Thread by @Brandi_Buchman

New: Oath K'er Elmer Rhodes files a key motion in his defense re: the Insurrection Act.
He contends: Trump didn't invoke I.Act on 1/6; therefore Rhodes couldn't have acted seditiously. Rhodes argues he can prepare for it to be invoked because he is recognized as militia.

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1570136571134746624

There's more to it in the 30+pg motion filed today. Link below. But key to recall: this motion was requested by Mehta who has warned the defense, in sum: don't argue that Trump was going to use a private militia like OKers or that "cops invited us in"
scribd.com/document/59554…

The filing is heavy on historical references and at its core, Rhodes argues that Trump never invoked the Insurrection Act on Jan 6 but it doesn't really matter anyway because IA confers POTUS "broad authority" to use a militia to quell "unlawful obstructions... or "conspiracy"

Rhodes argues that the president's decision to call forth a militia is "extremely broad and entirely unreviewable" and that it is understood that unorganized militias do not need "recognition or charter from a court or Congress".

Rhodes says Trump first floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act in '19 in response to immigration issues. It came up again during George Floyd protests. Then again, he says, when Trump told Fox he'd put cops in charge of polls to stop voter fraud.

The defense is presenting these examples of Trump threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act now because they want to "clarify the historical and legal predicate" for the Oath Keepers actions leading up to Jan. 6.

Rhodes belabors this argument on public authority from the top of this motion to its finish.

I suspect Judge Mehta is going to have quite a bit to say in response.

Rhodes: "The Defendants were simply acting in anticipation of what would have been lawfully given orders under the Insurrection Act. What the gov't contends was a conspiracy to oppose US laws was actually lobbying and preparation for the President to utilize a United States law"

In conclusion, in this motion Rhodes atty James Bright uniquely suggests prosecutors are now potentially arguing that "asking a president to invoke the Insurrection Act to suppress a seditious conspiracy is itself a seditious conspiracy"

Pretrial conference this wk should be fun

More Oath Keeper trial coverage to come for @dailykos this week. Stay tuned.

For now, go birds. #FlyEaglesFly