Prosecutors will rest in the Oath Keepers trial on January 6
Stewart Rhodes, the far-right militiaman, pleaded not guilty to a seditious conspiracy charge in Washington D.C.
WASHINGTON — Two days after Election Day in 2020, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia, sent an urgent, encrypted message to high-ranking members of his group, telling them to resist allowing Joseph R. Biden Jr. to enter the White House.
The Justice Department statement had messages and other communications that prosecutors say shows the Oath Keepers plotted to disrupt the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral win. As the prosecutors sought to use the words of the defendants against them, they also played video capturing the Oath Keepers’ actions in the Capitol and displayed maps and charts to help the jury follow along. Each juror has their own screen to see evidence.
“Ever since our government transferred power from George Washington to John Adams in the year 1797, we have had a core custom of routine and peaceful transfer of power,” Jeffrey S. Nestler, a prosecutor, said in Federal District Court in Washington.
Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right militia, is on trial in Washington DC. They have pleaded not guilty to the charge of seditious conspiracy, a charge rarely brought by the Justice Department, and other charges.
The jurors were told that the defendants said out loud and in writing what they intended to do. “When the opportunity finally presented itself … they sprang into action.”
Linder told the jurors that the evidence would show that defendants had no part in the majority of the violence that happened on January 6.
“You may not like what you see and hear our defendants did,” attorney Phillip Linder said, “but the evidence will show that they didn’t do anything illegal that day.”
The Justice Department began its opening statement with the accusation that the defendants sought to “stop by any means necessary” the lawful transfer of presidential power, “including taking up arms against the United States government.”
During the Justice Department’s opening, the jury was presented with video footage, maps and other audio-visual tools that prosecutors used to give an overview of their case.
Nestler’s presentation included iPhone footage from the attack that the prosecutor used to identify the defendants and other alleged co-conspirators. When Kelly Meggs was shown a video, Nestler noted that he wore a patch which said, “I am just here for the violence.”
Oath Keepers: Opening Arguments in the White House and the U.S. Attorney’s Report on January 6, 2017
The Oath Keepers used military and law-enforcement training in order to set up channels of communication at the events. They prepared for the worst and had armed quick reaction forces outside Washington that could help in case things got out of hand.
As part of the opening arguments, Nestler gave a glimpse into how the Justice Department would respond to the defense put forward by the Oath Keepers.
Being a bad security guard is not illegal. The person said that. The goal they were preparing for was in fact illegal.
“President Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act,” Nestler said. “These defendants needed to take matters into their own hands. They needed to go ahead with the plan they agreed on.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/03/politics/takeaways-oath-keepers-sedition-opening-arguments-january-6-us-capitol/index.html
Using Nestler’s Opening to Defend the Oath Keepers to Stagger into the Capitol and Win the Insurrection Act
The Justice Department also showed how the case fit into their theory of the background of the defendants. Rhodes, as Nestler repeatedly noted, is a graduate of Yale Law school. He told his co-conspirators to be careful with their words, as he knew to be careful with his.
The other man, THOMAS CALDWELL, served in the military. He planned on using boats to get across the river.
Rhodes said that they would need to do it their own if Trump did not stop certification of the election, and that January 6 is a hard constitutional deadline.
As time passed, they became more and more likely that the power would be transferred, and they became more desperate and focused on that date, that Rhodes referred to as a constitutional deadline.
As part of the alleged plot, prosecutors presented evidence that the Oath Keepers stashed guns at a hotel in Virginia just outside Washington, D.C., for a quick reaction force to speed into the city on Jan. 6, if necessary.
Nestler’s opening described the “stack” formations the defendants allegedly used to enter the Capitol. He played a video of defendant Jessica Watkins, who allegedly led the first group, pushing against a crowd outside the House chamber shouting “push, push, push! If you get in there, they can’t hold us.
According to prosecutors, Mr. Meggs was part of a group of people who entered the Rotunda and went to look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Mr. Rhodes is expected to state that Mr. Meggs went off mission, without any instructions from any Oath Keepers.
At first, the defendants saw the breach as a success, Nestler said, describing them as “elated,” “boastful” and “proud.” But, according to DOJ’s account, the defendants quickly realized they were in legal jeopardy, and instructed one another to flee town, delete messages and keep quiet.
Alpers said that during the meeting Rhodes typed out on Alpers’ cellphone a message for Trump, in which Rhodes urged Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act to remain in power.
We could have fixed it right then and there, but they should have brought rifles. Rhodes said of January 6, according to the Justice Department’s opening.
He suggested that there will be gaps in the evidence, such as video, that the Justice Department will show the jury. He said that, once the prosecutors put on their case, the defense will fill in those gaps.
The defense attorney was told by the judge to avoid topics that were out of bounds for the trial as he delivered his opening, with at one point the judge bringing him up to the bench for a private discussion.
Among the off-limits topics brought up by Linder that prompted the interventions were comments about the amount prison time the charges bring, the congressional narrative around January 6, remarks about defendants sitting in jail, and certain details about the Insurrection Act.
While calling one of his clients a constitutional expert and being patriotic, Linder said the real proof was that he was there to protect events on the 5th and 6th.
“Stewart Rhodes meant no harm to the Capitol that day,” Linder said, as he described some of the rhetoric among the defendants “free speech and bravado.”
Rhodes also denied having any communications with fellow defendants Jessica Watkins and Thomas Caldwell on Jan. 6. The group was in charge of communications, according to him. He denied being a micromanager of the Oath Keepers.
David Fischer, the attorney for Caldwell, zeroed in on how the Justice Department is pointing to the so-called QRF – a military term for Quick Reaction Force – that Caldwell allegedly organized that day.
He said that a break the glass emergency team was one of the reasons for the term “reaction” being used.
Of the hundreds of witnesses, including several Oath Keepers, that the Justice Department has interviewed in its investigation, “not one single solitary person they have interview[ed] has said that the QRF was meant to attack the United States Capitol,” Fischer said. He ticked off other events, including protests taking place in other states across the country, where the Oath Keepers organized QRFs.
The seditious conspiracy charge from DOJ addresses agreements to hinder the government’s ability to conduct its business, and Fischer previewed for the jury a defense that would argue that the Justice Department had not proven Caldwell organized the QRF with that goal in mind.
Fischer also launched an extensive critique of how the FBI handled its investigation into his client, calling what happened to Caldwell and his wife “an absolute outrage.” Fischer said that the Facebook messages the FBI used to justify Caldwell’s arrest were actually lines from the movie “The Princess Bride.”
“There was some other powerful evidence … the agent had an issue with a Facebook message that said … ‘I’m such an instigator’ … he also said ‘storming the castle,’” “That’s right.” Fischer said.
Jonathan Crisp, an attorney for Watkins, made similar assertions about the QRF, and he told the jury that the Justice Department’s case against his client was missing context in other respects.
“The Zello chats sound incredibly damming if you listen to them in a vacuum,” he said, while suggesting to the jury that his client did not hear a lot of what was said on the walkie talkie application through the noise of the riot. She tried to engage the FBI in its investigation.
A Capitol Watch Watch: FBI Agent Michael Palian and the Counting of the First Prosecutor’s Electoral College Votes
The first prosecution witness, FBI agent Michael Palian, testified that he witnessed senators crying as they hid from rioters who entered the Capitol on January 6.
On January 6, he was sent to the Capitol to guard a group of 80 senators and was done there in the afternoon.
He said it was chaotic when he arrived. I think shock is the most accurate word to describe what the senators were feeling. Some people were crying.
Palian and approximately 70 other agents escorted senators back to the Senate chamber later that night where they resumed counting electoral college votes, he testified. Inside the Capitol, “it looked like a bomb had gone off,” Palian said, recounting “windows broken, doors broken, lots of debris in the hallways” to the jury.
Early into Monday’s proceedings, before the jury was brought in, Mehta went to great lengths to emphasize that the jury had “no preconceived” prejudices towards the Oath Keepers and the defendants specifically.
He did so while explaining why he was denying a request from the defendants that the case be transferred to Virginia. Mehta pointed out that the jury asked questions designed to test their impartiality and that the statistics showed how the jurors responded.
Donald Trump and the Oath Keepers in Washington Preparing for the Million MAGA March and the Jericho March, Jan. 14, 2020
The jury has seen evidence that Mr. Rhodes and other Oath Keepers marshaled weapons — including assault-style rifles and cut-off pool cues — while preparing to attend two pro-Trump rallies in Washington before Jan. 6: one called the Million MAGA March, on Nov. 14, 2020, and a subsequent gathering known as the Jericho March, on Dec. 12.
Instead, the lawyers have said, the Oath Keepers had prepared for defensive maneuvers against antifa, believing that leftist counterprotesters would attack Trump supporters that day. Lawyers for the group have said that Mr. Trump’s use of the Insurrection Act would have given them standing as a militia, and therefore allowed them to wage war in support of him.
The Oath Keepers were hired to provide security for Roger J. Stone Jr., who was scheduled to be a featured speaker at two rallies. Lawyers for the group have argued that the Oath Keepers went to Washington to protect pro- Trump people and not to attack the Capitol.
Two days before the Capitol attack, Mr. Meggs named Mr. Harrelson, a welder and Army veteran from Titusville, Fla., as the leader of his “ground team,” prosecutors say.
Because he deleted most of his cellphone messages after the Oath Keepers left Washington, there is not much known about what Harrelson was doing in the weeks leading up to that day.
Detection of Senator Stewart Harrelson and four alleged co-conspirators in the seditious conspiracy trial at the Capitol
The reporters for the Times cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. Times staff are not permitted to campaign or endorse political candidates. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.
The jury will hear evidence that Mr. Harrelson brought rifles to a hotel in Arlington, Va., as part of a plan to rush into Washington and help the Oath Keepers if things went wrong.
The jurors will also likely hear how Mr. Harrelson entered the building with one of the military “stacks” and joined Mr. Meggs in search of Ms. Pelosi.
After a month of testimony, the government rested its case Thursday in the seditious conspiracy trial against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four other members of the far-right group.
The trial is the most important yet to emerge from the investigation into the attack on the US Capitol. The defendants are accused of scheming to prevent Joe Biden from taking office as president.
The jury heard testimony from more than two dozen witnesses, including FBI special agents, Capitol Police officers, former Oath Keepers and some of the people who were charged with storming the Capitol.
The charges against Rhodes and his alleged co-conspirators are related to a January 6 incident.
Watkins, Meggs and Harrelson donned tactical gear and forced their way up the Capitol steps that day and into the building. While on Capitol grounds, Rhodes and Caldwell did not enter the complex.
Jason Alpers and Stewart Rhodes, the Defendant of the Jan. 6 Capitol Attack and an Oath Keeper in his Dallas Neighborhood
Prosecutors say the conspiracy didn’t end on Jan. 6, but instead continued through Biden’s inauguration. Critical evidence has been presented on that front by one of the government’s last witnesses.
Prosecutors called Jason Alpers, a military veteran who now does software development in Texas, testified Wednesday that a few days after the Capitol attack he met Rhodes and a few other Oath Keepers in the parking lot of an electronics store in the Dallas area.
“If you don’t, then Biden/Kamala will turn all that power on you, your family, and all of us. Rhodes wrote in the message that you and your family will be killed. “And us veterans will die in combat on US soil, fighting against traitors who YOU turned over all the powers of the Presidency to.”
The man who surrendered it to traitors, and then killed millions of Americans, should not be the “savior” of the Republic, according to Rhodes.
Prosecutors also played clips of the recording Alpers made of the meeting. Rhodes can be heard saying “if he’s not going to do the right things, and he’s just gonna let himself be removed illegally, then we should bring rifles.” We could have fixed it right then and there. I’d hang f** Pelosi from the lamppost.”
Blood is going to be shed on the streets of your family’s hometown if you ask for civil war to be on American ground. “It was at that point that I stepped back and am questioning whether pushing this to President Trump is in the best interest.”
13 The intelligence community and law enforcement agencies were able to detect the plan to attack the Capitol, which involved both Proud Boys and Oath Keeper militia groups. As Jan. 6 approached, the intelligence specifically identified the potential for violence at the Capitol. This intelligence was shared within the executive branch, including with the Secret Service and the president’s National Security Council.
Stewart Rhodes has testified in his own defense in his federal trial that he was not part of planning the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol and that members of the far-right Oath Keepers group who busted into the building made a “stupid” decision.
The trial is in it’s sixth week, and Rhodes said that it was opened up because of the building being reached.
He said he had a girlfriend who ordered Oath Keepers to keep quiet about their activities after the attack. Rhodes said the woman, Kellye SoRelle, acted on her own when she told Oath Keepers to delete text messages and other materials that might incriminate them.
He said he was a “dissident” and authorities knew where to find him if they wanted him.
The Proud Boys: Political Prisoners during the January 6 riot in Washington, D.C. Following the arrest of Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl
Federal prosecutors intend to prove that four leaders of the Proud Boys – Enrique Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl – plotted and broadly encouraged violence in the build up to January 6.
Sandra Parker, Laura Steele, Connie Meggs and William Isaacs were accused of entering the Capitol during the riot and attempting to make their way to the Senate chamber before being deterred by pepper spray and police officers in the building.
A Proud Boys leader from Washington state is 31 years old. A video of him knocking out an anti-fascist protester in one punch went global, and he is referred to as Rufio Panman.
Joseph Biggs is a military veteran and leader of the Proud Boys. Biggs previously worked as a correspondent for Infowars, a far-right outlet that peddles false conspiracy theories.
“If Biden steals this election, [the Proud Boys] will be political prisoners. We won’t go quietly…I promise,” Tarrio allegedly posted online in the days after the election was called for Joe Biden.
When Trump announced the January 6 rally on Twitter, Tarrio and others decided to create a new national chapter of the Proud Boys for the event called the Ministry of Self Defense (MOSD) according to court documents. The MOSD was made up of members who were willing to break the law, and when they arrived in DC, they were encouraged not to wear Proud Boys uniforms.
The MOSD, Tarrio allegedly informed new members, would have a “top down structure.” He, Biggs and Nordean were viewed as the MOSD leaders, prosecutors say. Several others including Rehl were also part of MOSD leadership.
Tarrio was arrested in Washington, DC on January 4, 2021, for burning a DC church’s Black Lives Matter banner and bringing high-capacity rifle magazines into the district. He was ordered by a judge to leave the city. In encrypted leadership chats, Tarrio allegedly told other members he hoped his arrest could inspire people to lash out violently against police.
Prosecutors say that there was a Proud Boys meeting at the Washington Monument on January 6. Several of the members, including Biggs and Rehl, allegedly had walkie-talkie style radios, and Nordean and Biggs both used a bullhorn to direct the group as they marched to the Capitol.
The group arrived at the Capitol around 15 minutes before Congress was set to start the joint proceeding to certify the 2020 election, according to videos from that day, and walked to an access point on the west side of the building. The first person to charge and break through the barricades on the grounds was a Proud Boy named Ryan Samsel who talked to Biggs just one second before doing so.
When the mob arrived at the Capitol doors, Pezzola used a stolen police riot shield to smash a window, prosecutors say. The first members of the mob to breach the Capitol building, allegedly including Pezzola and Biggs, entered through that window. The Senate suspended its session minutes later.
The Left-Wise Phenomenology of the Capitol Attack on Jan. 6, 2016: Analysis and a Possible Implication for the Proud Boys
The Justice Department’s successful prosecution of a seditious conspiracy case against the leaders of Oath Keepers could serve as a model for prosecutors as they turn to the Proud Boys.
In previous court depositions, prosecutors have said that Proud Boys leaders encouraged their followers to turn their brains off and used those followers to accomplish a larger plan to interfere with congressional proceedings.
If the Justice Department secures convictions for Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders, the group will continue to exist, Rachel Carroll Rivas, a senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center who studies extremism told CNN.
The group’s goal, Rivas said, is focused on “creating chaos, creating fear through a sense of uncertainty and a lack of feeling of safety,” which she says is meant to lead fewer people speaking up against the group.
The 14th was the day. Intelligence gathered in advance of January 6 did not support the conclusion that left wing groups would engage in violent counter demonstration or attacks on Trump supporters. Indeed, intelligence from Jan. 5 indicated that some left-wing groups were instructing their members to “stay at home” and not attend on Jan. 6. The groups that were involved were not involved in the attack on the Capitol.
Annotation for 13, 14 and 15: The committee has faced criticism, especially from Republicans, for not focusing more attention on the failures by intelligence and law enforcement officials on Jan. 6 and in the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack. But the panel did present some preliminary findings and may ultimately issue a separate report.
-
On January 6, police officers from the Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan Police Department stood up to defend Congress and our constitution. Without their bravery, Jan. 6 would have been far worse. The Capitol Police leadership did not have enough assets to deal with the crowd on January 6. The Capitol Police leadership did not anticipate the level of violence that would occur when thousands of President Trump supporters marched to the Capitol after he had instructed them in an email to do so. Although Chief Steven Sund raised the idea of National Guard support, the Capitol Police Board did not request Guard assistance prior to Jan. 6. On January 6, the Metropolitan Police deployed about 800 officers to respond to calls for help at the Capitol. Rioters still managed to break their line in certain locations, when the crowd surged forward in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s 2:24 p.m. tweet. When it became clear that police at the Capitol were overwhelmed in the event that January 6 became violent, the department of justice deployed a group of federal agents. The Department of Homeland Security was involved in the deployment.
-
The president had the authority and responsibility to deploy the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but he never gave an order to do so. Nor did he instruct any federal law enforcement agency to assist. The secretary of defense was given the authority to deploy the National Guard by the Department of Defense. Although evidence identifies a likely miscommunication between members of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense impacting the timing of deployment, the committee has found no evidence that the Department of Defense intentionally delayed deployment of the National Guard. The select committee recognizes that some at the department had genuine concerns, counseling caution, that President Trump might give an illegal order to use the military in support of his efforts to overturn the election.
On the trial of the Oath Keepers in the January 6, 2021, US Capitol Insurrection: Defense attorney Amit Mehta and a motion for mistrial
The six Oath Keepers were convicted for their roles in the January 6, 2021, US Capitol insurrection.
Four of the defendants were found guilty on all of the charges they faced, including conspiracy to block a member of congress from doing their duty, civil disorder and destruction of government property.
The conviction of four people in the biggest criminal case in the history of the DOJ was a huge win for the agency, which has been working for many years to bring severe consequences for people who plot to kill people at the Capitol.
Prosecutors said those two defendants – Michael Greene, a military veteran accused of being the Oath Keepers “operation leader” on January 6, and Bennie Parker, the husband of Sandra, did not go into the Capitol itself but were still part of the conspiracy.
District Judge Amit Mehta denied the government’s motion to detain the six individuals pending their sentencing, noting that they have each obeyed conditions of release in the case.
The jury had access to two video clips that were not allowed during the trial, leading to a brief chaos on Monday.
Defense lawyers moved for a mistrial after they discovered that the two video clips, which were part of a montage put together by federal prosecutors to show the overall violence that happened on January 6, 2021, were given to jurors to review.
There aren’t any videos that show the actions taken by any of the defendants while at the US Capitol, but there are two videos that show law enforcement officers being accosted and the west side of the building being broken into by rioters.
Mehta was in a DC courtroom on Monday, rejecting the request for a mis trial. Maybe I am wrong.
According to prosecutors, the mistake wasn’t brought to the judge’s attention until Friday, but defense lawyer Jullie Haller first flagged it on Wednesday. Haller, who has clashed with Mehta before, said that jurors had access to the footage for several days and have already come to a verdict on some counts.
“This is how trials work, for those of you who haven’t done it before,” Mehta responded. Defense attorneys were able to review the exhibits jurors were given, he said, and most had signed a filing that said they “jointly agreed on the exhibits” with prosecutors.
“Am I asking?” Mehta shot back, ordering her to sit down and not to interrupt again. Mehta told at least two other lawyers to sit down during the exchange.
Mehta did not ask if the jury had reviewed them. “If you haven’t reviewed them, I’m going to ask you to ignore them. If you have, please disregard.”
Mehta was questioned by a juror about whether the jury would be allowed to look at two clips that were taken into account during the deliberations over the past week. When the judge said no, the juror turned to another juror and the two threw their hands up. A third juror took a deep breath and put her hands behind her head.
The trial of five members of the Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy for their alleged role in the January 6 Capitol riot was stopped in the same DC courthouse Monday.
Prosecutors allege that Tarrio, who was the chairman of the organization, plotted with his close deputies Nordean, Biggs and Rehl in the lead-up to the riot and recruited others to help stop Joe Biden from becoming president. They say that when a path was cleared, the three members stood back and allowed others to take action.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/20/politics/oath-keepers-proud-boys/index.html
The First Day of the Judgment Trial in St. Paul’s Episcopal High School, St. Augustine, New Jersey
Though jury selection started in late December, the trial began in earnest with opening statements in January. The nine-week presentation of evidence by prosecutors was marred with courtroom drama and threats from the judge to hold defense lawyers in contempt.
