Judge Dismisses Final Oath Keepers Seditious Conspiracy Case, Undermining Justice for Jan. 6 Insurrection
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A federal judge has dismissed the last seditious conspiracy case against Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and others after the DOJ withdrew, raising alarms among former prosecutors about the dangerous normalization of the January 6 attack.
In a deeply troubling move for American democracy, a U.S. district judge in California has dismissed the final seditious conspiracy case against Stewart Rhodes, the notorious founder of the Oath Keepers, and several of his extremist associates. This decision comes after the Justice Department, despite previously securing convictions for their violent attempt to overthrow the government during the January 6 Capitol insurrection, inexplicably moved to abandon the prosecution.
Rhodes, who had been sentenced to 18 years in prison after a jury found him and five other far-right militants guilty of using force to sabotage the peaceful transfer of power, now sees the gravity of his crimes diminished. The judge’s order on August 4 lamented that ending the case 'diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law-enforcement officers who secured these convictions, and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries-long pillar of our democracy—the peaceful transfer of presidential power—to buckle.'
Yet, Rhodes’s attorney, James Lee Bright, shamelessly celebrated on social media, dismissing the seditious-conspiracy charge as a mere 'thought crime,' trivializing the real violence and threat posed by these anti-democratic actors.
The dismissal has prompted urgent warnings from three former federal prosecutors who handled Jan. 6 cases, as they testified before the Senate. They implored lawmakers not to confirm judicial nominees who refuse to acknowledge the facts of the Capitol attack. Former prosecutor Michael Romano emphasized that this issue should transcend partisanship, but lamented that 'Donald Trump insists people lie or not tell the truth about what happened that day,' fueling dangerous revisionism.
Senator Richard Blumenthal condemned nominees who evade stating that Trump lost the 2020 election, warning that such cowardice could erode judicial independence. The White House, for its part, defended its nominees as 'highly qualified' after a 'rigorous vetting process,' but the stakes for democracy have never been higher.
Former prosecutor Brendan Ballou warned that it is 'scary' to imagine future election disputes being decided by judges unwilling to confront the truth of January 6, underscoring the urgent need to defend the rule of law against right-wing extremism.