Thread by @JordanOnRecord

Quite a few hearings here in the 10 a.m. hour. I'll be listening to a motion hearing for Guy Reffitt, the Texas Three Percenter accused of threatening to harm his family if they talked to authorities after the #CapitolRiot. @wusa9 @EricFlackTV

Getting started in Judge Friedrich's courtroom. Guy Reffitt is being arraigned on the new superseding indictment against him. Also two motions to consider, including the government's motion to vacate Reffitt's November trial date.

There's also a motion from Guy Reffitt asking for a change of venue out of D.C. to Texas. Reffitt is arguing, as other #CapitolRiot defendants have, that D.C. is to prejudicial against conservatives/Trump supporters. Every judge who's heard this argument so far has rejected it.

Reffitt's attorney is arguing that the crime he allegedly committed is so "in the face" of D.C. residents, and has so inconvenienced them, that they can't produce an untainted jury.

Judge Friedrich points out that the Boston Bombing case was held in Boston. Reffitt's attorney is suggesting this is an extreme case.

Reffitt's attorney says "politics is the elephant in the room." Then moves on to saying many of the witnesses he intends to call likely live in or near the Eastern District of Texas.

Reffitt's attorney, William Welch, says if he was being detained in Texas, instead of D.C., he might be able to carry on "legitimate business activities" more easily.

Welch argues that the D.C. District Court docket is "more backed up" than any other court in the country (this may be true). Judge Friedrich says she thinks restrictions in the court in D.C. will have to be loosened to start getting trials going.

AUSA Jeffrey Nestler says the Supreme Court has been clear that "prominence does not mean prejudice." Media coverage doesn't mean Guy Reffitt couldn't get a fair trial in D.C. Says the fence around the Capitol has been down for a while.

Nestler says Reffitt's wife and two children, who were present when he allegedly threatened them, are under subpoena. There's also a non-cooperating witness who Reffitt traveled to D.C. with (who's not charged in the case).

Judge Friedrich denies Guy Reffitt's motion for a change of venue to the Eastern District of Texas. Says it's well established procedure to deny change of venue requests prior to voir dire (jury selection) beginning.

Judge Friedrich also says Reffitt has failed to demonstrate that potential D.C. jurors are "presumptively biased against him." Says, like Judge Mehta did, that most of the news coverage of the #CapitolRiot Reffitt claims could bias jurors has been national.

Judge Friedrich says Reffitt "has not come close" to satisfying his burden of proving a change of venue is necessary.

Welsh is also trying to argue that the joint session of Congress is not an official proceeding. He says "it needs to be something like an investigation." This is the same argument 16 Oath Keepers are trying in their case. wusa9.com/article/news/n…

The question of whether 18 U.S. Code § 1512 applies to the joint session of Congress is still being considered by a number of other judges in the D.C. District. Judge Friedrich, for her part, appears to think it does.

The basic argument Welsh is putting forward is this: 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) is about judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The problem for him and the other attorneys arguing this, as Friedrich is pointing out, is that the statute doesn't say that.

This particular provision was added as part of the post-Enron Sarbanes–Oxley Act in 2002. The DOJ has argued that the 1512(c)(2) provision was put there by Congress *specifically* to be a catch-all for the kind of unanticipated obstructive act that happened on January 6.

"I don't know how you can quibble with it being a formal proceeding," Judge Friedrich said. "It's extremely formal... I get that it's not exactly like a court proceeding, but I don't see that in the statute."

AUSA Nestler is arguing, as I said above, the statute was intended as a catch-all for many types of Congressional activities, and that the joint session of Congress is certainly included in that.

I'm not going to retype all of these arguments over and over again. You can read the Oath Keepers' version of this same thing here: wusa9.com/article/news/n…

Judge Friedrich is pushing Reffitt's attorney on why he's pushing forward with the November trial date, given that the DOJ says it hasn't given them all relevant discovery yet.

Welsh says Reffitt has given him "explicit instructions" not to waive his speedy trial rights.

Sorry, it's William Welch, not Welsh.

Welch is saying he hasn't filed any motions in limine because he doesn't want to tip off the government to things they should pursue further. Judge Friedrich is very skeptical about this answer.

"I'm not trying to telegraph a roadmap to the government about what my defense strategy might be," Welch says.

A motion in limine, by the way, is an objection to evidence or witnesses being introduced into a case. Defense attorneys file them to try to prevent a jury from seeing evidence they think will be prejudicial to their client. Welch has not filed any.

Well, appears Guy Reffitt will be the 1st #CapitolRiot defendant to go to trial on November 15 – one month from today. Witnesses and exhibit lists are due to the other parties by November 1. Voir dire instructions by October 29.

Parties need to be prepared for opening statements on November 17. Trial is expected to take 5 days.

Guy Reffitt says it is his desire to go to trial on November 15 knowing he has not received all of the evidence the DOJ says may be available in his case.