All Rhodes
It's important to take former President Donald Trump seriously and literally when he and his acolytes spew violent rhetoric. But for all the attention it deserves, the actualized political violence done on Trump's behalf is more important. This week, the trial of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four co-defendants began. The gang is charged with seditious conspiracy for what the feds say was a long-running plan to stop the peaceful transfer of power using weapons the extremist militia group stockpiled in a hotel.
VICE News' Greg Walters was in the courtroom this week, so I caught up with him to see how the first—but not the last—seditious conspiracy trial is going.
Hey, Greg. What's the vibe in the Oath Keepers sedition trial?
It is very difficult to look at the opening of this trial and conclude that it has gone well for the defendants. One of the things we saw very early on is the government has a lot of evidence that the group began planning very early for the violence that overtook the Capitol on January 6. They have tens of thousands of texts. They have financial records for the group. There are many many hours of video.
And as I understand it, there are, in the common parlance, tapes.
There are tapes and tapes and tapes. And it is very clear that the feds got way into the electronic communications of the Oath Keepers. They've got their Signal messages. They had an apparently full recording of a 126 minute call with over 100 attendees on Nov. 9, 2020, just days after the election was called. They have Rhodes on this big group call laying out the plan. "Our mission is going to be to go into DC," he says, "so if the shit kicks off, then you rock and roll." They're talking about stashing weapons in Virginia. Prosecutors played a recording of Rhodes, made less than a week after January 6, where he says, "My only regret is that they should have brought rifles."
Well, how's the defense doing so far?
The defense attorneys have not, shall we say, had their finest hour so far in this trial. There have been a few self-owns that have gotten Judge Amit Mehta so upset that he delivered what I think you'd have to call a bench slapping.
Nice. Go on…
At one point, the attorney for one of Stewart's co-defendants argued that his client was not a dues-paying member of the Oath Keepers. He asked an FBI agent under cross examination if the agent would agree that his client is not a member of the Oath Keepers. The lawyer says, "He didn't pay his dues. You can't be a member of the NRA if you don't pay your dues." And the FBI agent says, "Well, if you don't pay your dues, you can still be a member of a gang." Judge Mehta got upset at the defense over and over again for just not being prepared.
Ouch. So, are these Oath Keepers in worse shape now than when this trial began?
I would imagine they have to be sitting there wondering if they should have tried to score a plea deal and cooperate, which others have, because the evidence has been landing in the trial with a loud thud and it doesn't look great for them.
So what about some of the Oath Keepers who've copped pleas and cooperated? Are we going to hear from them?
I believe we probably will. Another thing to watch out for is that Stewart Rhodes' attorney says Rhodes is going to take the stand and testify. He apparently is so confident in his persuasive powers that he believes he can save himself from decades in prison. I'm not looking at that evidence and thinking it's going to be easy for him to overcome. But we'll see.
What is the defense going to look like?
Big picture, the defendants are going to raise what I call the Trump defense. They are arguing that they were preparing for Trump to invoke a centuries old law called the Insurrection Act, which critics say is very poorly defined and very vague. Which would have allowed Trump to effectively turn them into his personal militia. Trump never did this. But their argument was that they thought he could. And Stewart Rhodes publicly urged Trump to do it.
Even if that's the case, one thing that I've wondered is if it's legal to amass weapons and plans in anticipation that a president might do a thing that's not legal otherwise?
Well, I get a sense that is literally what the court is about to decide. The prosecution argues that's not what they were doing. That they were gonna move into D.C., no matter what.
We don't know how exactly this will go, but with everything the prosecution appears to have, is there a way out for these guys?
They do have another way out, even if they lose this case, which is that if they can publicly demonstrate the kind of fealty to Donald Trump that appeals to his self image, they might be able to convince him to pardon them if he becomes president again.
He has said publicly more than once that people who participated in January 6 deserve pardons.
And there may be an incentive for them to use the publicity of the trial to appeal to a guy who could let them out of what otherwise might be a life sentence. We have to see how this goes.
Don't forget to sign up your friends for Breaking the Vote!
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario