Seditious Conspiracy--Calling All Legal Eagles

[nsacpi]

I've been thinking about U.S. vs Rahman. Bet not many of you know about this case. It is connected to the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Omar Abdel-Rahman is a blind cleric who played a role in inspiring that bombing. He gave spiritual blessings to it and other criminal conspiracies.

I'm not a lawyer but some pretty good lawyers are thinking along the same lines.

It seems to me very poorly chosen one could face a degree legal jeopardy very similar to the ones Rahman ended up being charged and convicted of. Seditious conspiracy was one of the charges.

Rudy is in the same boat.

I believe very poorly chosen one's lawyers are aware of this jeopardy. I don't how aware he is. But he could be even more desperate and unpredictable in his remaining days in office than anyone realizes.

[Tapate50]

He makes great noodles why would the US bring a case against a blind guy ?

[nsacpi]

Ramen > Rahman

[striker42]

I read the Rahman case real quick and it's instructive as to the situation here. In fact, it might actually help Trump more than it hurts him.

The court was very clear it wasn't the public speeches where Rahman railed against the US that led to his conviction, it was the times he gave direct instructions to followers to commit criminal acts.

For example, part of this conspiracy was to assassinate Egyptian president Mubarak when he visited New York. Rahman told a follower "Depend on God. Carry out this operation. It does not require a fatwa ․ You are ready in training, but do it. Go ahead."

That's the kind of specific direction that takes speech into the realm of conspiracy.

The most succinct explanation in the case I saw was:

"To be convicted under Section 2384, one must conspire to use force, not just to advocate the use of force."

If Trump ordered his people to go online and solicit paramilitary groups to incite a riot at the Capitol and try to force them to vacate the election, you'd have conspiracy.

Trump can publicly advocate violence, the violence can occur, and it still not be criminal.

[nsacpi]

He makes great noodles why would the US bring a case against a blind guy ?

cuz he is muslim...there will be some delicious irony (maybe tasting better than ramen) if his case serves as any sort of precedent for very poorly chosen one

[mqt]

I read the Rahman case real quick and it's instructive as to the situation here. In fact, it might actually help Trump more than it hurts him.

The court was very clear it wasn't the public speeches where Rahman railed against the US that led to his conviction, it was the times he gave direct instructions to followers to commit criminal acts.

For example, part of this conspiracy was to assassinate Egyptian president Mubarak when he visited New York. Rahman told a follower "Depend on God. Carry out this operation. It does not require a fatwa ․ You are ready in training, but do it. Go ahead."

That's the kind of specific direction that takes speech into the realm of conspiracy.

The most succinct explanation in the case I saw was:

"To be convicted under Section 2384, one must conspire to use force, not just to advocate the use of force."

If Trump ordered his people to go online and solicit paramilitary groups to incite a riot at the Capitol and try to force them to vacate the election, you'd have conspiracy.

Trump can publicly advocate violence, the violence can occur, and it still not be criminal.

That’s been my understanding all along with Trump and all the Republicans who objected last week. Not only would it seem like a hell of a stretch to bring Trump up on any charges, I don’t actually see a compelling argument for impeachment of Trump or the expulsion of any members of Congress. Is Trump a dangerous idiot? Yes. Could the type of idiot who would actually storm the Capitol think he genuinely wanted them to do that? Also yes. But did he openly call for them to break in and commit crimes on his behalf? I would say no.

Edited to add: This isn’t to say Trump was an innocent bystander or that he doesn’t bear some responsibility morally for his actions and statements. He didn’t do enough in my opinion to discourage his supporters and certainly did help incite them. I just think that when you look at it legally, it’s a different standard.

[nsacpi]

“We got to rid of the weak Congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world,” Trump said in the speech, singling her out as he urged the mob to march to the Capitol.

there are various ways to interpret language like this and i think context should be taken into account...there were undoubtedly some in the mob prepared to take these words literally

it should also be noted that very poorly chosen one demurred repeatedly when aides urged him to intervene after the insurrection began

[mqt]

“We got to rid of the weak Congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world,” Trump said in the speech, singling her out as he urged the mob to march to the Capitol.

there are various ways to interpret language like this...there were undoubtedly some in the mob prepared to take these words literally

it should also be noted that very poorly chosen one demurred repeatedly when aides urged him to intervene after the insurrection began

That feels hard to prove, though. Which is sort of the point and why it’s associated with successful mob bosses.

[striker42]

Would someone not rid me of the meddlesome priest?

[nsacpi]

Would someone not rid me of the meddlesome priest?

yes!

we need to get rid of Liz Cheney said in the middle of a primary campaign rings a bit differently than the same words on January 6 before a mob he himself had summoned to Washington

by the way Dick Cheney was watching on television and was alarmed enough to call his daughter to warn her

[mqt]

Would someone not rid me of the meddlesome priest?

This certainly came to mind, particularly with Comey’s testimony a few years ago bringing the same point. I do believe Trump wouldn’t have any particular objections to what happened on his behalf, and might have even meant to incite the violence. I just don’t see how you come close to proving that, and I personally feel like impeachment shouldn’t be pursued based on assumptions of the President’s intent.

[Krgrecw]

That’s been my understanding all along with Trump and all the Republicans who objected last week. Not only would it seem like a hell of a stretch to bring Trump up on any charges, I don’t actually see a compelling argument for impeachment of Trump or the expulsion of any members of Congress. Is Trump a dangerous idiot? Yes. Could the type of idiot who would actually storm the Capitol think he genuinely wanted them to do that? Also yes. But did he openly call for them to break in and commit crimes on his behalf? I would say no.

Edited to add: This isn’t to say Trump was an innocent bystander or that he doesn’t bear some responsibility morally for his actions and statements. He didn’t do enough in my opinion to discourage his supporters and certainly did help incite them. I just think that when you look at it legally, it’s a different standard.

Thank you for the first paragraph of your reply. It’s sad so many are blinded by thier hatred of Trump that they can’t separate thier feelings for him vs the reality of the situation.

[nsacpi]

This certainly came to mind, particularly with Comey’s testimony a few years ago bringing the same point. I do believe Trump wouldn’t have any particular objections to what happened on his behalf, and might have even meant to incite the violence. I just don’t see how you come close to proving that, and I personally feel like impeachment shouldn’t be pursued based on assumptions of the President’s intent.

we have a lot of context here...he threatened Raffensperger too...he threatened Pence

i've kind of joked around about the secret service needing to investigate the threat against the vice president

[mqt]

we have a lot of context here...he threatened Raffensperger too...he threatened Pence

i've kind of joked around about the secret service needing to investigate the threat against the vice president

I still can’t see a path to definitively stating that he threatened those people. I think it’s widely understood what he meant, but the fact that it was implicit rather than explicit feels like it matters legally.

[mqt]

Thank you for the first paragraph of your reply. It’s sad so many are blinded by thier hatred of Trump that they can’t separate thier feelings for him vs the reality of the situation.

Yeah, don’t get me wrong. I think Trump is bad and has done nothing but say the wrong thing since the election. I just don’t see how impeaching him or trying to assign criminal liability to his words is the right path forward. I’d love it if Trump were removed from office and publicly humiliated, but I don’t love the precedent it sets.

[nsacpi]

I still can’t see a path to definitively stating that he threatened those people. I think it’s widely understood what he meant, but the fact that it was implicit rather than explicit feels like it matters legally.

I think you're right that based on what is currently public knowledge there would not be enough to make a case based upon the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. There are some hints in media accounts of how he reacted to the attack that might be problematic from a legal perspective given he was in a position to stop it. Depends on what the people present say about it if asked under oath.

[cajunrevenge]

The question I have is what was the goal of the "stop the steal" rally at the Capitol? There was no scenario where Trump wins. So yell loudly at the sky? Trump did not concede he had no path to victory but he did keep up the lie that there was still time to change the outcome.



The second question I have is what should a patriotic American did if Congress and the VP are in a guant conspiracy with China to overthrow the government? Theoretically it is constitutional to defend the country idnt it? Trump legitimately convinced these lunatics American has been overthrown by communist China. How is violence not the response to that?




The real key is if Trump himself or through any if his sycophants sabotaged the defense of the Capitol. Understaffing thr defense is literally asking for violence when they are guarding something like Congress doing their constitutionally mandated duty. If this was a normal protest the cops can retreat. There is generally no specific thing under attack.

[57Brave]

The question I have is what was the goal of the "stop the steal" rally at the Capitol? There was no scenario where Trump wins. So yell loudly at the sky? Trump did not concede he had no path to victory but he did keep up the lie that there was still time to change the outcome.



The second question I have is what should a patriotic American did if Congress and the VP are in a guant conspiracy with China to overthrow the government? Theoretically it is constitutional to defend the country idnt it? Trump legitimately convinced these lunatics American has been overthrown by communist China. How is violence not the response to that?




The real key is if Trump himself or through any if his sycophants sabotaged the defense of the Capitol. Understaffing thr defense is literally asking for violence when they are guarding something like Congress doing their constitutionally mandated duty. If this was a normal protest the cops can retreat. There is generally no specific thing under attack.

exactly

[Jaw]

The question I have is what was the goal of the "stop the steal" rally at the Capitol? There was no scenario where Trump wins. So yell loudly at the sky? Trump did not concede he had no path to victory but he did keep up the lie that there was still time to change the outcome.



The second question I have is what should a patriotic American did if Congress and the VP are in a guant conspiracy with China to overthrow the government? Theoretically it is constitutional to defend the country idnt it? Trump legitimately convinced these lunatics American has been overthrown by communist China. How is violence not the response to that?




The real key is if Trump himself or through any if his sycophants sabotaged the defense of the Capitol. Understaffing thr defense is literally asking for violence when they are guarding something like Congress doing their constitutionally mandated duty. If this was a normal protest the cops can retreat. There is generally no specific thing under attack.

Public pressure and awareness, the same as the peaceful BLM protests, or the peaceful Rodney King protests, or literally any other protests. None of them have the ability to directly effect the change they want, they attempt to do it coercively.
Now, you could make the argument that it will always be stupid to protest for right of center causes, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't it make it any more nefarious than the other peaceful protests we've seen.

[cajunrevenge]

This isnt nearly as big of deal if its a protest in support of Trump in Dallas Texas that got violent. Think about this. When the left is protesting the police the police are right in their faces. Those protesters often get beat up by those same police they are protesting. Telling these people dont get violent is like if we dressed up Pelosi and Democrats in some ironman suits and had them go beat up the Trump supporters and then claimed anything they tried to do in retaliation as violence. Protesting police is a situation that can escalate real quick. These Trump tards werent there to protest the police. Their only issue with the police was that they stood between them and the people they wanted to murder. If BLM surrounds a state capitol making a law they dont like and try to burn it down or murder lawmakers to stop it then we have comparable situations.