Oath keepers pleads guilty for 6th

[Guno צְבִי]

Maybe you will show up on their data base

[Guno צְבִי]

MORE MADEUP BULLSHIT...LIKE EVERY SYLLABLE REGARDING TRUMP RUSSIA...


THE PROSECUTION IS FALLING ON ITS FACE = WHY THEY ARE OFFERING DEALS.

your name might show on on their data base

[Grokmaster]

Prosecutors struggle with consistent story in Jan. 6 cases



BOSTON (AP) — There’s little doubt the Oath Keepers were planning for something on Jan. 6. The question at the heart of the criminal case against its members and associates in the attack on the U.S. Capitol is: What, exactly, did they intend to do?


Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack in advance in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6.


“The plan was to unlawfully stop the certification of the Electoral College vote ... and the plan was to be prepared to use violence if necessary,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy said during a hearing this month. But the Oath Keepers “did not know precisely the way in which force and violence might be needed to support this plan,” she said.

But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case.

“The government presented a theory (without evidence) that there was a weeks long plan to invade the Capitol,” an attorney for one of the Oath Keepers, Jessica Watkins, wrote in a recent court filing. “There was no such plan.”

In one case, prosecutors declared in court documents in January there was “strong evidence” the pro-Trump mob aimed to “capture and assassinate elected officials." The Justice Department quickly clarified it had no such evidence, blaming it on a miscommunication between prosecutors.

After she was pressed by a judge in a recent hearing, Rakoczy conceded authorities “do not have at this point someone explicitly saying, ‘our plan is to force entry into the Capitol in order to stop the certification,’” but cautioned that the investigation is ongoing.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgntp

[Stone]

Maybe you will show up on their data base

[evince]

Yeah that will save them

[evince]

Prosecutors struggle with consistent story in Jan. 6 cases



BOSTON (AP) — There’s little doubt the Oath Keepers were planning for something on Jan. 6. The question at the heart of the criminal case against its members and associates in the attack on the U.S. Capitol is: What, exactly, did they intend to do?


Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack in advance in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6.


“The plan was to unlawfully stop the certification of the Electoral College vote ... and the plan was to be prepared to use violence if necessary,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy said during a hearing this month. But the Oath Keepers “did not know precisely the way in which force and violence might be needed to support this plan,” she said.

But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case.

“The government presented a theory (without evidence) that there was a weeks long plan to invade the Capitol,” an attorney for one of the Oath Keepers, Jessica Watkins, wrote in a recent court filing. “There was no such plan.”

In one case, prosecutors declared in court documents in January there was “strong evidence” the pro-Trump mob aimed to “capture and assassinate elected officials." The Justice Department quickly clarified it had no such evidence, blaming it on a miscommunication between prosecutors.

After she was pressed by a judge in a recent hearing, Rakoczy conceded authorities “do not have at this point someone explicitly saying, ‘our plan is to force entry into the Capitol in order to stop the certification,’” but cautioned that the investigation is ongoing.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgntp

ERROR IS ALL YOUR LINK PROVIDES

[evince]

your name might show on on their data base

It’s a Russo bot hole

[Nordberg]

From who?

You? Angry gun nuts and Trump suckups might. The Qs would approve too.

[T. A. Gardner]

You? Angry gun nuts and Trump suckups might. The Qs would approve too.

He's going to be threatened by these guys in prison? Yea, sure...

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

From who?

Everybody he informs on.

[Jarod]

First to squeal gets the best deal!

[Jarod]

That’s a pretty good size sentence, I bet the other defendants are shitting in their pants right about now.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jarod,

That’s a pretty good size sentence, I bet the other defendants are shitting in their pants right about now.

Better there than the capitol floor.

[Nordberg]

He's going to be threatened by these guys in prison? Yea, sure...

They are not all there. Lots of you far rightys are running free.

[Doc Dutch]

Yeap


Imagine what identity they will give him

California liberal living in La Jolla and working for an abortion clinic. STY, et al., will never find him there.