Results 1 to 30 of 163

Thread: January 6th Committee Hearings

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    26 Post(s)
    According to the law, no, it's not treason. The words "treason" and "treasonous" have evolved over the years but the US code has not and pretty specifically refers to aiding the enemy.

    If anything, it's Seditious Conspiracy. I saw this a bit ago but I can't recall who said it: (paraphrasing) DOJ action / inaction will look the same for a long time until they either indict or announce no charges. It's probably the most consequential decision DOJ has ever had to make, not just because he's a former president but because both action and inaction will have vast repercussions for years to come. This can't be rushed and progress will not be public.

    I'd love to see something come from all this but I'm not particularly hopeful.

    Edit: To expand on this a bit...obviously, there have been several charges of Seditious Conspiracy so far, Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio being the most significant, so it seems odd that DOJ would stop at the Oathkeepers / Proud Boys with that line of prosecution. If there were a true conspiracy it would likely extend further up the chain, something the Committee has been working towards in their hearings. As this article lays out, the charge is somewhat difficult to prosecute but I'm struck by the prosecution / conviction following another attack on the Capitol in 1954, given it's loose parallels to Jan 6. So in one sense, it bodes well that DOJ feels the evidence is strong against those charged and hopefully they are able to charge others up the chain. But on the other hand, any conviction for Seditious Conspiracy will be a difficult one, even with the testimony of all the dudes that eventually flip on Rhodes and Tarrio. Mark Meadows flipping would help but I would be surprised if that ever happens.
    Last edited by cdm; 07-15-2022 at 11:16 AM.

Posting Permissions