“The three indictments collectively charge all 19 defendants with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. Eighteen of the 19 defendants – the exception is Walden – are charged with conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiring to prevent an officer of the United States from discharging a duty. Eleven of the 19 defendants are charged with seditious conspiracy. Some of the defendants are also facing other related charges.”
These are serious charges. News at 11.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
There goes the argument that nobody has been charged with anything serious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and?
LikeLike
Ah, further exoneration of Trump.
Since they allegedly conspired long before Trump spoke, clearly the Senate was correct in finding that Trump’s speech did not inspire the riot.
LikeLike
Your statement shows how much you ignored what went on and what was said, over and over again, by Mr. Trump, over the several YEARS of his term. He started in 2016 and kept the drumbeat going that the only way he could lose was if the election was somehow rigged or stolen. His calls for his supporters to do violence towards those who disagreed with him were numerous. If you don’t see the correlation between his 4 years of screaming and what the current charges filed are, you are being blatantly ignorant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“clearly the Senate was correct in finding that Trump’s speech did not inspire the riot.”
Yet the Minority Leader in the Senate stood on the Senate floor and proclaimed that Mr. Trump WAS responsible for what happened. As did Minority Leader McCarthy in the House.
How soon the amnesia sets in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump’s calling for, leading, inspiring, and participating in the insurrection did not begin with his speech on January 6th.
Unless you have checked all common sense at the door, his hours of passivity in the face of the violence against the Congress tells you that these people were doing what he wanted them to do. He called them to DC on that special day. What is the point of a merely political rally after the election has been lost? No point at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was the Jan 6 speech that was the basis for the impeachment, and that clearly had nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
Uh, that speech was not the only basis for the impeachment. You really do not get to make up your own facts. His speech that day was set in the context of the Big Lie and his other efforts to overturn the election results by illegal means. Read for yourself.
If Trump or his subordinates had any involvement with these specific indicted conspirators – which we do not know even now – Congress would not have had such knowledge in January of 2021.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-effort-live-updates/2021/01/11/955631105/impeachment-resolution-cites-trumps-incitement-of-capitol-insurrection
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “These are serious charges. News at 11.”
In what sense are they “serious”?
LikeLike
Let the downplaying continue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No answer?
LikeLike
“No answer?”
If you are unable to grasp that a group of people conspiring to overthrow the government with seditious violence and acting on that conspiracy is something serious, then you do not deserve an answer and any attempt to provide you with one would be pointless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got it. You think the charges are serious because the defendants are guilty.
LikeLike
“Got it.”
As usual you don’t. The CHARGES are serious. Period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then you, too, have no answer to the question: In what sense are they “serious”?
LikeLike
“Then you, too, have no answer to the question: In what sense are they “serious”?”
Well, here is ONE answer for the deliberately ignorant. A charge that carries a prison sentence of twenty years is “serious.” Of course, that is just an opinion. Maybe you think twenty years in prison is not “serious.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “A charge that carries a prison sentence of twenty years is ‘serious.'”
That’s why I asked the question in the first place. Obviously a 20-year sentence is “serious,” but there is the problem of winning a conviction first. Even a “serious sentence” like the death penalty wouldn’t be serious at all if the prosecution is frivolous.
LikeLike
“That’s why I asked the question in the first place”
The Hell it is. You already knew that these people face serious prison time if convicted. You asked it as a rhetorical question intended to minimize the crimes of January 6th. If by some wild chance that was not your intent, the effect was exactly that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You asked it as a rhetorical question intended to minimize the crimes of January 6th.”
I’m not interested in debating the results of your mind reading.
LikeLike
“I’m not interested in debating the results of your mind reading.”
LOL! Mind reading again!
There is no mind reading involved. There are only two possibilities. Either you really, truly, and ignorantly did not know that these conspirators are facing very serious charges. Or you were asking a rhetorical question to make a point.
I did not think that you were THAT ignorant. So, that means it was a rhetorical question, not a real attempt to elicit information.
And now in responding to your dumbassery pretending somehow that it was a real question, we have gone around and around on the meaning of the word “serious.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have claimed there was no insurrection or sedition. No you are saying that now that the charges have been filed, they aren’t serious?
You are cordially invited to 20 years @, Oh, I guess maybe Petersburg FCI, Medium Security Section.
LikeLike
I asked why Mr. Rothman considers the charges “serious.” I have seen gulty-until-proven-innocent thinking many times in the past and thought it reasonable to see if it applies to this post.
LikeLike
A felony charge is always serious, whether you are guilty or not. A trial guilty verdict or plea will turn a serious charge into a serious conviction.
Seditious conspiracies, conspiracy to prevent laws from being enacted or conspiracy to interfere with the legislature all carry potential decades long sentences. No “time served plus $250 fine and community service”.
I would consider those pretty serious, don’t you. Now if they are found not guilty, then of course they won’t be felons.
Legal fees will be high, but perhaps their mentor might cough up some of the 100’s of millions he raked in for “legal fees”. He did promise to pay legal fees during rallies when his supporters assaulted protesters. So there is a precedent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your clarification, Mr. Rothman. I think the charges are serious, too, in the sense that having to defend against them is a non-trivial matter. To my mind it remains to be seen whether the charges are serious in the sense that those charged are guilty.
LikeLike
Your vote for autocracy is noted.
LikeLike
Whether or not they are found guilty, they face serious charges.
What should be interesting are the apparent links of the Oathkeepers to team Trump members like Roger Stone, Bannon, etc. and some were seen around the Willard in the days before the attack.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty is our system and it will have to run its course here too. But the point of my posting was to challenge the “no serious charges” other than parading or rowdy tourism.
So, news at 11.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, news at 11:00.
As in all the indictments fail in prosecution.
LikeLike
Sedition and the first amendment are ferocious enemies. It’s the reason sedition charges are rarely levied and even more rarely successful. DOJ under Garland is doing all he can to hype up a blundering photo op prior to midterms
LikeLike
RE: “DOJ under Garland is doing all he can to hype up a blundering photo op prior to midterms.”
You may be right. One day Congressional testimony confirms that no one has been charged with “insurrection.” The very next day, indictments for conspiracy to commit sedition are announced. Notice that sedition itself is not the charge, but conspiracy.
Court, meet kangaroo.
LikeLike
“Notice that sedition itself is not the charge, but conspiracy.”
Cherry picker. The charges are Conspiracy to Commit Insurrection. If it were only Conspiracy, as you contend, the maximum sentence would only be 10 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. Insurrection isn’t mentioned. The article describes the charge as “seditious conspiracy.”
LikeLike
Correction, Sedition was the word I should have used in lieu of insurrection.
LikeLike
“Court, meet kangaroo.”
Your straw grasping is getting to the point of hysteria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whatever.
LikeLike
Very grown up come back. Your continued defense of those who have been charged is notable for the fact you continue to deny that they deserved to be charged. Even with the pieces of evidence so far made public, it is quite damning.
But you damned others for less. SO be it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “you continue to deny that they deserved to be charged”
Show me the words I used to make you think that.
LikeLike
Merrick is still pissed for not being selected for SCOTUS and wants pay back. That’s all….
LikeLike
…”a blundering photo op”
You are badly confusing Lafayette Park with Jan 6th.
LikeLike
Sedition by itself is not the charge. Seditious conspiracy is. Big difference. Along with conspiracies to prevent Congress from enacting law or carrying them out.
And conspiracies can snag members of team Trump as texts, calls, and other messaging come to light.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The basis is still sedition. So instead of being charged with “free speech” they are being charged with “conspiracy to commit free speech”. Good luck with that. So “insurrection” is no longer the favored liberal word since folks used their smart phones to look up the definition and know there wasn’t one? Sensationalism on display again
LikeLike
Free speech does not give anyone the right to attempt to overthrow the results of an official proceeding through the use of violence.
But in your mind there was no violence on Jan 6th. Good for your rainbow world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And it will be interesting to see what happens when the Oath Keepers start cooperating to save their backsides for serious prison time. I wonder which one of the sniveling GOP Congress people drops first. My money is on Gosar, followed closely by Cruz. (OK wishful thinking on Cruz. But it sure will be fun to see him grovel at the feet of Tucker Carlson…AGAIN.)
LikeLiked by 1 person