Elmer Rhodes sedition trial has gone to the jury.

[fightforfreedom]

It shouldn't take long to make decision. A guilty verdict would be a big deal. He is the leader of the oath keepers and he was in contact with someone at the White House.

[gab13by13]

1. Everyone knows who,

Mark Meadows, Ms. Hutchinson already told the J6 committee.

[Ohio Joe]

3. When did that happen?

Here is a link that has all of the transcripts from the hearings:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216865632

Your claim would be bombshell testimony even larger than what she did actually say but... There does not seem to be any indication what you say happened

[gab13by13]

6. Wow, you went to a lot of work.

Meadows was involved in everything. he is the guy who kept Trump's hands clean. he wanted to go to a meeting at the Willard Hotel and Ms. Hutchinson advised him not to go. Why would Trump's Chief of Staff want to go to a meeting at the Willard Hotel? What good innocent reason? Meadows was also involved in the theft of classified documents, he knew all about it.

Can I prove that Meadows was involved in a court of law? Hell no I can't because Meadows appears to be off base. DOJ subpoenaed him and all he gave it was the same documents he gave the J6 committee. When someone put the clamps on Meadows to stop providing the J6 committee with information he became tighter than a frog's ass. So the J6 committee sends a criminal referral to DOJ for not honoring its subpoena, DOJ shit cans the referral. Why? I have no idea. I was told because of discovery but that makes no sense, the crimes were committed in the open. I can only guess that there is a sanctity between a former president and his Chief of Staff that is more important to protect for an Institutionalist.

Even Lyndsey Graham went before the Georgia grand jury, or is going to go. A judge ruled that Meadows must also testify before the Georgia grand jury but he gets to appeal his case to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

The question was asked, who was Rhoades talking to at the White House, seeing as Meadows was implicated by Ms Hutchinson for having an interest to go to a meeting at the Willard Hotel, the logical person to call would be Meadows. No I can't prove it in a court of law.

[Ohio Joe]

11. 5 minutes is not a lot of work...

I try to deal with facts and reality, not what 'I know'. There is no indication Rhoades ever talked to Meadows... There are facts that say he did indeed talk with Stone... And Stone talked with several in the White House. That can be proven in a court of law.

"When someone put the clamps on Meadows to stop providing the J6 committee with information he became tighter than a frog's ass. So the J6 committee sends a criminal referral to DOJ for not honoring its subpoena, DOJ shit cans the referral. Why?"

There are several ideas being floated, I'd explain them to you... Again... But I know you prefer to keep to your secret sources. The fact is, that while the investigation is ongoing, there is much we will not know.

"I have no idea. I was told because of discovery but that makes no sense, the crimes were committed in the open"

Yet... There is much you admit you cannot prove.

"I can only guess that there is a sanctity between a former president and his Chief of Staff that is more important to protect for an Institutionalist."

Another cheap swipe at Garland because he does not accept what you 'know'. Garland cannot simply force someone to break the confidence between President and Chief of Staff without evidence that can be proven in court but... You know that.

"Even Lyndsey Graham went before the Georgia grand jury, or is going to go. A judge ruled that Meadows must also testify before the Georgia grand jury but he gets to appeal his case to the South Carolina Supreme Court."

Yes, he does. Because that is where the prosecutors made the motion to force him to testify... It's the law.

I get it... You don't feel laws and courts should apply in this case but... They do... And that is the fact and the reality we should deal with.

[ck4829]

2. "Oath who? Weren't they just a bunch of frat boys who got the coffee?" in 3... 2...

[Takket]

4. A lot riding on this.

If juries won’t convict guys like this there is no way in hell DOJ can take the ringleaders to trial. Need to nail these underlinings

[gab13by13]

7. I agree, for seditious conspiracy,

it is difficult to prove. Plus a trial for Trump would most likely be held in Florida. I wouldn't even indict Trump for seditious conspiracy, just go for the mar-el-Loco document crimes, those crimes are cut and dried.

[Dan]

8. I believe....now it's just me...but I believe

That everyone (Impeachments, etc.) have always tried to get Trump on the “sure thing”, instead of all the crimes that he had been a party too. And, he has walked. Why not, the next time, throw the damn book at him. Every crime that he has committed or been a party too. Even if it takes all day to read all the different charges that where he can be indicted - throw the book at his ass.

Enough ketchup - and maybe something will stick.

[gab13by13]

10. I'm not opposed to your idea,

I am worried about this Rhoades' trial, I don't think it is a sure thing. The traitors used burner phones with encryption, luckily Rhoades was too stupid to delete everything from social media.

[gratuitous]

5. These are by far the most serious charges that have been brought

We'll see how this shakes out. I have to think that a guilty verdict would encourage other prosecutors to bring the most serious charges forward even if their cases aren't as air-tight as they would like. On the other hand, if Elmer and his pals get off with a slap on the wrist for the lesser charges, it will set other prosecutions back badly. One need look no further than AUSA Billy Williams' botching of the Bundy prosecution to imagine how that would go.

If the jury's back before Thanksgiving with guilty verdicts across the board, you may actually hear sphincters tightening in Florida.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. These assholes need to be locked up