EXTREMISMStanford’s David A. Sklansky on Oath Keepers’ Seditious Conspiracy Convictions

Published 6 December 2022

“Seditious conspiracy is a very serious crime. It means, basically, plotting to use force against the government of the United States, says Professor David A. Sklansky, criminal justice expert at Stanford Law School. These convictions “represented the jury’s unanimous conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, wasn’t an innocent protest, but a criminal attack on the authority of the United States government.”

A jury in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. convicted Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the rightwing militia group the Oath Keepers, and another member of the group of seditious conspiracy to keep former President Donald Trump in power.

Professor David A. Sklansky, criminal justice expert at Stanford Law School, discusses the DOJ’s case and the significance of the verdicts with Sharon Driscoll of the Stanford Law School (SLS) blog, Legal Aggregate.

Sharon Driscoll: Can you discuss the seditious conspiracy charge? How serious is this conviction? And how much time might Rhodes and his colleague serve?
David Sklansky:Seditious conspiracy is a very serious crime.  It means, basically, plotting to use force against the government of the United States.  And it carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  Rhodes and one of his co-defendants, Kelly Meggs, were each convicted of seditious conspiracy.  The three other defendants who were tried along with Rhodes and Meggs were acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted of other felonies, including obstruction of an official proceeding, which also carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.

In addition to the important ramifications for the defendants, these convictions also matter for another reason.  They represented the jury’s unanimous conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, wasn’t an innocent protest, but a criminal attack on the authority of the United States government.

Driscoll: Is this historical, a seditious conspiracy conviction to prevent the transition of the American president?
Sklansky: Absolutely.  Seditious conspiracy convictions are very rare—even the charge is rare, let alone the conviction.  It’s a serious charge, and it is difficult to prove, because it hinges on the defendant’s intent.  And it requires proving an actual agreement—not just people swept up in the moment.  The fact that this kind of conviction was returned in this case is a reflection of the extraordinary and in many ways unprecedented nature of the events of January 6.