Thread by @mattbuxton

The second full day of the Eastman trial is now underway. Here's my write-up of the first day: akmemo.substack.com/p/if-it-quacks…

#akelect #akleg

You can watch the stream here: stream.akcourts.gov

Judge McKenna started off with an ask for more briefings on whether the framers of the Alaska Constitution wanted mere membership of a group to be disqualifying or did they need to have a more active role in it. Also, what happens when a group is doing several things.

And we're right off into the continued cross examination of Miller, who's asks Jon Lewis whether he believes every single Oath Keeper was more committed to the Oath Keepers than the U.S. Constitution.

Lewis says no, but the people who went to D.C. on Jan. 6 with Rhodes were.

Then we get a few attempts by Miller to catch Lewis in some kind of gotchas.

To be clear, Miller seems to be almost entirely focused on impeaching Lewis' credibility with the court.

Miller asks whether he thinks it's a little too far to say that Stewart Rhodes and Oath Keepers are one in the same, right?

Lewis: No. They're the same.

Miller asks if the Oath Keepers and Stewart Rhodes are one in the same and Rhodes is now in prison, then is it really the Oath Keepers?

Lewis says, sure, they still are. They are still have the same anti-government ideologies.

Miller is incredulous the Oath Keepers will continue to be the Oath Keepers if Rhodes is in prison

Lewis: It had already been shaped and continues to be an extension of his will and his ideology. Even if Stewart Rhodes remains incarcerated, it remains an anti-government militia.

Miller asking questions as if the bylaws were truly binding. Notes that the bylaw says individuals are responsible for their own actions. Checkmate.

Lewis points out that the bylaws also recognize that their actions reflect on the Oath Keepers organization.

If you can't bank on the bylaws of an anti-government militia group then what can you count on?

Miller says the group CAN'T be white supremacist and antisemitic because the bylaws say don't be racist or antisemitic.

Lewis says he hasn't called the group white supremacist or antisemitic, just that they invited a bunch of white supremacists and antisemites to the party.

Lewis says the Oath Keepers are wholly an anti-government group, not a white supremacist or antisemitic organization. There's just some overlap.

Miller after running down Lewis' work on the Anti-Defamation League.

Lewis says he's a fan of their work.

Miller then brings up their refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide. Says that ACTUALLY the ADL is deeply problematic.

Judge McKenna: That sounds like a no.

Miller disagrees with the judge.

Then Miller continues down his anti-ADL questions, noting that they previously characterized racism as something that only white people could do.

Lewis says no, he's not familiar with it.

Objections from the plaintiffs, but the judge lets him continue asking anti-ADL questions.

Miller notes the ADL is one of the most-cited organizations in his reports.

And then we're getting into previous statements from Lewis. Something about calling the Oath Keepers a "disorganized" group.

Lewis says it's "disorganized with a hierarchy." Says it's unusual where local groups have autonomy but they still have buy-in with the national group.

Miller wonders why Jon Lewis, a research expert on domestic terrorism, hasn't reported all the good things that the Oath Keepers have done, like humanitarian relief for a hurricane.

Then Miller suggests some of the largely debunked claims that the Oath Keepers were REALLY just trying to help the police out of the U.S. Capitol.

Lewis notes that was the defense for some but they were ultimately convicted for their conduct.

Joe Miller: Have Oath Keepers been involved in any mass shootings?

Jon Lewis says, no, but that the rhetoric that the Oath Keepers have been spreading—anti-immigrant, anti-lockdowns, anti-globalists—rhetoric that have led to shootings.

Then Joe Miller says that anti-immigrant, anti-lockdowns, anti-BLM, anti-globalists are just things that a majority of Republicans believe anyways. Independent of the Oath Keepers.

Miller basically arguing that Republicans are already, independently terrible without help of the Oath Keepers.

Lewis says that groups like the Oath Keepers played a major role in the accelerating radicalization of Americans.

Joe Miller worries that if Eastman is barred from office than most Republicans—who he says are also anti-immigrant, anti-BLM, anti-'globalist' and anti-lockdown—will be barred from office.

After some back and forth, we're back to the point where Joe Miller contends that the seditious conspiracy charges don't ACTUALLY mean they were trying to overthrow the government.

Lewis counters that the violent delay of the legitimate election is by its very nature the overthrow of the U.S. Government.

Judge McKenna says they've already gone over this question. Miller gets all angry about how experts never answer your questions clearly.

And now Joe Miller wants to talk about QAnon and pedophiles.

Jon Lewis goes over the Pizzagate scandal.

Joe Miller: "I didn't ask anything about Pizzagate or a restaurant that got shot up in Washington DC."

Joe Miller asks whether Oath Keepers ever adopted QAnon.

Lewis says that Stewart Rhodes referenced plenty of QAnon conspiracies, like pedophiles.

And now we're onto Epstein and the "utilization of young girls."

Joe Miller loves the world "amalgamation."

He says Lewis is just creating an amalgamation of QAnon, Oath Keepers, Pizzagate, etc.

Judge McKenna says it's a short trial and it's not particularly important to the question at hand (whether the Oath Keepers are a seditious group).

Joe Miller asks is Lewis has read a new article about Hunter Biden's laptop...

Judge McKenna asks what the relevancy is.

Miller says Lewis has characterized conspiracy theories as things that aren't true: "I'm asking him about things that are true."

Judge McKenna gets interrupted by Joe Miller while making a ruling about whether Hunter Biden's laptop is an issue: "I find it collateral and unnecessary. ... We don't have time to get down into all the different rabbit trails on the different conspiracy theories."

Joe Miller says incitement to imminent action doesn't reach the level of the disloyalty clause. You need to get to the intent that they were trying to overthrow the U.S. Government: "You've gotta get into all these conspiracies!"

Miller is basically arguing that they're not conspiracy theories but conspiracy facts.

And we're into a brief break. Back at 10:20.

Joe needs some joe.

Me too.

Back to the tape, here's what Miller said about all the anti-immigrant, anti-BLM, anti-lockdown, anti-"Globalist" positions held by the Oath Keepers members?

"Do you understand those are positions that are largely held by conservative political activists in this country? ..."

Miller: "... Don't you find it a little bit dangerous that if in fact these views are held by the mainstream that what you're effectively doing is trying to marginalize them as extremist groups who should have no role in American politics?"

Lewis replied that he's never sought to criminalize or outlaw these beliefs, but said it's a problem when you start to try to violently overthrow the government with them.

To just put in the thread: Miller later explained the whole point of this questioning is that Lewis' analysis about overthrowing the government is built upon all the conspiracy theories held by these groups.

And if they are, in fact, conspiracy fact, then... Lewis is wrong?

Alright. We're back.

stream.akcourts.gov

Joe Miller asks Lewis for his definition of a "violent extremist group."

Lewis basically cites the federal government's definition.

Miller: "You're relying on the federal government's definition." Asks him for the history of it.

And then Joe Miller asks something about the Muslim Brotherhood. There's an objection.

Joe Miller says it goes to the underlying definition of violent extremism.

"It's to gain understanding of what it means. ... And how it's being utilized to marginal political groups."

A lot of back and forth.

Basically, Miller talking about how the federal government's definition of "domestic violent extremism" is unfairly against conservatives.

Which is kinda the whole point Lewis has been making. That these groups drape themselves in the flag as cover.

Then there were some orders that were sent out by the Oath Keepers. Basically telling members to oppose federal government actions like "blockade cities, turning them into giant concentration camps."

Joe Miller asks whether the Oath Keepers had a specific, long-running plan to overthrow the government?

Jon Lewis says they didn't have a specific long-running plan.

Then we get into the FBI informant with Miller suggesting that he was a "government provocateur."

Specifically, it's intended to counter Lewis' claim that there weren't any antifa or government provocateurs at Jan. 6.

Lewis says there's still no evidence he was.

Miller asks if there's any video evidence of Oath Keepers inciting people, but Lewis says there were Oath Keepers who were encouraging people to enter the U.S. Capitol and do other stuff.

And then Joe Miller brings up Ray Epps, it's part of this whole conspiracy theory that everyone else but the Oath Keepers etc didn't do it.

Lewis talks about how it's been debunked.

nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/…

Lewis says he never reviewed the Ray Epps video because it has zero relevancy to the Oath Keepers.

Joe Miller then brings up a bunch of other names that don't ring a bell with Jon Lewis.

Miller: "Have any of those people been charged or indicted?"

Lewis: "None of those names are familiar to me."

Then we get another dozen+ names.

Lewis recognizes a few as being charged.

Then Miller goes over some of the Stewart Rhodes timeline.

Lewis says Miller's version isn't entirely accurate. He brings up the Olive Garden, etc.

Joe Miller notes that Stewart Rhodes—around the Olive Garden time—wasn't specifically concerned about being charged with seditious conspiracy... as if that's some kind of smoking gun.

Joe Miller finally wraps up. He brings up yesterday's point where Lewis said true patriotism is respecting the democratic process: "Is it your opinion that removing representative Eastman is respecting that democratic process?"

Lewis says he's not in a position to opine on that.

Alright now into redirect from Kowalke's attorney Goriune Dudukgian.

He brings up the questioning from yesterday where Miller pointed out only 1/500th of the membership showed up. He asks how much that matters.

Lewis says it's important, but you need to understand those not there could be parts of the support network.

Lewis says some of these groups may have thousands of backers and supporters but only a few dozen who are actually willing to put their skin on the line.

They're still domestic violence extremist groups, he says.

Dudukgian asks if he believes the 50-100 Oath Keepers at Jan. 6 were just there on their own individual capacity?

Lewis: Just the opposite.

He explains how they were called into action by Rhodes.

Lewis says Rhodes was calling the shots and "was distilling these orders down the chain of command and he brought oath keepers to the capitol he didn't bring a rag-tag band. ... He brought Oath Keepers."

Going back over a lot of the questions from Miller yesterday. Basically, trying to bring everything back to the real world.

Lewis: "after his supporters were driven out of the building, they regrouped at the Olive Garden and discussed plans to interrupt the inauguration."

I really want to know more about the Olive Garden now.

Has anyone got to interview their servers?

Lewis: "There's nothing illegal about holding views that covid-19 isn't real. ... These views are protected by the First Amendment and are not the sole indicator to determine whether a group is violent extremist organization."

Dudukgian asks if there are other things beyond beliefs to determine if they're a violent extremist organization.

Lewis says the violence is a big part, specifically the part where they were planning on using violence to keep Trump in office.

Now into recross by Miller.

He's going over some of the Rhodes calls to action, including warnings about widespread fraud and violence by the leftists.

Miller says there's no specific statement in this call to overthrow the government.

Lewis disagrees.

Miller: I don't want to hear your opinion on a number of collective thoughts you have.

Miller asks if there's a specific line in this November email that's calling for lawless behavior or a plan to overthrow the government.

Lewis says there's no specific line in this letter that he sees.

Miller: "Is Rep. David Eastman one of Stewart Rhodes followers?"

Lewis: As an active, lifetime member of the Oath Keepers, I would place him as a follower of Stewart Rhodes.

Miller: On the basis he gave them money?

Lewis: Yes, and his active lifetime membership.

Dudukgian on re-re-direct asks if that Nov. 3 email is the ONLY thing that he's basing his opinion off.

Lewis says no, there's a bunch of other things that taken together as a whole show his anti-government attitudes.

And that's it for Lewis.

Next up is Matt Kriner, another expert in domestic violence and terrorism.

He's the guy Miller confused Lewis for yesterday. They sparred over a deposition Lewis seemed to have no memory of—potentially impeaching his credibility—but it turned out it was Kriner's deposition.

Before we get started, Miller objects to his testimony being taken at all. Same as he did yesterday with Jon Lewis.

Matt Kriner is a senior research scholar with Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

I believe he also testified to the Legislature's hearing about the Oath Keepers earlier this year. The one Republicans skipped.

Just foundational stuff so far.

Kriner talking about how his focus is on domestic violence and terror groups that are using violence as a necessary component to achieving their ideological goals.

He says he's focused on fascistic, anti-government, antisemitic groups, etc.

He says they've also looked at far-left movements, anarchist movements and groups like the boogaloos that kinda bounce around.

Has he looked at the Oath Keepers? Yes.

And how does he view the Oath Keepers?

Kriner: Oath Keepers would fall into the anti-government and far-right buckets.

Just more foundational stuff.

Kriner has co-authored pieces with Lewis. Lewis is considered an expert in the field of extremism, he says. He's also testified to the Alaska Legislature and the Jan. 6 Committee, but never testified in court.

After we get through a lot of the foundational stuff of Kriner laying out his research on the Oath Keepers and other domestic extremism, Joe Miller doubles up his objection to the testimony.

Kriner says it's his conclusion that the Oath Keepers is still an active organization.

That gets another objection from Miller.

Judge McKenna says he's a factual witness, who's trained in collecting information, so he'll allow the testimony.

The Oath Keepers' bylaws say not to follow an unconstitutional order. Who decides that?

Kriner says that's the whole issue. "These individuals are picking and choosing what they choose to believe is constitutional."

Joe Miller: "I'm not trying to aggravate the court with this. ... They're saying it's conspiracy ... I think we have to allow Rep. Eastman's case to inquire into those underlying alleged facts."

Dudukgian responds to Miller's point. He says the point of the issue it to show what they believe and how it played into their actions: "It doesn't matter if they were right or not."

Judge McKenna says that the case is about whether the Oath Keepers were involved in the violent overthrow of the government.

"It doesn't matter why they did it, it's whether or not they engaged in conduct."

Miller disagrees.

Judge McKenna says the plaintiffs' case isn't about what they did in the emails leading up to January 6 but their conduct on January 6.

Miller continues, saying they're just trying to make the Oath Keepers into a bunch of bogeymen. He says the disloyalty clause is about advocating for overthrow.

He says incitement to overthrow doesn't count.

Lunch break. The plan is to come back at 1 p.m.

Whew! Was able to run to the store to grab some pre-storm groceries and made it back in time.

Also, it's kinda drizzling?

Should be coming back shortly.

Alright! They're back at it with the testimony of Matt Kriner, an expert on violent domestic terrorist groups. He's giving another overview of the inner workings of the Oath Keepers.

#akleg #akelect

Watch here: stream.akcourts.gov

Kriner starts off by explaining the semi-autonomous nature of the Oath Keepers chapters.

"It's meant to be an ebb and flow between members and the leadership."

It's not top-down orders, but local groups basically float issues up to leadership like the Oregon refuge standoff.

Kriner says the Oregon refuge standoff was flagged by the local Oath Keepers group as something they wanted to get involved with. Sounds like the national group—Stewart/the Oath Keepers Board—nixed direct involvement out of concern it'd be "another Waco."

And into some more foundational stuff about how Oath Keepers were coordinating and staying in contact. Mostly the communications were coming from the national arm/Rhodes.

Kriner on the Rhodes/Oath Keeper connection question: "It is absolutely difficult if not near impossible to distinguish the actions of the broader organization from the leadership of Mr. Rhodes."

Also, is that a gold-fringed flag there?

Sir! Are you trying to impose admiralty law?!?

Kriner talks about how the Oath Keepers' involvement in various events has turned more violent than other groups, even like the Proud Boys (who seem to be exclusively about starting fights in Downtown Portland).

Kriner talks Oath Keepers history like "consistently mobilizing against the federal government" and threatening violence against elected officials.

He says there's also many threats about "civil war" (which, hey, you can also tune into local radio to hear that, too).

Kriner says the 50+ Oath Keepers who went to Jan. 6 is actually pretty high when you're talking about the mobilization of violent extremist groups.

He says mobilization is usually less than 1%.

Yesterday, Miller said it was no big deal because it was 1/500th of the membership.

Kriner says the Oath Keepers presence at January 6 was either the largest showing of a single group or close to it.

He also notes that the Quick Response Force—the crew of heavily armed guys stashing their guns nearby if they felt it was necessary—is a pretty big step.

Kriner notes before 2016, Stewart Rhodes avoided a lot of racially charged events.

Kriner: "Oath Keepers is not a racist organization as a whole." He notes they certainly had racists within their ranks.

After 2016, though, he grew increasingly aggressive and conspiratorial.

Kriner wraps up by saying that basically the entirety of the Oath Keeper's existence was spent laying the conspiratorial groundwork for January 6.

It was a culmination of anti-government views.

Joe Miller, in opening his cross: "Isn't it true that they were there because they thought they'd be called up by the insurrection act?"

Kriner says they were largely motivated by their opposition to the results of the election.

Miller then suggests that "use of force doesn't equate to overthrowing the government."

Kriner disagrees. He says when you're using force to delay or disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between presidents, then it's overthrowing the government.

Miller keeps suggesting they were simply asking for a delay: "We aren't commenting on whether it's right or wrong. ... They perceived there was vote fraud. ... That's not permanent, it's just a delay."

Kriner: "I don't see a difference."

Seems like there's some kind of technical hiccup. No audio.

Alright we're back.

Joe Miller is suggesting that the ONLY thing Stewart Rhodes was doing between the election and Jan. 6 was trying to get to the bottom of the voter fraud allegations.

Kriner says there was a TON of other messaging.

Miller notes that the Jan. 6 insurrection did, in fact, delay the certification of the election.

Miller: "Isn't it true that they actually sped up the process?"

Kriner says he's not sure. Certification of an election isn't in his wheelhouse.

Miller's asking about the intended use of the Oath Keepers' planned use of all the guns at the safe house, which gets a muddle back and forth as it's not really sure what he's asking.

Now some more audio issues.

Miller asks if there was any other reason that the Oath Keepers were stashing a bunch of guns other than the belief that Trump was going to call them into action with the insurrection act.

Kriner says there's no other clear purpose in writing.

Now Miller is incredulous that Kriner doesn't know the exact number of messages that Stewart Rhodes sent out to Oath Keepers.

Miller says it's 2 or 3 and isn't it true there's no explicit call to overthrow the government in them.

Miller says there's no explicit reference to overthrowing the government.

Kriner asks if that's a question. Miller says it is.

Kriner says that's not really how Oath Keepers operated. It's all about the implication.

Some more back and forth where Miller is suggesting that the link between Oath Keepers and Stewart Rhodes has been completely severed.

Kriner says not really, but also some branches like the North Carolina wing have already severed their ties.

(Eastman has not disavowed.)

Kriner says until they disavow the events of Jan. 6 and Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers is still very much a part of Jan. 6 and Stewart Rhodes.

"Anyone else who hasn't done that is tacitly endorsing those actions" and may want it to happen again.

Miller asks if all members of the Oath Keepers should be painted with the Rhodes brush.

Kriner says the bylaws and history of the Oath Keepers has made clear when they do not support or endorse the actions of its members. He says they make it known they don't support them.

Kriner continues. He says as long as they don't make any clear effort to disassociate with the Oath Keepers' actions on Jan. 6—as they've done in the past with other events—then they are tacitly supporting it still.

Miller incredulous that Kriner hasn't read every single piece of communication within the Oath Keepers.

Miller asks what other forms of communication he had beyond emails and a forum.

When Kriner brings up the litany of things like his public statements and appearances on Alex Jones, Miller says that stuff doesn't count.

Miller says it seems like there's different levels of Oath Keepers. There's an inner circle, the bylaws members (Eastman) and then people who just put on the patch, etc.

Kriner says, sure, but it's not particularly rigid.

Miller asks if a 2009 lifetime membership (that Eastman has) should mean he's linked for the 2021 events.

Kriner says lifetime members should be viewed as a more devoted member. More closely tied to the group.

Miller asks Kriner if he believes it's dangerous for individuals to have the right to independently interpret the constitution.

Kriner says, yeah, in certain conditions it is dangerous especially when you have it involved with a bunch of service members.

Kriner says it's certainly problematic if you have police interpreting the law on their own.

Miller: "But you know that all laws have to be interpreted to some extent, right?"

Then Miller references the Nuremberg trials where people were just following orders.

Kriner says it's totally different. First of all its' a different jurisdiction and also in a post-war environment. This is a domestic militia that's encouraging people to go rogue.

It gets pretty heated on this point. Do individuals hold the sovereign right to refuse to do something because they believe it doesn't fit their notion of the constitution? Kriner says that's dangerous.

Miller: "Why do we even have an oath to the constitution?"

Kriner says he can't tell you why the constitutional oath was created in the first place.

Miller says that's a good break point.

Back at 2:45.

Back.

Last question from Miller is to ask Kriner whether he's ever personally interviewed an Oath Keeper. Like with Lewis earlier, the answer is no.

No into redirect.

In redirect, Kriner's asked if he knows if the emails produced in this trial cover every single email that has ever been sent by the Oath Keepers or directly to Eastman.

Kriner says no, there's no way to know for sure.

Kriner says that the way these anti-government, extremist groups operate is to communicate through all sorts of channels, whether it be social media or appearances on Info Wars.

(Earlier, Miller suggested anything beyond direct communications don't count.)

Kriner says things like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were all important social media communication tools by Oath Keepers and Stewart Rhodes.

Twitter was mostly through Rhodes' account and the Facebook was an Oath Keepers group (with 500k followers).

Decent amount of back and forth about the Oath Keepers page getting removed or taken down.

Miller objects to all the de-platform talk because he argues that Kriner doesn't have specific knowledge of why Oath Keepers was removed.

Kriner says no one but FB's internal teams know, before he starts to talk about the process then Miller objects again.

Miller says it's not fair for him to testify about how "violent extremist groups get de-platformed."

Judge agrees.

There's some general back and forth about social media accounts and Oath Keepers members. Not a lot to report from there.

Miller doesn't have any more questions for Kriner so he's done for the day.

Now into some discussion about the briefings due next week.

Basically it's about associational rights and unprotected speech. Something to do with whether a group gets so big that you could sever the group from its unprotected speech/conduct.

Plaintiffs plan to bring up Rep. Eastman for questioning but asks to delay that to tomorrow in order to take into account the latest complaints.

Miller "strongly objects" to that. He says it's Kowalke's fault for delaying.

(There's about an hour 15 left on today's clock.)

Miller says they have a bunch of witnesses of their own, depending on how cooperative the prisons are...

And Rep. Eastman is now on the stand with attorney Dudukgian doing the start of questioning.

stream.akcourts.gov

#akelect #akleg

Dudukgian asks if Rep. Eastman is a lifetime founding member of the Oath Keepers. Eastman says yes, then he talks about how he likes taking oaths, which is beyond the scope.

Has Eastman ever emailed with the Oath Keepers?

Yes, he bought a t-shirt.

How about an email to someone named Rich Melville in 2018?

Eastman doesn't remember the name.

How about anyone who represented themselves as the national membership coordinator?

Sounds like that's the 2018 email.

Basically it's an email saying something along the lines of "Sorry about that David, not sure why my eyes missed 'lifetime founding member' hope you're doing well."

Basically going over the transactions for the membership, merch and stuff.

There's a membership certificate, a letter from Stewart Rhodes.

There's talk about him becoming a founding member, about him gaining access to their forum and the Oath Keepers' facebook pages.

He's got a username on the forum, but they haven't said what it is.

They have Eastman looking through a bunch of pages to set up monthly paypal payments to pay for the $1,000 lifetime membership plan through a $50/month payment.

Going back to that old email, there was an email asking Eastman for more money. He replied "How does a lifetime membership expire?"

He's asked if that was him reaffirming his commitment to the group? He says no.

He's asked again if he's a lifetime member of the Oath Keepers.

Eastman tries to say that he's a lifetime member of the OLD Oath Keepers, but not a member of whatever the new group is. (Not really clear what that means, though.)

Eastman sent an email to leadership asking if Rhodes will be kicked out after being convicted.

Bylaws say he should be.

Eastman: "Bylaws are important to me. They're the backbone of an organization. If it's not following its bylaws, it's not the organization I joined."

Is Eastman still a member of the Oath Keepers? Yes, he hasn't been told he's kicked out.

Has he renounced his membership? No.

Has Eastman received any indication that Rhodes or Kelly Meggs have been removed from the group because of their convictions?

Eastman says no.

There's some back and forth before the stream cuts out entirely. I'm getting a 504 gateway time-out error now.

Ah, there we go. Back now.

They're going over a statement he gave after Jan. 6 where he says he's still a proud member of the Oath Keepers.

Aaaaand it's gone again.

Alright, they're back.

Now asking Eastman about whether he knew about the whereabouts of Stewart Rhodes on Jan. 6. And whether the Oath Keepers members entered the capitol building in military-style stack formations.

Basically laying the groundwork that Eastman was proud to stand with his fellow oath-keeping service members despite all the evidence that the Oath Keepers did bad.

Eastman says the Oath Keepers also entered the capitol to protect the capitol police officers.

How'd he know that? From reading and watching video and hearing testimony.

But he didn't know about Rhodes? Right.

The whole thing about the Oath Keepers going into the building to protect police was a point brought up by Miller in the cross examination of Kriner and Lewis. Both had characterized those claims as generally false cover stories.

It's getting mega spotty on my end.

Eastman on voter fraud leading in to Jan. 6: "At the time it was my position that it was clear that laws had been violated."

I'm trying to listen on my phone now.

Eastman says basically that as a public figure he is interested in a lawful and legal process and a legal and lawful process should take into account with it all.

And now he's being asked about his headline "Trump lost and Jeffrey Epstein killed himself."

Eastman says his whole idea was the difference between the truth and the "political truth." He says all he was trying to question is this idea people aren't allowed to question things.

The connection issues have made tracking this the last few minutes really hard.

There's a new document that was produced in discovery by Eastman and his attorneys. It's a bunch of text messages before Jan. 6.

It's with someone named Noah (and then no clear last name). They ask who it is.

Miller: "The identity of him is not important."

We don't get it.

There's some talk about "tri-con oligarchs" running the country and how control needs to be wrested from them.

Miller now contends that Stewart has not ACTUALLY been convicted yet because he's not been sentenced. The jury verdict has just been released.

Eastman then says he's not sure if the bylaws see a distinction between a jury verdict and a sentencing.

Still, Eastman asked the Oath Keepers leadership if the jury verdict would disqualify the membership of Rhodes.

Eastman says he believes there will be appeals of the verdict.

Dudukgian asks if Eastman also believes that Oath Keepers can independently decide not to follow orders or laws that they believe is unconstitutional.

Eastman gets a little squirrely with it but says, essentially, yes he believes you don't have to follow unconstitutional laws.

Dudukgian is done with the questioning for tonight. He says they might have more in the morning for tomorrow.

Miller, who demanded they start the questioning tonight, says he doesn't want to do any cross/redirect right now. Wants to wait til they're done.

So they'll be wrapping about 20 minutes early today.

There's some back and forth about the contingency planning for tomorrow with rain and snow.

Joe Miller says they only have a single witness lined up for tomorrow. He says a bunch of his witnesses are in prison and they're not sure if they can get them to testify.

He also says he plans to make a motion once the plaintiffs rest their case to just dismiss the whole suit.

There seemed like some more talk but the stream has ended.

So, anyway, I guess that's it for the day.

We'll be back tomorrow at 9 a.m.... maybe.... pending weather.

I should probably go eat some lunch...

@threadreaderapp unroll