MAGA insurrection leader denied bail, let him rot with the other filth

I would hate to be the one that is having my case heard by Judge Amit Mehta for anything vaguely related to Trump, or Jan 6. This asshole of a judge, appointed by Barack Obama, has repeatedly foisted his personal and political opinions on these two issues tainting any possibility he's being objective about either. He frequently injects conjecture, and opinion into his rulings on both. Mehta often relies on circumstantial and vague, questionable evidence to make his rulings.

Obama, Obama, Obama. Sooooo 2012. LOL

Sane, intelligent and educated people know that Presidents only nominate Federal judges and it literally takes an act of Congress to appoint them. If you blamed the Democrats, I'd agree with you but you went for "Obama, Obama, Obama" which I find hilariously ironic.
 
First, odds are good he's a sock so the number of idiots didn't increase. :)

Second, the more highly vocal racist idiots who side with the Republicans express their violent racist beliefs, the more Americans will dislike the White Supremacist version of the New Republican Party.

Yep. "By their words ye shall know them" is a good piece of advice.
 
Obama, Obama, Obama. Sooooo 2012. LOL

Sane, intelligent and educated people know that Presidents only nominate Federal judges and it literally takes an act of Congress to appoint them. If you blamed the Democrats, I'd agree with you but you went for "Obama, Obama, Obama" which I find hilariously ironic.

While Trump was in office, Obama appointed judges were overturned more than 90% of the time on rulings they made against the Trump administration. That's an unprecedented thing. How can judges, all appointed by one President, get their legal rulings so wrong as to be overturned almost every time they make one?
 
I hope the fuck suffers every second he's in lock up, fuck him and all the other Trumpist traitors


Elmer Stewart Rhodes, head of the extremist Oath Keepers group, was ordered to remain in custody Friday after a federal judge found he poses a dangerous threat to the American public and should await his July trial for seditious conspiracy behind bars.

Poring over the evidence from federal prosecutors for more than an hour, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta was unconvinced Rhodes should be released given his sophistication with covert communication, his access to weapons, and among other things, the backlog of communications where he appeared to have a total lack of remorse over fellow “patriots” storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Rhodes is currently being held at the Cimarron Prison and Correctional Facility in Oklahoma. Prosecutors asked that he stay there until his trial in Washington this summer. U.S. Attorney Katherine Rakoczy said there was serious concern that if Rhodes is transferred to the prison in Washington—where other Jan. 6 defendants are currently being held—sensitive discovery materials had the potential to be jeopardized.

Defense attorney Phillip Linder asked for the transfer, arguing it would be difficult for Rhodes to communicate with his attorneys and prepare at such distance.

Judge Mehta said he sympathized but nonetheless, the circumstantial evidence of Rhodes’ case overruled the inconvenience.

Rhodes's virtual appearance Friday was initially scheduled to take place in the early afternoon but was unexpectedly disrupted after a power outage forced a lost connection between Judge Mehta’s bench in Washington and the live feed from Oklahoma. Mehta resumed the hearing on Friday just after 5 PM.

He picked up where the court left off: a review of the charges.

Indicted in January, the seditious conspiracy charge for the 57-year-old longtime Oath Keeper is among the most serious to be brought by the Justice Department yet.

The list of allegations against Rhodes is long. Prosecutors say Rhodes oversaw a sweeping, weaponized effort to lay siege to the Capitol and obstruct the transfer of power from outgoing President Donald Trump to President-elect Joe Biden.

He oversaw the orchestration of quick-force reaction teams that crossed state lines, ultimately ending up at a northern Virginia hotel and positioning themselves just minutes outside of Washington with their weapons cache so Oath Keepers could be called up to the Capitol at a moment’s notice.

Rhodes claims that the guns and teams stashed in Virginia were there just in case Trump invoked the Insurrection Act and needed Oath Keepers to assist.

“There are a number of [statements] Mr. Rhodes makes before and after Jan. 6 that run counter to the notion that they were simply waiting on the president to invoke the Insurrection Act and once it happened, the intention he had dissipated and he was no longer a threat."

Further messages or remarks after Jan. 6 showed Rhodes expressing a willingness to stop Biden’s “illegitimate regime.”

Mehta reiterated Friday that it would ultimately be up to a jury to decide his guilt or innocence. But the circumstantial evidence in Rhodes’ case ruled out any shot he had at escaping pretrial detention.

The judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, also excoriated the suggestion by Rhodes that he was not at all aware that fellow Oath Keeper and defendant Kelly Meggs intended to breach the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Previously covert communications revealed by prosecutors on discovery showed time and again how Oath Keepers like Edward Vallejo were loyal to Rhodes, checking in with him frequently or asking his permission for various tasks.

The “evidence is strong to believe,” Mehta said, that Rhodes knew Meggs was going to breach the Capitol and likely did so on his command.

“These are not people who do things without orders. They certainly don't do things with such significance, like entering the Capitol, without an order from their commanding officer. That may turn out to be the wrong inference but it certainly is reasonable,” Mehta said.

~ dkos

Yeah...Fuck the Constitution, right ADOLF?
 
Yep. "By their words ye shall know them" is a good piece of advice.

Well said and agreed. This is why the smarter socks post rarely, mostly factually (like starting a thread with a link, article and little to no comment) and never, ever chit-chat. They'd either reveal themselves or risk being caught in a lie.

IMO, he's a sock but I don't know the primary account. Are you and I agreed he fits the Euro-descended, misogynistic, violently RW incel profile so far?
 
While Trump was in office, Obama appointed judges were overturned more than 90% of the time on rulings they made against the Trump administration. That's an unprecedented thing. How can judges, all appointed by one President, get their legal rulings so wrong as to be overturned almost every time they make one?

So when people start bitching about "Trump appointed judges" you promise to never, ever complain that "it's Congress who puts judges on the bench"?
 
Oh, social justice marches involve attempted assassination of mayoral candidates now? Huh, when the fuck did that happen you stupid cunt?

That-Escalated-Quickly-GIF-Image-for-Whatsapp-and-Facebook-18.gif
 
Well said and agreed. This is why the smarter socks post rarely, mostly factually (like starting a thread with a link, article and little to no comment) and never, ever chit-chat. They'd either reveal themselves or risk being caught in a lie.

IMO, he's a sock but I don't know the primary account. Are you and I agreed he fits the Euro-descended, misogynistic, violently RW incel profile so far?

you're like a teenage gossip girl with your stupid bullshit. grow up, fucko.
 
no. it's constitutional when it's in accordance with the constitution.

Most of us are aware of that. The Reichwingers, on the other hand, call everything that they do not agree with "unconstitutional," whether it's Roe v Wade, gun regulations, SSM, the govt. spying on us citizens (it's okay if they're "bad"), etc.
 
Most of us are aware of that. The Reichwingers, on the other hand, call everything that they do not agree with "unconstitutional," whether it's Roe v Wade, gun regulations, SSM, the govt. spying on us citizens (it's okay if they're "bad"), etc.

No.

wrong again.

they call it unconstitutional when it's unconstitutional.
 
Back
Top