I want to walk through jury instructions on seditious conspiracy to demonstrate the vagueness of the charge and how easy it is to prove.
Just look at (2)--this could apply to essentially any political protest on the federal level.
Just look at (2)--this could apply to essentially any political protest on the federal level.
So agreeing to a "conspiracy" (I'll get to that laughable definition in a moment) to interfere in the execution of federal law is "seditious" but oh btw it's not necessary for DOJ to prove that the accused knew which law they conspired to break🤔
There are not enough LOLs in the world for this.
One prosecutor told Proud Boys jury that a "wink and a nod" constitutes agreement to a conspiracy.
Now do you see the low bar to indict Trump?
One prosecutor told Proud Boys jury that a "wink and a nod" constitutes agreement to a conspiracy.
Now do you see the low bar to indict Trump?
But it says "by force!" Here's DOJs burden of proof.
Basically none.
Further, what "force" was used when no one brought a weapon, no one assaulted police, and some (Nordean) walked through an open door WITH POLICE RIGHT THERE.
Further, Enrique Tarrio was in Baltimore on Jan 6
Basically none.
Further, what "force" was used when no one brought a weapon, no one assaulted police, and some (Nordean) walked through an open door WITH POLICE RIGHT THERE.
Further, Enrique Tarrio was in Baltimore on Jan 6
Consider how this would apply to nearly every protest in Washington, especially climate demonstrations and Kavanaugh confirmation process.
This is conspiracy to obstruct Congress.
This is conspiracy to obstruct Congress.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
