is typically said to express the general negative state of the country with respect to losses of liberty, attacks on free speech & 2nd amendment rights, illegal government targeting & surveillance and other such offences and the BELIEF by some that THIS (the state of the country) won't change without a civil war/unrest/violence. Many of us doubt that Stewart used that phrase in the context of the election or the swearing in of the new president or in any manner that would be interpreted by a reasonable person as CALLING FOR violence on the part of anyone to change the outcome of the election or the swearing in of the President.