What is going on right now: Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, has taken the stand in his own defense against a charge of seditious conspiracy.

I'm following @KlasfeldReports. who is reporting from the court.

I am following him on Twitter because I'm still figuring out how Mastodon works :)

Anyway, here is some background:

On January 13, Rhodes (who helped lead the attack on the Capitol on January 6) was indicted for, among other things, seditious conspiracy.

1/

I tried to attach the elements of seditious conspiracy, but I'm not sure it's working.

(to get a conviction, prosecutors have to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.)

To get a conviction, the prosecutors have to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because of how the Constitution defines treason and how the courts have interpreted it, seditious conspiracy is the closest we have to a charge of treason in the case of something like the Capitol insurrection.

Anyway, the most important element of seditious conspiracy is "by force." The person must be attempting to overthrow or oppose the government by force.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

It’s also a big deal because Stewart Rhodes is the founder of the Oath Keepers, an extremist group. More here: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/oath-keepers

Spokesperson Jason van Tatenhove describes the group as “selling the revolution.” They are anti-federal government extremists with a history of vigilantism.

3/

The Oath Keepers are part of the anti-federal government far right extremists that have been taking root in the Republican Party. These kinds of anti-government militias date back to the 1990s.

Rhodes is a Yale Law grade who is taking the stand in his own defense.

He claimed that he believed (despite evidence) that the 2020 election was unconstitutional because of pandemic-related changes made to voting procedures in some states which made it “invalid.”

5/

It is unusual (and usually stupid) for defendants to take the stand in their own defense.

One advantage that defendants have is that they don't have to speak or say anything and the entire burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt falls to the prosecutors.

Now he can be cross-examined by prosecutors.

It's gonna be lit. I wish I could see it.

Warning. . .

5/

Even when it's clear someone is guilty, it can still be hard for prosecutors to get convictions. Example: Rittenhouse.

I've been issuing this warning to people clamoring for indictments: An indictment is just an accusation. Indictment followed by acquittal can further embolden people who commit crimes.

That's why good prosecutors make sure they have all the facts (including possible defenses) before indicting.

6/

From @KlasfeldReports:

Prosecutor asks bluntly if he urged Trump to throw out the election results and declare a new one.

"Yes, through a new election," he acknowledges.

This is coming from a Yale law school graduate who claims to be an expert on constitutional law.

The president has no such power. None. That's clear in the Constitution.

me = 🤦‍♂️

8/

During the final round of questioning, Rhodes said "I use bombastic language."

(from @ryanjreilly live-tweeting on Twitter)

Given the fact that the militia, which he commands, did indeed try to oppose the government by force, "I use bombastic language" really isn't the defense he thinks it is.

That's it for his questioning for today.

9/