RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/07/justice-department-threatens-oath-keepers-with-life-in-prison/

In a letter obtained by American Greatness, the U.S. Department of Justice is threatening defendants charged with seditious conspiracy in the sprawling Oath Keepers case to accept plea deals or face life in prison.

Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia handling every prosecution related to the events of January 6, 2021, imposed a May 6 deadline for the remaining defendants to accept plea deals. Three men have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy; nine others, including Oath Keepers’ founder Stewart Rhodes, have rejected government attempts to reach a plea.

“We write to advise you of applicable penalties that could apply upon conviction at trial,” Graves’ chief prosecutor in the case, Kathyrn Rakoczy, wrote to defense attorneys in a letter dated May 2. (Every January 6 defendant who has faced a jury trial in Washington, D.C. has been found guilty on all charges by jurors following brief deliberations.)

After detailing the hefty prison sentences and fines associated with other offenses charged in the case, Rakoczy turned to the potential sentence for seditious conspiracy, a crime so rare that federal sentencing guidelines don’t cover it. “The United States takes the position that the most analogous offense to seditious conspiracy is ‘Treason,’” Rakoczy wrote. If a jury concludes the conspiracy involved conduct “that is tantamount to waging war against the United States,” Rakoczy explained, the government could seek a life sentence upon conviction.

Seditious conspiracy is defined as two or more people who “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.” After pressure from the media and Democratic leaders, Graves’ office indicted 11 Oath Keepers with seditious conspiracy on January 12, 2022. Another Oath Keeper was indicted this week.

The Oath Keepers are not accused of carrying or using any weapons on January 6; none is charged with directly vandalizing government property. Two “stacks” of Oath Keepers entered the building after the joint session of Congress recessed that afternoon and walked through open doors with police nearby.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/clarence-thomas-says-supreme-court-wont-be-bullied-after-leak-of-draft-opinion-overturning-roe/

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas warned that the Court can’t be “bullied” in comments at a judicial conference in Atlanta on Friday.

“We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like,” Thomas said, according to Reuters. “We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.”

While Thomas did not explicitly discuss the leak of a draft opinion earlier this week that would overturn the decision in Roe v. Wade, the justice referenced “unfortunate events” of the past week during his talk, the Washington Post noted. The opinion, first reported by Politico and later confirmed as authentic by Chief Justice John Roberts, sparked condemnation from Democrats.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/bidens-thug-government/

The Democrats don’t care about politically motivated violence, American institutions, or the Constitution.

If Democrats and other Trump obsessives are really wondering why much of the country couldn’t care less about the Capitol riot, they need look no further than the Biden administration’s disgraceful response to the criminal leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion in the Dobbs abortion case, and to the intensifying threats from the radical Left that endanger the justices, their families, and the Court as an institution.

It is worse than a nonresponse. It is worse than a reckless response. The Biden administration and Democratic Party activists are complicit in the extortionate, norm-busting, burn-it-down id of the woke progressivism they extol.

It is thug government.

I thought President Trump should be impeached over January 6. I still do. Because they can’t help themselves, Democrats corrupted the impeachment. Rather than conducting a competent investigation and crafting impeachment articles that met the moment, they put impeachment in the service of their racialist demagoguery. The impeachment was not so much an attack on Trump, who emerged unscathed. It was an attack on Trump supporters and Republicans generally, who were smeared as white-supremacist domestic terrorists. Congressional Democrats also laid the foundation that would enable progressive activists to file legal actions against Republican lawmakers who supported Trump’s fraudulent “Stop the Steal” gambits in Congress and the courts — seeking their disqualification as “insurrectionists” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

To the contrary, Trump should have been impeached on two grounds. First, the “Stop the Steal” con job — based on scant evidence of election fraud, patently absurd legal theories, and such artifices as the presentation of phony Trump elector slates as if they were legitimate alternatives to the authentic Biden slates certified by the states at issue — was a willful undermining of the states’ constitutional authority over presidential elections. It was thus a profound betrayal of the president’s core duty to defend the Constitution and execute the laws faithfully.

Second, the president was derelict in failing to use his executive powers and his influence over his supporters to oppose and end an uprising at the seat of government. Far from protecting the Capitol, members of Congress, and the vice president, the president swerved between provocative rhetoric that further endangered them and inaction when he could have short-circuited the mayhem by swiftly calling for the rioters to stand down, and backing those words with firm enforcement action.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/who-funds-the-campaign-to-smear-and-pressure-elon-musk

Elon Musk’s maybe-impending purchase of Twitter is being treated not as a mere business acquisition but as a kind of twilight battle over the fate of the American experiment. Maybe there was a time when hypothetical and probably minor changes to the terms of service of a social networking website could be seen as an eminently survivable event, without any larger implications for long-established rights and customs like free speech. But those days are gone now, as evidenced by yet another high-profile, strong-arm effort by a weirdly open combination of private and public powers acting in unison to taint or scuttle the Twitter sale.

On May 3, a trio of so-called “advocacy groups” sent a letter to Twitter’s major corporate advertisers, including image-conscious and regulation-sensitive heavyweights like Coca-Cola and Disney, urging them to pull their business from Twitter if Musk proves unwilling to censor speech on the platform to those organizations’ satisfaction. “Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety,” began the missive, distributed under the letterhead of Media Matters for America, Accountable Tech, and UltraViolet, and co-signed by another two dozen groups, including the Women’s March, Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, and NARAL Pro-Choice America. These groups are promising to mobilize their activists, and whatever other resources they might have, to punish companies that will stick by Twitter if it junks its pre-Musk content moderation regime. The pitch was a simple one: Nice store you got there. It would be a shame if someone threw a rock through your window.

Musk seemed to take the not-so-subtle threats of brand damage and possible federal regulation as a challenge. “Who funds these organizations that want to control your access to information? Let’s investigate …” Musk suggested on Twitter. But while the question showed moxie, its scope was also clearly too limited. Better to ask: What function do these “advocacy groups” serve? And for whom?