That's not what he argued at all.
FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said..... But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering.
The article, least one oath keeper charged with a minor conspiracy charge a month before, Merick Garland was not happy about bringing more serious charges, this was the news at the time, that discussions and arguments about sedition charges were not a high priority but their was a focus on the lesser charges, been a number of arrests.
I've still not seen evidence of serious plans for what they'd do once inside or coordination with insiders? All I've seen presented re: these indictments is the same sort of stuff that was already known about at the time the FBI source had made those comments.
So, enough at the time to charge with seditious conspiracy but that relates to the attack on the building and nothing much else.
Recent reporting
The latest accusations -- with a charge that had not previously been brought in the department's US Capitol attack prosecutions -- remove any sense that prosecutors believe the riot emerged from just a group of overzealous protestors, with new details about the planning and logistics alleged to have predated the Capitol breach.
can also see how the investigation happened
Attorney General Merrick Garland had balked at the earlier efforts to bring the seditious conspiracy charge. But in the months since, people briefed on the matter say FBI investigators and DC federal prosecutors have spent much time building the case, at least in part with the help of cooperators and the benefit of internal communications among the Oath Keepers.
Been calls for seditious conspiracy charges in the days after the attack, first half of the year, then a focus on the less serious charges, with a number of arrests in the months before the article was written, as Garland was not happy in this period. Months after a case was constructed and that is what can now be read in the indictment.
Been a significant change its massive news. What I tried to do was simple give the actual outline of what happened. Rather than Dowies who wants to use an old newspaper article to insist that nothing has changed.
that the groups had no serious plans about what to do once they made it inside
Focus on this line, suggesting sedition charge relates to the storming of the capital.
The Oath Keepers’ plot didn’t stop at the Capitol siege, according to the indictment. On the evening of Jan. 6, Rhodes and other members met to celebrate the attack and discuss their next steps. In the following week, members continued to communicate about their plans and Rhodes allegedly spent around $17,500 on weapons and ammunition. And prosecutors claim that, around Inauguration Day, Rhodes contacted other members to organize local militias to oppose the Biden administration.
Dowie thinks the sedition charge relates the the attack on the capital, once inside no serous plan do much further.
Safer read is simple the F.B.I just did not have the evidence, D.O.J. had no plans for prosecution at the time, and the more serious charge (requiring a serious plan) was simple not on the cards. That is also what is being reported.
Its also important to get this straight as frankly no one knows where this is heading, been described as a 'shake of the tree', this is standard practice of using the charges to see if the defendants can provide evidence to arrest bigger fish.
I assume what built these charges may have been co-operation by those caught and charged in the lesser conspiracy round up. But that is a guess co-operation was one the two investigative leads that opened, but not F.B.I practice to comment on its informants or how to got the internal communication.
But it does not require all the backflips with the history or simply denial, go read any articles from the period, changed over time as I have outlined and as its changed were people can use the word insurrection or coup validly.
The counter argument is to claim nothing has changed.
You don't need to deny what happened previously to state the reality of where the investigation is now and what is speculative. Its not necessary.
But enough from me.
