I think the prosecution was really reaching and they got lucky. From what I gather, the strongest piece of evidence was a text message from Rhodes lamenting that, "We should have brought guns." To my way of thinking, that shows a lack of intent and the deliberate planning necessary to stage an attempted coup. The bar is high to make a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, with such a stiff penalty, and such a rarely used and politically sensitive charge as seditious conspiracy. The US Government takes a very lenient view of sedition, which explains a lot about our current sad state of affairs. I think that pretrial news coverage declaring the capitol breach an "insurrection" (after the fbi said it wasn't) hurt Rhodes, and also the testimony of his immediate family members who depicted him as a fanatical true believer with serious intent to overthrow the Government. I think the lesson here is the importance of avoiding the appearance of guilt. If Rhodes had honest intentions, as the defense argued, and got caught up in the moment, conjecturing on Trump authorizing his chapter of the Oath Keepers as a militia, which was likely the case, than he got dangerously close to a line he did not cross. Don't get close to legal lines in the sand and hope you're on the right side of it.
Another strike against Rhodes was the amount of planning that went into it, not so much Jan. 6, but organizing the Oath Keepers as a paramilitary borderline fifth column. The parent organization distanced themselves from what the original founder did. I think it's fair to say that in the reality Rhodes and his followers lived in, they teased the idea of an insurrection. Also, it came out that Rhodes made a violent comment about Nancy Pelosi on the day in question. I'm sure his lawyers were right that that was just talk, however, the context was too dangerous to take it lightly or not literally. So, Rhodes sunk his own battleship. He could be innocent of not planning to stage a coup and also getting carried away in the moment and still guilty. Just as he spontaneously threatened Nancy Pelosi, he could have spontaneously acted out his violent fantasy if he would have come across her, so it loses the conspiratorial aspect, and at the same time, doesn't make her any safer. Actions speak louder than words and he wasn't sounding off on his computer at home. He had already taken things far. The Government apparently wanted to make an example out of him. The trial might have gone differently had his family not thrown him under the bus. They seemed to want to be rid of him. That must have destroyed any potential sympathy he could have hoped for from the jury, in my humble opinion.
Thanks, that's the summary I was looking for. It seems there should be some serious consequences for trying to overthrow the government. Should be interesting to see if this plays out for Trump during the campaign for president and what the response of those supporting him will be.
I think the prosecution was really reaching and they got lucky. From what I gather, the strongest piece of evidence was a text message from Rhodes lamenting that, "We should have brought guns." To my way of thinking, that shows a lack of intent and the deliberate planning necessary to stage an attempted coup. The bar is high to make a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, with such a stiff penalty, and such a rarely used and politically sensitive charge as seditious conspiracy. The US Government takes a very lenient view of sedition, which explains a lot about our current sad state of affairs. I think that pretrial news coverage declaring the capitol breach an "insurrection" (after the fbi said it wasn't) hurt Rhodes, and also the testimony of his immediate family members who depicted him as a fanatical true believer with serious intent to overthrow the Government. I think the lesson here is the importance of avoiding the appearance of guilt. If Rhodes had honest intentions, as the defense argued, and got caught up in the moment, conjecturing on Trump authorizing his chapter of the Oath Keepers as a militia, which was likely the case, than he got dangerously close to a line he did not cross. Don't get close to legal lines in the sand and hope you're on the right side of it.
Another strike against Rhodes was the amount of planning that went into it, not so much Jan. 6, but organizing the Oath Keepers as a paramilitary borderline fifth column. The parent organization distanced themselves from what the original founder did. I think it's fair to say that in the reality Rhodes and his followers lived in, they teased the idea of an insurrection. Also, it came out that Rhodes made a violent comment about Nancy Pelosi on the day in question. I'm sure his lawyers were right that that was just talk, however, the context was too dangerous to take it lightly or not literally. So, Rhodes sunk his own battleship. He could be innocent of not planning to stage a coup and also getting carried away in the moment and still guilty. Just as he spontaneously threatened Nancy Pelosi, he could have spontaneously acted out his violent fantasy if he would have come across her, so it loses the conspiratorial aspect, and at the same time, doesn't make her any safer. Actions speak louder than words and he wasn't sounding off on his computer at home. He had already taken things far. The Government apparently wanted to make an example out of him. The trial might have gone differently had his family not thrown him under the bus. They seemed to want to be rid of him. That must have destroyed any potential sympathy he could have hoped for from the jury, in my humble opinion.
Thanks, that's the summary I was looking for. It seems there should be some serious consequences for trying to overthrow the government. Should be interesting to see if this plays out for Trump during the campaign for president and what the response of those supporting him will be.