Thread by @jordangreennc

From the Oath Keepers' pretrial conference. Judge Amit Mehta shoots down Stewart Rhodes' claim that he hasn't had access to discovery. "That is flat-out a false statement. #OathKeepers #January6thInsurrection

Judge Mehta also rejects Rhodes' request for a special master to oversee discovery.

"The idea that you would want to inject a special master a week before the trial is mystifying. You told me last week that you were here in good faith. I'm beginning to question that."

Judge Mehta also says he's not going to delay the trial until the January 6th Committee wraps up its work, calling it a "non-starter."

Judge Mehta shoots down Rhodes' claim that he is improperly joined with the other defendants. "I reject it out of hand."

Judge Mehta talking about jury selection now. I'm not going to tweet every detail of the Oath Keepers pretrial conference, but I'll do my best to capture the highlights.

Rhodes' attorney, Edward Tarpley, discloses that Emily Lambert, a paralegal helping him w/ the case, has worked for John Pierce, who previously represented codefendant Kenneth Harrelson.

Counsel for the defendants and gov't say that the expectation among Oath Keepers members that President Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act will be an integral part of the case

Defense counsel (Bright?) says defendants plan to argue that the Oath Keepers didn't need to be a "state-sanctioned militia" in order to be called up by President Trump had he invoked the Insurrection Act.

Judge Mehta wants briefs from the defense and gov't by next Wednesday about Insurrection Act so he can set limits on what parties tell the jury about it during opening statements.

An attorney for the gov't argues the defendants should file a brief first, and then the gov't will respond.

As expected, Rhodes lawyer Phillip Linder argues the trial should be delayed because defense planned to call Kellye SoRelle as a witness, & now her indictment throws that into question. Judge Mehta indicates he's not inclined to postpone the trial.

Judge Mehta summarizes the Oath Keepers' defense argument: Everything we did was "in anticipation of the president invoking the Insurrection Act. If he didn't invoke the Insurrection Act, we weren't going to do anything. If he did, we were going to swing into action."

Mehta predicts that the defense will use the Insurrection Act argument to claim that the purpose of the Oath Keepers' conspiracy "wasn't to resist the authority of the United States, but was actually to buttress it."

Government attorney Kathryn Racoczy rejects the defense's claim that "the government is trying to arrest their witnesses."

Kelly Meggs' lawyer wants the gov't to disclose "co-conspirators," telegraphing his defense argument: "There was a security apparatus provided at the request of the people hosting the rally on January 6th. Would that not be exculpatory?" #OathKeepers #January6thInsurrection

Judge Mehta is astonished, telling Meggs' lawyer there's nothing new about the argument that the Oath Keepers' purpose on Jan. 6 was merely to provide security for VIPs at the Save America rally.

Meggs' lawyer says the gov't disclosed the identity of a "confidential human source" to the defense in July or August. He also says there may be a second CHS. Again, he wants to talk to them to see if they have exculpatory information.

Stanley Edmund Woodward Jr., Kelly Meggs' lawyer, wants to the gov't to disclose payments to informants. Mehta says so long as the gov't doesn't plan to call any informants as a witness, he doesn't understand why the defense needs to know about the payments.

Rakoczy says essentially that the government hasn't sought out every piece of information about times the Oath Keepers have been helpful, such as helping with hurricane response or providing security, so the defense shouldn't expect them to have it and turn it over.

Judge Mehta: "You all have plenty of evidence that the Oath Keepers provided security."

Sidebar comment: At this point, Kelly Meggs' defense strategy is looking really thin.

Kelly Meggs' lawyer suggests that the Secret Service screened the Oath Keepers & provided passes to them so they could access the VIP area at the Ellipse, where they had responsibilities, including moving people from one area to another.

Defense attorney Stanley Woodward says any documentation showing that the Secret Service screened his client, Kelly Meggs, and concluded "it's safe to be around the president of the United States would be highly relevant to the government theory that he posed a danger."

Judge Amit Mehta recommends that Woodward subpoena the Secret Service for any records that mention his client, Kelly Meggs.

And... we're breaking for lunch.

Oath Keepers pretrial conference is back in session. Court is discussing Zello chats that included defendant Jessica Watkins. Defense wants them suppressed. I'll have a full story on this aspect of the case.

Full write-up on the Zello chats. TL;DR Judge Mehta hasn't decided yet on whether to allow the jury to listen to the recordings.

https://twitter.com/jordangreennc/status/1570142583317475331