Opening arguments begin shortly in the trial of the accused OathKeepers seditious conspiracy case
Founder Stewart Rhodes and four co-defendants....
Trial is happening at federal courthouse down the street from US Capitol.
Here comes the jury. To be sworn-in this morning by judge.
These accused OathKeepers conspirators spent a lot of time and reams of paper on court motions trying to get their trial moved. Claiming bias in the DC jury pool.
Here we are .. a DC jury is being sworn-in right now. Trial is a “go”
We begin with jury instructions from judge for this trial.
No talking to other jurors or attorneys/parties in case… etc. “if someone tries to talk to you about case…. Let me know,” instructs judge. No watching news coverage, no Twitter, disable push alerts
Here comes Justice Dept opening argument from prosecutor Jeff Nessler… who begins by discussing “core” democratic custom of peaceful transfer of power
“These defendants tried to change that history … up to and including using force to stop the transfer of power”
Prosecutor: “These defendants seized on that opportunity” on Jan 6 to disrupt Congress. “To stop, by any means necessary, the lawful transfer of power”
Early on: prosecutor references alleged staging of guns by defendants outside DC. “To attack our country itself”
Prosecutor describes the five defendants. Beginning with ….. Stewart Rhodes. “A former Army paratrooper and former Congressional staffer”
“Rhodes’ philosophy perverts the Constitutional order”… sometimes speaking in code, shorthand.
Prosecutor is arguing Rhodes is a leader. “Like a captain on a battlefield..” Rhodes remained outside Capitol, prosecutor says.
And mentions Rhodes’ is often seen in cowboy hat and wears eye patch
Prosecutor mentions the other four: including Thomas Caldwell of Virginia, whom prosecutor says coordinated the staging of the guns, planning to use boats to get guns across river from Virginia to DC.
Jessica Watkins of Ohio. Kelly Meggs and Kenneth Harrelson are referenced. They are the other defendants
Prosecutor: “The defendants entered into a conspiracy”
Mentions other alleged conspirators who are not in this group of defendants.
Prosecutor is facing jury on left side of room. And begins by showing video of alleged stack formation breaching Capitol
Image from this video was in court filings ====>
Nestler, the prosecutor, is standing approx. 8-10 feet from jury. His right shoulder is directed toward judge. His left shoulder is toward the courtroom audience. Defendants behind him. Overflowing crowd for trial. Media room is jammed.
Prosecutor: “Uttering the phrase Insurrection Act”.. was an excuse to use force. (Anticipating defense that the actions of the accused conspirators were to prepare for Trump invoking Insurrection Act)
Prosecutor: Trump never did so, yet conspiracy plowed ahead
Prosecutor says defendant Jessica Watkins was prepping for Jan 6, urging others to be “fighting fit”
And alleging meeting at Thomas Caldwell’s Berryville, Virginia farm to prep “quick reaction force”, staging guns outside DC
Prosecutor argues Rhodes gave fiery speech on Dec 12, wrote open letters to Trump to urge action…
And says Kelly Meggs, leader of Florida OathKeepers chapter, was “a man of action”… who wrote: “Who’s willing to die?”
They knew Jan 6 was pivotal, per prosecutor
Prosecutor: They became desperate as Inauguration approached. And they knew Jan 6 was a “hard deadline”…. And they predicted OathKeepers flag would fly outside Capitol… “They intended to take the Capitol”
Prosecutor says Thomas Caldwell talked of the starting of a Civil War
And he says they weren’t “licensed, insured, trained or paid” to provide security on Jan 6. (Anticipating argument about security mission)
Prosecutor presentation is crisp and forceful. Not relying on written statement… but he seems to have perfected this oration. It’s as if he’s reading it from a non-existent teleprompter
He uses displays on an easel. Right now he’s showing this image of Thomas Caldwell ==>
Defendants tried unsuccessfully to block it from happening. But prosecutor just mentioned another accused OathKeepers conspirator bringing “grenades” on Jan 6
Prosecutor says this group drove, and didn’t fly to DC, “so they could bring their weapons of war with them” on Jan 6
And he mentions allegation that Rhodes spent “tens of thousands of dollars” on weapons
Prosecutor credits line of DC police riot unit with stopping the mob from getting to Senate chamber.
He says Jessica Watkins “stormed down that hallway”.. he calls it a “clash between an invading army and police”
Prosecutor says Kenneth Harrelson was “screaming treason, treason, treason” as Harrelson “stormed into Rotunda”
Then says Kelly Meggs “had keen interest in Speaker Pelosi”.. says Meggs previously threatened that if there was a “killing spree”, Pelosi would be first
Prosecutor says one member of group also brought German Shepard named “warrior” on to Capitol grounds .. as another alleged conspirator yelled to police “get out of my Capitol building”
Prosecutor says member of group said “Sic semper tyrannis! (Ever thus to tyrants!”…….. same phrase used when John Wilkes Booth shot and killed President Lincoln
Prosecutor says after attack, Kelly Meggs made a threat “to go back”… while another alleged conspirator wrote “We have only begun to fight”and said he’d planned to go back to DC to probe the defense line (post Jan 6)
So far, the DC jury in this case has spent a good chunk of timing looking at this image of defendant Thomas Caldwell … wearing that snow cap… on the display board shown by prosecutor
Prosecutor says on Jan 8, 2021 Stewart Rhodes urged followers “to hunt down” social media comments and “delete them”.. and to “go dark… do not discuss” roles and actions from Jan 6. And told them to “shut the f** up!”
Prosecutor says after Jan 6.. Rhodes was still trying to get message(s) through to Donald Trump.
Prosecutor: “These defendants were fighting a war and they won a battle of that war on January 6”
Prosecutor is now explaining the change of “seditious conspiracy” to jury.
Not sure if jurors realize it… but they are now part of a remarkably small number of jurors in US history to hear this instruction
Justice Dept has wrapped its opening argument. Unlike any given before
Defense begins. Stewart Rhodes’ lawyer begins by managing expectations: Says trial could last 6-7 weeks
Attorney mentions possibility defendants could face serious prison time. Prosecutor objects. Judge sustains.. tells jurors to disregard
Defense attorney: “Our clients had no part” in violence of Jan 6
Rhodes’ defense lawyer is using the word “inflammatory” a lot. Saying the prosecutors plan to show many “inflammatory” things.. including messages/texts. Defense says Rhodes offered to testify on live TV (in front of Jan 6 Select Cmte).. an offer his defense attorney publicized
Judge asks defense attorney to stop referencing criticism of news media coverage of case. (There’d been a few references already in first few minutes of defense opening statement)
Judge has already cut off defense attorney Phillip Lindner multiple times. Now he’s asked Lindner to come to bench … just as Lindner was arguing the OathKeepers have been mischaracterized as “anti-government”
Judge then tells jury to disregard that statement
Defense is gonna argue this group of accused OathKeepers conspirators were in DC to do security on Jan 5 and 6
(Prosecutor already tried to diffuse this argument by saying the group wasn’t licensed, trained or paid for security work that day)
Defense says the QRF “quick reaction force” were not “offensive”, but defensive and reactive.
Defense atty Lindner is now describing “Insurrection Act”…
Defense: Rhodes “believed in good faith” Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act. “It’s why he did what he did”
Accused OathKeeper(s) who pleaded guilty and flipped will testify at this trial, defense says. Including defendant who says Rhodes tried to reach Trump by phone on Jan 6. Defense says that call didn’t happen
“Nothing more than free speech and bravado”
… defense describing Stewart Rhodes communication ahead of Jan 6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: In a blistering new order, federal judge Paula Xinis of Maryland says the Trump Administration is making "a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations" in the court case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Judge Paula Xinis also finds the Trump Admin has "sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this court's orders" in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case
The judge's order also throws shade on the Trump Admin's claim Abrego Garcia is out of their control ... in Salvadoran custody
Judge: "Indeed, custody can be joint, and custodial status may be controlled by the Defendants acting in concert with El Salvador"
FLASH: Judge James Boasberg issues opinion on March 15 deportations
"The government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt"
The opinion from chief DC federal judge James Boasberg over the defiance of his order to "turn the planes around" for further review on March 15
Judge James Boasberg (more): "The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely 'annul the judgments of the courts of the United States' would not just 'destroy the rights acquired under those judgments'.. it would make 'a solemn mockery' of the constitution itself"
Justice Dept asked Maryland judge to delay today's 1pm hearing in the case of mistaken deportee Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Judge Paula Xinis says "no". Parties must show at 1pm
Justice Dept submits court filing, arguing it can't meet judge's deadline for update on Kilmar Abrego Garcia by the judge's morning deadline
Filing: "Foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review"
Justice Dept (more) to judge:
"In light of the insufficient amount of time afforded to review the Supreme Court’s order following the dissolution of the adm. stay in this case, Defendants are not in a position where they 'can' share any information requested by the Court"
NEW: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) is raising questions right now about Ed Martin, Trump's nominee to be US Attorney in Wash. DC
Durbin shows image of Martin tweet from Jan 6, 2021
Durbin: "Martin was at the Capitol on that dark day, when he posted 'Like Mardi Gras in DC today"
Sen. Durbin (more) about Ed Martin's nomination: "When leaders of the Oath Keepers, a domestic violent extremist organization, were prosecuted for seditious conspiracy for their role in planning the January 6 attack, Mr. Martin responded, quote, 'Oath Keepers are all of us”
Sen. Durbin (more) says he wants to question Trump nominee Ed Martin about Martin's "close relationship" with a January 6 rioter and alleged "antisemitic and racist Nazi sympathizer"
The Justice Department is seeking to drop its criminal case against a Virginia man, who was accused of being the “east coast leader” of the MS-13 gang, and whose arrest was announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi in a nationally televised press conference last month
(More)
Bondi had referred to Henrry Villatoro Santos as “one of the top members and head of the east coast” of the violent MS-13 gang during a March 27 news conference in Manassas, Virginia. Bondi had also described Villatoro Santos as being responsible for “very violent crimes, anything you can associate with MS13. He was the leader over it, all of the violent crimes.”
In a court filing Wednesday in Alexandria, Virginia, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia asked a judge “to dismiss without prejudice the criminal complaint presently pending against the defendant.” When asked for why the case was being a dropped, a spokesperson for Bondi responded with a clip of Bondi saying on March 27 that Villatoro Santos “won’t be in this country much longer”