According to the FBI warrant. Mother Jones., Request evidence for possible violations of the nine criminal laws, including “anti-national conspiracy” and other violations are all crimes against which defendants have already been charged on January 6, including destruction of public property. Violations, destruction of evidence, false statements and obstruction of Congress.
As Marcy Wheeler has pointed out. Repeatedly in Amphitheater, the latter allegation has been a key source for federal prosecutors to prosecute the rebels, as one sentence carries a 20-year federal prison sentence for treason, a difficult charge to prove. In addition, it increases terrorism, which can be applied at the time of sentencing, such as insurgency.
If you do not mention the obstacle – and your sources do not explain that the obstacle will take you to the exact place where you will be accused of sedition, but between the defendants and very little evidence With too much flexibility to differentiate (unless and until the judge decides it has been misused) – then your sources are not telling you what is going on with the investigation.
That is why the insistence that the January 6 siege was not “terrorism” or “insurgency” because these words do not appear at all in the charging documents is how the federal government prosecutes domestic terrorism crimes.
Eric Halde and Rachel Hanna explained. How it works in the Fair Blog: “Since there is no specific crime of domestic terrorism, federal prosecutors can use a range of charges when pursuing domestic terrorists.”
These include some 57 different crimes that could be charged with terrorism, many of which have been blamed on insurgents, such as malicious destruction of property and deliberate sabotage of federal property. ۔ But the basic tool the prosecution uses is an increase in terrorism that can be applied during sentencing.
This increase can be applied to federal crimes of terrorism; intimidation or coercion of the civilian population.
As Wheeler note.“Charging the January 6 riots with a barrier provides the DOJ with a very beautiful way to hold people accountable, while giving them the flexibility to differentiate between different levels of seriousness (unless some judge 18 USC 1512’s.” Reverse this request. “
Federal judges overseeing the case have recently raised the issue of whether the obstruction of Congress is a valid allegation in these cases. During this week’s hearing before District Judge Amit Mehta, the judge questioned the prosecution about the application of this particular law in this case. New York Times Legal correspondent Alan Favre reported on Twitter..
Mehta pointed out that the law, 18 USC 1512, was originally passed as part of it. 2002 Sarbens-Oxley Act., Which was primarily corporate reform legislation. He said the law appears to have been designed primarily to prevent obstructions such as tearing up documents and tampering with witnesses. The prosecution responded that the use of the word “corrupt” in the law was in line with the actions of the insurgents. Finally, Mehta. Agreed, Although the issue of suitability remains in the air.
As Favre observed.Judge Mehta is now the second federal judge to be surprised [government’d] The 1512 barrier charge is designed to punish crimes such as tampering with witnesses. [and] A good fit for document destruction. [Jan. 6] Riot Judge Randolph Moss had similar concerns at a hearing last month.
Wheeler observed that this may be the reason why investigators are now reviewing possible “treason conspiracy” allegations in the Oath Keeper case: Will be accused of conspiracy to commit treason. This may be the first sign of it. He tweeted.
So Rail complained to reporters about the FBI confiscating his phone. “[T]Hey all my customers and my work, “he said. Mother Jones.. “[It’s] Immorally by them.
On Twitter, SoRelle has claimed that he is in a “deep state” due to his involvement with Mike Lindell.
As Mother Jones. Note, citing sedition charges in the SoRelle warrant does not mean that anyone will face treason charges, but it is an official acknowledgment that the FBI is investigating the possibility that it did. Was And as. Rally notes.: “Issuing a search warrant against a lawyer activates protocol within the Department of Justice, and the move to seize SoRelle’s phone will require approval from top DOJ officials.”
SoRelle sent a message to Riley that she had met with two law enforcement officers at her home and then went to “Cruisers / Starbucks”, where they talked for hours.
He wrote, “I have a lot of things.” They either think I’m a mastermind, or they want to dig through everything freely – either way, it’s immoral. “