Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was sentenced on Thursday in Washington DC.
Far-left Obama-appointed US District Judge Amit Mehta on Thursday sentenced Rhodes to 18 years in federal prison. This was after he added extra years to his sentence because he believed Rhodes’ actions amounted to terrorism. This was completely ludicrous. The soulless judge then lectured him on what a danger he was to society.
Mehta sentenced Stewart Rhodes to 18 years. Rhodes is currently 57. If this unconstitutional conviction stands, Rhodes will be 75 when he is released.
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes NEVER went inside the US Capitol on January 6. He never instructed anyone to go inside the US Capitol. He was unarmed as were all of his Oath Keeper associates that day. There was no plan to enter the US Capitol. There was no scheme to take over the government with their bare hands. There were no pre-planning meetings on how they were going to take over the Capitol. The prosecution was a sham. There was no evidence. The jury was a pool of DC Communists and unhinged left-wing activists who see themselves as victims.
** Please donate to Stewart Rhode’s new GiveSendGo account here.
** You can listen to our earlier discussion with Stewart Rhodes following his sentencing here.
On Saturday morning The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft spoke with Attorneys John Lee Bright and Phillip Linder who represented Stewart Rhodes at his trial.
The two attorneys explained what a danger Americans are now in if their government can jail you for thought crimes and add terrorism charges at will to defendants of their choice.
Jim Hoft: It’s absolutely terrifying being an American and watching this. I know you guys, you’re the experts, you go through and you see a lot of things. But the ordinary American, I think, including myself, I’m just appalled that this is happening in America today. I don’t understand. I don’t see what Stewart did to deserve six months, let alone 18 years… it’s very concerning to me if, say, the average American talks some smack on the Internet or on a text group with some friends. So now the new rule is we can be thrown in jail on terrorism charges. Is that where this is going?
James Lee Bright: Good question, Jim. Thank you. Philip and I have, over the past year and a half, some really extensive discussions, and we did with our full defense team as well, about where this all is ultimately leading. And I can’t speak for others, but I can say that based on our discussions where this case has come out, I have extreme concerns regarding the manner, not necessarily where the terrorism note 4 enhancement comes from, but I have extreme concerns about how the Seditious conspiracy, the statute, could be used moving forward. I mean, if it’s merely two or more people conspiring to use force, and force is not that strictly defined to do one of five enumerated things, one of which is, quote, to oppose the authority of the government, and then you’re not necessarily showing any overt acts in furtherance of that articulately, jim, that’s a thought crime.
Jim Hoft: Absolutely.
James Lee Bright: I could see that statute being used by any extremist administration, left or right, that is a frightening thing to me, and I think it needs to be addressed. It’s overly broad. It’s vague. I think it could absolutely be abused. And while I don’t have anything distinct to point this out, I have very serious concerns that the usage of it in these cases and the Nordine case for the proud boys as well. I’m concerned that that could lay the foundation and of it being used much more moving forward on superseding indictments or against others that kind of fall into that vague area. And you point out wisely what was going on in 2020. Look at the 90 days of a concerted effort to burn down the Portland Federal Courthouse. It’s unfathomable to me that that was not engaged in a mass prosecution easily under this addictious conspiracy statute. So I have grave concerns of where that could lead to in the future.
Phillip Linder: …Lee’s got a really good barometer for this and kind of where it could go. And I think he’s correct is that the American people, one, we need to be concerned, we need to see they’ve thrown this balloon out there to test it and they’ve gotten some convictions now.
Jim Hoft: …This is concerning now with the Rhodes case, because are they going to use the same principles that they use against Stuart Rhodes, against anybody who argues with the government? Is that where this is going?
Phillip Linder: That’s exactly where this is going, yeah… They may not use it against every American who says something against the government, but they could pick and choose to actually use it when they want to, and that should be scary to people. The government now has secured some convictions and some sentences, and if it doesn’t get handled or reversed on appeal and they stand, then that is concerning because they will use it again.
The two attorneys then went on to describe the difficult situation they were in after the court forced the trial to be heard in Washington DC.
They are appealing the egrigious decision and Stewart is ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if it is necessary.
John Lee Bright: We talked with Stewart and obviously he wants to do so. He’s been kind enough. He was in really good spirits when I met with him for a half hour after the sentencing, and he really understood his place in this and he’s anxious to appeal. He believes it’ll go to the Supreme Court. He’s asked us to stay on the team, and we’re going to try and build a team with some people that have been to the Supreme Court, some freedom of speech experts, and we’re really looking forward to that.
John and Phillip said they are looking forward to the appeal.
This story originally appeared on TheGateWayPundit
