Recently Stewart Rhodes was arrested and charged with seditious conspiracy.  In plain English that means he was part of a plot to overthrow the United States Government.  The charge is similar to being charged with being a traitor.  

Rhodes is a founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, one of the organizations that was active in the invasion of the Capitol on January 6.  His charge is far more serious and carries a far greater penalty than the charges we have heard so far.  Trespassing and disorderly conduct can be crimes but are not nearly as serious as seditious conspiracy.  

I suspect this is part of a strategy by Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice.  As I recall about 70 have pleaded guilty as a result of plea bargains.  No doubt part of their plea bargains is an agreement to cooperated with the DOJ and to testify for the DOJ.  No doubt DOJ lawyers were aware of the more serious charge early on.  They were also aware it is difficult to prove because they must present evidence to show a number of people were planning the overthrow of the Government before the events of January 6.  And one reason for the plea bargains has been to build that evidence.  The news reports there are some members of the Oath Keepers who are prepared to testify against Rhodes.  That has to be an important part of the DOJ case.  

10 others have also been charged with seditious conspiracy but I have not seen their names.  

The below link is to a good article that gives laymen (like me) some insight into what is really going on. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-indictment-puts-january-6-plotters-notice-ncna1287540

Reading about seditious conspiracy reminded me of your comments about being a traitor.  But American juries are notorious for being fickle.  Taking time to build strong evidence for a serious charge is important.  That can make it seem like the issue has been forgotten when it has not.  

I have sometimes read that the US really has two national governments.  There are the Presidents, the Congress and the Federal Court, branches we hear about in the news.  Then there are the much lower key agencies which are staffed with civil servants who carry out established law and can operate in contradiction of the Constitutional branches of government.   When leaders of the Civil Service speak out they often point out that they simply carry out the laws which have been enacted as those laws exist.  But the laws may have been enacted decades ago and the mood of the legislators may be quite different today.  

The US Civil Service was created in 1883 by the Pendleton Act; it is not part of our original Constitutional Government which was based on patronage.  There has always been a tension between the Civil Service and the Legislators.  I doubt that will ever change.  

YoungGandalf said...

Yes, the jury system is in itself a serious flaw.

Some would disagree with you.  For example, Horace Rumpole calls the jury system "the golden thread of British justice."  Under Roman law which prevails in most countries of Europe a person is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence.  

In any event we must deal with the events of January 6 with the laws we have rather than the laws some people want.