Thread by @ZoeTillman

Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes is due in court (virtually) in an hour to try again at getting out of jail pending trial.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Walden, whose case was spun off when the sedition indictment came down, is in plea talks, per recent filing: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2121…

Hello from Judge Amit Mehta's virtual courtroom, where a detention challenge hearing in the seditious conspiracy case against Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes is about to get underway.

Previously from @kenbensinger: buzzfeednews.com/article/paiges…

@kenbensinger Dial-in info to listen to the hearing before Mehta, plus court rules:
dcd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-emerg…
Toll Free Number: 877-848-7030
Access Code: 3218747

Follow @kenbensinger for updates on the Rhodes hearings -->

https://twitter.com/kenbensinger/status/1494038913559662594

AUSA Kathryn Rakoczy begins by laying out the three factors they're relying on in arguing to keep Rhodes behind bars:
- Case involves alleged use/possession of firearms (aka the Quick Reaction Force)
- Risk of flight
- Risk of obstruction

Mehta asks Rakoczy to respond to Rhodes' arg that they arranged to store weapons in case they needed them for defense only. Rakoczy says that's belied by evidence that Rhodes had talked about being prepared to do battle to stop Congress from certifying the election

Mehta asks what the govt's theory is at this point for why Rhodes didn't end up activating the quick reaction force. Rakoczy reponds that he didn't need to — that the defendants + other rioters were able to breach the building and disrupt Congress without needing guns

Rakoczy argues there's evidence Rhodes was on the phone with Kelly Meggs shortly before Meggs led a stack of Oath Keepers up to the steps to breach the Capitol at around 2:34/2:35 — govt argues this suggests Rhodes gave the order, notes Rhodes denies this

Mehta asks about timing of Ashli Babbitt being shot, noting there's a theory that the Oath Keepers went inside to provide medical assistance — Rakoczy confirms that was later, around 2:45

Mehta asks how the govt is drawing a line between seditious conspiracy and non-sedition defendants. Rakoczy says it's about existence of evidence of a willingness to use force, either physical or via firearms, and people who played more of a leadership role in the conspiracy

Mehta asks what he's supposed to do with fact that Rhodes has been free since 1/6 and there apparently hasn't been another sedition attempt. Rakoczy argues govt shouldn't be penalized for taking time to review evidence, argues OK activities disrupted by arrests last year

Which is to say — Rakoczy argues that just because Rhodes apparently hasn't attempted sedition since 1/6 doesn't mean he no longer poses an ongoing threat, which is what Mehta has to focus on in deciding whether to keep him in custody

Up next is Rhodes attorney James Bright. He begins by saying they disagree with much of what the govt has put forward, and that the govt knows that Oath Keepers historically have been "meticulous about following the law" in their activities

Mehta asks, why have a quick reaction force at all? Bright says they were responding to perceived threat from antifa, others, and that they believed if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, they would have legal authority to take up weapons that they'd stored outside DC

Mehta is spending a little time parsing this Insurrection Act theory, calling it an "interesting concept" (with a tone that suggests a heavy amount of skepticism) that the president could call up what is essentially a private militia to act in violation of the law

Mehta says it seems "awfully coincidental" that Rhodes spoke to Kelly Meggs right before Meggs led a stack into the Capitol. Bright says there was a third person on the call who told the govt that the communication never happened, the noise made it very hard to hear anything

Rhodes' lawyer trying to distance him from others charged in the conspiracy did at the Capitol, Mehta sounds skeptical, asking if he was disavowing what happened, why Rhodes continued to spend time with them and talk about future political violence

https://twitter.com/kenbensinger/status/1494054475559886850

Stewart Rhodes offers to testify, Mehta says he's not asking for that and notes that Rhodes has a law degree and is generally aware of how things work — judge says he wouldn't encourage Rhodes to speak, since anything he says can be used against him and the govt can cross-examine

Rhodes doesn't go any further and they move on

Rhodes' atty disputing that he's a danger to the community or a flight risk, says they have a home where he can live in California w/out internet access, attached to property of a cousin, also says there's a job lined up for Rhodes (doesn't specify what), doesn't have a passport

Rhodes' atty says he "wants to testify," not trying to duck and run from anything

Rhodes himself confirms that the person in the waiting room prepared to testify on his behalf is Michael Greene/Simmons, after Rhodes' lawyers had tried to stop the name from becoming public (but had said it before the hearing formally began while the public line was on)

More on Greene/Simmons motherjones.com/politics/2021/…

Govt not thrilled with Rhodes' proposed third-party custodians and living situation in terms of monitoring

https://twitter.com/kenbensinger/status/1494059734688624640

Mehta is pressing the govt about whether they have evidence after the indictment ends in Jan. 20 of Rhodes engaging in more rhetoric re: political violence. Rakoczy says he's talked publicly about regime being illegit, Mehta notes he's not the only one to hold that belief

Mehta expresses skepticism that the fact that Rhodes arguably laid low after 1/6 gets him far in contesting detention, notes Kelly Meggs and Jessica Watkins were detained based on alleged conduct and didn't have benefit of the extra passage of time

Now: Judge Mehta says he's *not* prepared to rule today on whether Stewart Rhodes should stay in jail pending trial, wants time to think about it, and also wants the DC pretrial services office to interview Rhodes' proposed third-party custodians

Rhodes' atty starts to talk about possibility of Rhodes working for cousin's husband, Mehta cuts it off, saying if he did let Rhodes out of jail, it'd be strict house arrest, no ability to leave for work, no internet — "about as strict as it gets without being behind bars"

Mehta expressed concern about Rhodes living w/ an older couple (cousin's parents) in a home attached to the main house and their responsibility for him. Rhodes speaks up to suggest he could live in the main house, Mehta says they need to work out exactly what they're proposing

Mehta tentatively sets the next appearance for Rhodes for Friday at 1pm, it wasn't clear to me (the line has been fuzzy at times) if that's when he'd announce his decision. But the judge says he needs to rule by Friday because then he'll be away

And that's a wrap on that for now, til Friday