Thread by @mattbuxton

It's Monday, y'all! That means we're back for the 5th full day of the Rep. Eastman trial where plaintiffs hope to disqualify the Wasilla Republican from holding office because he's a member of the Oath Keepers.

O.K. founder Stewart Rhodes MAY testify today.

#akleg #akelect

Finishing my summary of where we are so far, but we're getting underway with the testimony of Patrick Martin.

Martin was the recipient of a forwarded Oath Keeper email from Rep. Eastman. They went together to D.C. on Jan. 6 (and got slurpees the day before).

Why did you go?

Because David is my friend.

He then talks about how BLM and Antifa were attacking people and how he was worried that they'd attack Jan. 6. Then says he was worried about Eastman:

"To the degree that I'd be some kind of protection for him. ... I thought it'd be important to be a friend for him."

Martin: "He gets smeared quite often by people of the opposite side of the political aisle and if he were traveling alone, the opportunity for someone to smear him would be almost unquestioned. If I was with David, that wouldn't be an opportunity."

Martin~ David would have a witness of everywhere he went in DC

Martin notes he's the director of Alaska Right to Life. The most anti-abortionist of groups in the state. It even got sideways with other anti-abortion groups because it was viewed as too extreme and ineffective.

Martin~ Whether you're conservative, Republican or a Trump voter you had concerns about the integrity of the election.

He said the entire media machine ignoring the election integrity, only made those concerns stronger.

Now Martin is talking about how he did research by reading "The Antifa Handbook" that was written by the Occupy Wallstreet organizer.

Sounds like he's also trained to identify Antifa super soldiers.

Oh, yep. He has been apparently trained in identifying Antifa super soldiers.

He's talking about a trip to Seattle where he spotted a bunch of people wearing all black, the signature of Antifa.

Martin talking at length about protecting David Eastman the whole time. He was very worried about his very good friend. Another friend was very worried about Martin's safety, so he brought a bullet resistant backpack.

"David thought it was dumb."

Martin didn't vote for Trump. Did not support Trump.

So why were you there?

Martin says Trump fell "far short" of getting an endorsement for Alaska Right to Life.

"My view of Trump is that he was a political pragmatist."

Talks about standing up and clapping for Trump on abortion, but Trump gave to Planned Parenthood.

Martin: "You don't incite a riot while singing 'YMCA.' That's just ridiculous."

Alright, just finished a quick recap of the bullet points of the trial. Find it here:

akmemo.substack.com/p/the-complica…

Eastman has a very good understanding of D.C., Martin says: "Where he led, I followed."

Martin on identifying the Antifa: You could see the tell-tale sign of the elbow pads and knee pads.

"You could see the radios they're known to carry."

(Also, on Friday, one of the Oath Keepers talked about bringing a radio with him.)

There's an objection to the basis of Martin's knowledge about identifying all the antifa folks.

Miller, defends him: "He read the book by the antifa founder."

Miller on how he knows it was infiltrated by BLM/antifa: "I didn't go ask her for her ID but she was the spitting imagine of Patrisse Cullors, the founder of BLM. ... She certainly looked like Patrice Colors."

And why were you upset about the day?

Martin: "I'm proud to be an American."

Martin: "I don't know how I'd identify an Oath Keeper."

And were you monitoring David Eastman's reaction?

We were sitting together most of the time, awestruck about what we were seeing.

Now we're into cross examination of Pat Martin.

Dudukgian is starting by asking about his beliefs about the 2020 election.

Think it was rigged?

No.

Did you think it was stolen?

No.

Massive vote fraud?

No.

Did you want the certification of the election to be delayed?

I never said that.

Needed a witness if he was accused of something?

No.

And needed protection inside the capitol?

I never said that! He says it wasn't about going inside the U.S. Capitol.

What about in D.C.?

I thought he needed someone with him.

And were you expecting violence or a riot?

No riot, but possibly violence.

A little bit of back and forth on capitol, capital, etc. Everyone's gonna try to be more precise.

Expecting a mass gathering of people at the capitol building?

Yes.

And you were expecting that before you got on the plane?

Yes.

And you knew Oath Keepers were going to be there?

The first time I learned about their presence was Eastman's forwarded email to him.

(It's basically just a forward with "FYI" at the top)

And some back and forth about his prior knowledge of the Oath Keepers.

Martin: "I don't really follow them."

But you've heard of them before?

Right.

And you don't remember if you read the email?

Right.

And you didn't see the part about the "well-armed quick response force"?

No... and it wouldn't have influenced us one way or another.

And you were there for the Trump speeches?

I was there for all the speeches in their entirety.

And how big is the crowd?

I'm not sure but maybe a half-million people.

(Martin says he's worried about being impeached if he gives a figures)

On Trump's line about "making your voices heard," Dudukgian asks if Martin thinks that was about marching over to the U.S. Capitol?

Yes.

Was there anything about halting the certification of the election?

There was an expectation the reps would have their voices heard.

Was it the general consensus of the speeches that Congress should not certify the election?

No.

But so they were happy with it being certified?

Martin says, no, but there was a constitutional process for the representatives to vote against it. Does that mean he's calling for not certifying? I don't know.

Did Rep. Eastman call for Congress not to certify the election?

No, I don't think so.

We're back to the "Trump lost and Jeffrey Epstein killed himself."

Martin: "Great title." But says he didn't read it.

Martin goes back to the music at the Trump rally: "If you're inciting people to YMCA, you're confused."

Then we go back to Trump's quotes from the speech talking about how the election was rigged and fraudulent, etc.

Martin says he has no memory of those quotes.

Martin: To be honest, and again, it was two years ago. I don't remember the details of the speech.

(But he remembers all the Antifas)

Miller has an objection about all the questions to the Trump speeches.

Judge McKenna: "It sounds like to me that he doesn't remember any specific words from that speech."

Final quote about the Trump speech is something about "how we're not going to have a country anymore."

Martin says, again, that the YMCA music counters any sort of incitement by Trump.

Martin defensive about whether Trump incited the insurrection, which is not an issue in this trial: "He did that weird Donald dance and they played YMCA. ... People actually did the dance."

He says if it had happened, it'd be on the cameras.

Now we're getting into the post-speech events and everything.

Was Jan. 6 a riot?

He says it's not when compared to Seattle and Portland.

"I wouldn't characterize what happened on the capitol grounds a riot."

But was it a lawful, constitutional approach?

No, it was not the lawful, constitutional approach I would have favored.

Martin says he used his camera to zoom in on the capitol. He says he didn't witness violence, just a bunch of people waving Trump flags where they shouldn't.

Now we're into the 7-11 picture.

"When's the last time we had a slurpee, sure would be good to get a slurpee."

So that's the story.

And now I'm getting mentioned.

And he's mad about a ridiculous article about a "post-sedition slurpee"

He says it proves how much all the smears would get against Eastman. Says his concerns about Eastman's safety/reputational safety were proved right.

That's it for Pat Martin.

At recess for 15 minutes.

Back at 11.

Stewart Rhodes MIGHT be on at 1 p.m.

Alright, we're back from the break.

Now we're into testimony from Stephen Horn, who describes himself as an independent journalist who was documenting Jan. 6. Sounds like he went into the Capitol Building.

He says he was able to identify the Oath Keepers inside of the Capitol.

He says they were standing between a police member and the angry crowd.

This is the "Oath Keepers were just defending the police" argument. It hasn't really worked in other trials, though.

He's just there to submit some video.

And that's it. No cross questions.

And Rep. Eastman is back on the stand for his defense.

Going over his education. Talking about going to West Point because he's a "Being a lover of American history" and how "West Point is a great place to learn leadership."

Are you an Oath Keeper?

I am.

And what do you mean by that?

I took an oath when I joined the military and have kept it ever since.

So you mean that in the lowercase or uppercase sense?

Both.

Then we get some pictures and explanation about how Eastman has taken oaths of office, etc. Is he prepared to take another oath if sworn in?

Yep.

And why hasn't he resigned or disavowed the Oath Keepers?

Eastman: "Any organization that will assist us in supporting and defending the constitution is an asset to this country."

Eastman: "The constitution should be our first allegiance. ... The constitution comes first."

And talk about Oath Keepers, their bylaws, and the 10 orders you're not supposed to follow.

Eastman says he saw no problems with those things.

What party are a member of?

Republican party.

Are you popular within the Republican party?

I've received a majority of votes in my district

What about the leadership?

My allegiance is to the constitution, says that makes him unpopular with some.

Eastman then talks at length about how his free speech is being harmed because people are trying to remove him from office.

Then Miller starts to ask Eastman if he's an antisemite and white supremacists. There's an objection.

Miller says it's important to undercut expert Jon Lewis' testimony.

Judge McKenna says he'll allow it but it's not very important to the underlying case.

Miller says if Eastman says he's not an antisemite and not a white supremacist, then everything Jon Lewis said should be thrown out.

Are you a white supremacist?

No.

Are you an antisemite?

No.

Have you ever done pro-Israel legislation?

Yes.

This would be the image in question:

The article was specifically comparing covid-19 health precautions to the Holocaust.

Eastman says Biden said something "much more sinister" and it reminded him of the Hitler quote.

Miller asks Eastman if there's anything in Eastman's article that is antisemitic.

Eastman says no, adding that it's important to understand the context around Hitler's decision to start the Holocaust.

Here's what Lewis said about the picture: “Going to a Holocaust museum and choosing of all images to take a photo next to a quote by the architect of the Holocaust would go further to me, as an expert, that there are potentially some antisemitic beliefs floating around in there."

Eastman says it was clear that Biden was about to force vaccines on everyone.

"Now you have the beginning of the mandate and coercion." He also suggests that the vaccine could "destroy your health."

Says Biden was going down the route of Nazi Germany.

What do you think government is?

The constitution is our government. It's only what the constitution permits it to be.

Do you think the federal government should be overthrown?

No.

Why?

I don't think I've ever had to come up with a reason not to overthrow government.

Do you think this whole thing is cancel culture?

Yes. He adds that some people think that canceling is the best way to achieve their policy goals.

Do you object to cancel culture?

Yes, it's fundamentally un-American.

Eastman says if cancel culture wins its way then you can't stand up against tyranny. "Tyranny will come on the fringes."

Eastman says, basically, that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if cancel culture hadn't been a thing in Nazi Germany.

Specifically, it sounds like he's talking about the cancellation of the socialists, trade unionists and Jews...

Are you anti-immigrant?

No.

How many Oath Keepers do you know?

None through the organization.

What do you think about immigration?

I think having individuals come to American to flee persecution is a good thing. We should be in the business of standing against persecution.

Do you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist?

No.

Are there anti-American forces out there?

Plenty.

Is Oath Keepers an extension of Stewart Rhodes?

No.

Why?

Because I've never met Stewart Rhodes or taken orders from him.

Some back and forth. Nothing too interesting.

They're now into the lunch break. Back at 1 p.m. with MAYBE Stewart Rhodes on the stand from prison.

We're back from break.

Joe Miller's on the phone with Stewart Rhodes' attorney waiting to see if they can get him on the phone.

Meanwhile, Miller asks for an extension on some briefings that were due tonight at midnight. He's a one-man office, he says. It's granted.

Going through some talk about his availability, it sounds like Rhodes will be available for an hour or so.

There's a matter of whether both sides will get equal time.

Still trying to get Rhodes now.

Meanwhile, Miller is bringing up some other U.S. Supreme Court case. He says it bars states from imposing penalties on anyone for association.

He says it raises the standard, basically to the point where Eastman would have had to be Jan. 6'ing.

As for Miller's point, Judge McKenna says that's the whole idea of the briefings he just got an extension on.

Still waiting on Rhodes.

Alright, it looks like Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes is on now. He's on via phone from federal custody. He was convicted earlier this year on seditious conspiracy.

You can tune in here: stream.akcourts.gov

But first some teleconference issues.

Alright, Rhodes is now on from the phone.

Where'd you go to school?

UNLV then Yale Law School.

Did you found Oath Keepers?

Yes.

And why did you found it?

Because of his research at Yale Law School into the misuses of power by the Bush Administration. He says he was concerned about the violations of the rights of American Muslims.

Also mentions Katrina.

Rhodes continues to talk about Mỹ Lai massacre of soldiers following unlawful orders. Says the same happened in the U.S. with things like the mass confiscation of firearms in Katrina, extrajudicial killings, etc.

And now we're talking about the bylaws.

Rhodes says government overthrow-ers, racists and felons weren't allowed.

Did you enforce the bylaws?

Yes.

And how?

Kicked 'em out. Says only a "few" were racists.

Rhodes says they also kicked out "anti-cop" people because they're a pro-police organization.

Does he have a website?

First a blogspot then an official website.

Back to the racism, Rhodes says he's a quarter Mexican: "I have zero tolerance for racists."

Then we get into the 10 orders you can't follow. Miller says the testimony has cast it as enmeshed with modern conspiracy theories.

Rhodes says it's a look at history, like how people weren't allowed to leave the Super Dome during Katrina.

Rhodes: "All of it is historical fact, not conspiracy."

Going over the Oath Keepers' humanitarian activities like going into the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, Puerto Rico, etc.

Says basically all the EMT and aid group were too scared of gangsters, but they came in armed and the gang members avoided them.

Rhodes about their aid efforts, says the way they work with local LEOs: "We have my cops go talk to their cops."

Rhodes talks about telling Oath Keepers to stay the hell away from Charlottesville: "They had David Duke talking for cryin' out loud."

Rhodes on white supremacists: "I consider them a curse on the conservative movement."

And now we're onto the Oath Keepers' humanitarian effort of providing armed security at Trump rallies to protect them from Antifa and other instigators: "Antifa likes to attack people when they're leaving the venue."

When asked about the quote about Oath Keepers' presence correlating with more violent events.

"Whoever said that committed perjury. ... We don't close on them, they don't close on us."

Then just various events where the Oath Keepers were doing protection.

The Deplora-ball
Million MAGA Match
A Stop the Steal Rally on a Saturday

Rhodes also points out that Antifa wear all black.

Talking about Jan. 6.

Rhodes talks about how they were just there to do security. He talks about how the plans to enter the capitol was a spontaneous decision on a few members' parts.

Rhodes says he talked to the individuals and told them "That was stupid, why did you do that?"

He says his crews told him they went in because they heard someone got shot and they wanted to render medical aid.

The first crew of 14 that went in was the security detail for Ali Alexander.

There was another 4-5 that were assigned to Roger Stone but Stone went home early.

Did you have anything to do with either group going into the U.S. Capitol?

No, and I didn't know until after it was done. "I told 'em it was stupid. ... It was not our mission and it exposed us to the persecution of our political enemies. That's why I'm here, in jail."

And that's cut short as Rhodes is taken back to his cell. He says he can call from a tablet so they're taking a break to wait for that.

The plaintiffs also need an opportunity cross examine Rhodes, but it's kinda looking uncertain.

Joe Miller now uncertain to handle the conference call.

Sounds like Rhodes may or may not have the right number.

Looked dicey there for a minute, but he's back on the phone.

It's pretty muffled.

Rhodes is basically talking about voter integrity.

He's talking about "exposing the criminality in our government."

But he says it wasn't about overthrowing government.

There's some back and forth about the audio quality.

Seems resolved.

Miller asks about his open letter to Trump.

Dead air.

Back to troubleshooting.

Judge McKenna asks about Rhodes' availability.

Miller says, usually, cross examinations take less time than the direct.

Judge McKenna says that's not for Miller to decide, the plaintiffs will get their opportunity.

Then Miller asks that the plaintiffs tell him where they're going to try to impeach the credibility of Rhodes so he can prepare.

Judge McKenna says that's not how it works, the plaintiffs don't have to disclose that ahead of time.

Rhodes is back now.

Did you encourage anyone to delay the certification?

No. He says he was asking for a document dump by the president. He says he still believes it was unconstitutional results. The documents would've proved the corruption.

Did you ever encourage people to overthrow the government or interrupt?

No.

What about violence?

No.

Rhodes adds that he told his followers to stay away from the capitol. He didn't want them to get caught up in any false flags.

Pretty garbled, but Rhodes talking about his various concerns about Antifa threatening "to lay siege to the White House if Trump didn't concede immediately."

Rhodes talks about the Quick Response Force as only an effort to protect the White House/government against communist terrorists.

What were you guilty of and what were you not found guilty of?

Rhodes then runs down the indictments, etc.

And then we're talking about the various different private chats that the Oath Keepers had going on on Jan. 6.

They had an operations chat.
Another chat.
One chat used to keep an eye on antifas.
Another open chat.

Did the government ever accuse you of trying to overthrow government?

They accuse me a lot of things.

Did they ever charge you?

No. Just seditious conspiracy.

Rhodes says the court just relied on his other statements leading into Jan. 6 to read intent to his actions on Jan. 6.

Rhodes: "I was convicted for my Free Speech."

What do you plan to do with the convictions?

Appeal them!

And what happens to your membership in Oath Keepers.

He says he's incapacitated, technically.

Then it cuts off.

OK back.

They ask about his position in the Oath Keepers.

Rhodes says he's technically incapacitated so the VP is the head of it now.

Then there's something about the "bloody civil war."

Rhodes says something about Biden not being capable to invoke insurrection act.

He says, then, that the country is "in very dangerous territory. And it's getting worse, not better."

And why is the government anti-Oath Keepers?

Rhodes: "Unfortunately, the political left in this country has demonstrated a hostility against Free Speech and has no problem with violence in the streets or canceling people on social media ... or prosecuting people like myself."

Rhodes: "They're only proving us correct each time they do this."

That's it for the direct with Rhodes.

Judge McKenna asks that they save the cross for tomorrow when Rhodes can have time on the better connection. Sounds like they'll have 2 hours starting right at 9 a.m.

Back from a comfort break.

Sounds like we're going back to the direct examination of Rep. Eastman, which was cut short when Rhodes became available.

(These days go to 430)

Ever been arrested?

No.

Ever been convicted of a crime?

No.

Do the Oath Keepers promote violence?

No, it's the exact opposite. He says the whole point of Oath Keepers is to prevent violence.

And now he's talking about the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Now we're going over tweets from Trump and Eastman talking about when he decided to go to D.C. and the timing of it all.

Basically, it's all in service of noting that Eastman decided to go to DC before the Oath Keepers really escalated their rhetoric.

Did he bring any Oath Keepers merch?

No.

What about weapons?

No.

What about that ballistic backpack?

"I didn't see the reason."

Eastman talking about his prior trips to DC, which included some Promise Keepers event.

Basically talking about how most of the time it's scary and unfriendly, except for events like Jan. 6 and the Promise Keepers

Miller asks about opposition to presidential inaugurations, wondering isn't it a totally normal thing that always happens to everyone?

Eastman: I know there's been objections lodged against every Republican president in recent history.

Eastman says he never saw anyone assaulting a police officer on Jan. 6.

Then some back on forth over when Eastman learned about the assaults or deaths.

He says by that night he learned about it.

Asked about the Midnight Sun's slurpee post, Eastman says there were a bunch of other emails that suggested he was doing bad stuff on Jan. 6.

Then we go over some facebook posts where Eastman said something along the lines of if you think Antifa or other groups were doing what they did because of something Trump said, then you know neither.

Talks about maps, visiting DC and the Berlin Wall some more.

And now onto Eastman's emails to Oath Keepers leadership about whether Rhodes and others would be kicked out. What would you do if they keep Rhodes, etc.

Eastman says he'd leave if they start blatantly break their bylaws.

Does he still consider Rhodes the leader of the group?

No, it kinda looks like no one is leading right now. He also notes that Rhodes has already testified that if his appeals don't work then he seems intent on leaving.

Anything else for the court to consider?

Eastman: "I want to make it clear to the court that to the extent that Oath Keepers becomes some organization committed to overthrowing the government, it won't have my support or membership in doing so. ..."

Eastman, continued: "Also I'm cognizant that just because someone's accused of doing something, doesn't mean they've done it."

And that's it for the direct of Eastman.

And now we've got about 20 minutes left of cross by plaintiffs' attorney Dudukgian.

Dudukgian brings up the "Trump lost and Epstein killed himself" post, which gets an objection from Miller.

Was it your purpose to go to Congress to stop the certification of the election?

Eastman says, no, just to lobby the delegation on letting the other objections (which sought to stop or delay the certification) could be heard.

And you published this article on the 5th on the same day you were meeting with the delegation, right?

Right.

And you wrote that Congress shouldn't certify the election?

Right.

We're going over an open letter Eastman signed onto that was sent to the delegation. The summary in the letter: "Above all we ask for your commitment that you do not vote to certify" any illegally cast votes.

Eastman says he just wanted them to hear the objections.

There was something about unequivocal evidence of voter fraud or something.

Miller objects, he says there's no way to tell who wrote this letter that Eastman helped write/edit.

Dudukgian notes that the letter was in evidence provided by Eastman.

He says he edited it but other people sent it to the delegation.

And he's signed onto it, right?

Right.

Does he have a final copy of that letter?

No, it has been taken down.

And there's some back and forth discussion about people he's tried to contact with the Oath Keepers.

Talking about his status in the Oath Keepers, Eastman agrees that he would resign if they start ignoring their bylaws but he says that they haven't done anything in 18 months and are essentially a dormant organization.

How long will it take for you to determine whether they will enforce their bylaw or not?

Eastman can't say. Says with all the legal trouble they're in, he says they're probably pretty busy.

A lot of back and forth on when, if ever, Eastman will be done with the Oath Keepers.

Eventually he says it's a dormant organization that isn't capable of enforcing anything and he's not going to hold it against him.

Then there's some talk about how when closing would be.

It sounds like they won't be done on Tuesday as had been scheduled, so they'll probably have closing arguments online sometime on Wednesday.

Tomorrow is

Stewart Rhodes
Rep. Eastman
John Eastman
Maybe Col. John Siemens

There's a bit of back and forth at the end about expert witness reports and who gets theirs admitted and not.

(Guandolo's has been admitted, but the plaintiffs' expert witnesses have not been)

Alright, time to go dormant.

See y'all at 9 a.m. tomorrow for maybe some Stewart Rhodes cross examination!