By Lindsay Whitehurst and Alanna Durkin Richer
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — As angry supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol, smashing through windows and beating police officers, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes extolled them as patriots and harkened back to the battle that kicked off the American Revolutionary War.
“Next comes our ‘Lexington,’” Rhodes told his fellow far-right extremists in a message on Jan. 6, 2021. “It’s coming.”
The riot was the opportunity the Oath Keepers had been preparing for, prosecutors in Rhodes’ criminal trial say. His followers quickly sprang into action, marching to the Capitol. They joined the crowd pushing into the building in a desperate plot to overturn the election that was sending Joe Biden to the White House in place of Trump, authorities allege.
The Oath Keepers, though, say there was never any plot, that prosecutors have twisted their admittedly bombastic words.
Hundreds of people have been convicted in the attack that left dozens of officers injured, sent lawmakers running for their lives and shook the foundations of American democracy. Now jurors in the case against Rhodes and four associates will decide, for the first time, whether the actions of any Jan. 6 defendants amount to seditious conspiracy — a rarely used charge that carries both significant prison time and political weight.
The jury’s verdict may well address the false notion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, coming soon after 2022 midterm results in which voters rejected Republican Donald Trump’s chosen candidates who supported his baseless claims of fraud. The outcome could also shape the future and legacy of the Justice Department’s massive and costly prosecution of the insurrection that some conservatives have sought to portray as politically motivated.
Failure to secure a seditious conspiracy conviction could spell trouble for another high-profile trial beginning next month of former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and other leaders of that extremist group. The Justice Department’s Jan. 6 probe has also expanded beyond those who attacked the Capitol to focus on others linked to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.
Jury deliberations are expected to begin this week after prosecutors tried to make the case that Rhodes and his band of antigovernment extremists were not whipped into an impulsive frenzy by Trump on Jan. 6, but came to Washington intent on stopping the transfer of presidential power at all costs. Prosecutors and Rhodes’ defense delivered their closing arguments on Friday, but attorneys for other defendants made their final pitch on Monday before the case goes to the jury.
In dozens of encrypted messages sent in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, Rhodes rallied his followers to fight to defend Trump, discussed the prospect of a “bloody” civil war, and warned they might need to “rise up in insurrection” to defeat Biden.
“We aren’t getting through this without a civil war. Prepare your mind body and spirit,” he wrote shortly after the 2020 election.
Three defendants, including Rhodes, took the witness stand to testify in their defense — a move generally seen by defense lawyers as a last-resort option because it tends to do more harm than good. On the witness stand, Rhodes, of Granbury, Texas, and his associates — Thomas Caldwell, of Berryville, Virginia, and Jessica Watkins, of Woodstock, Ohio — sought to downplay their actions, but struggled when pressed by prosecutors to explain violent messages they sent.
The others on trial are Kelly Meggs, of Dunnellon, Florida, and Kenneth Harrelson of Titusville, Florida. Seditious conspiracy carries up to 20 years behind bars and all five defendants also face other felony charges. They would be the first people convicted of seditious conspiracy at trial since the 1995 prosecution of Islamic militants who plotted to bomb New York City landmarks.
The trial unfolding in Washington’s federal court — less than a mile from the Capitol — has put a spotlight on intelligence failures that left police unprepared and outmanned on Jan. 6 despite warnings of violence. It has also provided a window into the ways in which Rhodes mobilized his group and later tried to reach Trump with his radical ideas.
But while authorities combed through thousands of messages sent by Rhodes and his co-defendants in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, none specifically spelled out a plan to attack the Capitol itself. Defense attorneys emphasized that throughout the trial in arguing that Oath Keepers who did enter the Capitol were swept up in an spontaneous outpouring of election-fueled rage rather than acting as part of a specifically planned plot.
Jurors never heard from three other Oath Keepers who have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and were thought to be key government witnesses because they already admitted to plotting to stop the transfer of power. It’s unclear why prosecutors decided not to have them testify.
Over two days on the witness stand, a seemingly relaxed Rhodes told jurors there was no Capitol attack plan. He said he didn’t have anything to do with the guns some Oath Keepers had stashed at a Virginia hotel that prosecutors say served as the base for “quick reaction force” teams ready to ferry an arsenal of weapons across the Potomac River if necessary. The weapons were never deployed.
Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate and former Army paratrooper, said his followers were “stupid” for going inside. Rhodes, who was in a hotel room when he found out rioters were storming the Capitol, insisted that the Oath Keepers’ only mission for the day was to provide security for Trump ally Roger Stone and other figures at events before the riot.
Prosecutors say the defense is only trying to muddy the waters in a clear-cut case. The Oath Keepers aren’t accused of entering into agreement ahead of Jan. 6 to storm the Capitol. Rather, the defendants saw the attack as a “means to an end,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy told jurors Friday.
Under the Civil War-era seditious conspiracy statute, prosecutors are trying to prove the Oath Keepers conspired to forcibly oppose the authority of the federal government and forcibly block the execution of laws governing the transfer of presidential power. Prosecutors must show the defendants agreed to use force — not merely advocated the use of force — to oppose the transfer of presidential power.
Prosecutors say Rhodes’ own words prove just that.
After the riot, Rhodes tried to get a message to Trump through an intermediary, imploring the president not to give up his fight to hold onto power. The intermediary — a man who told jurors he had an indirect way to reach the president — recorded his meeting with Rhodes and went to the FBI instead of passing the message to Trump.
Rhodes told the man, speaking of Trump, “If he’s not going to do the right thing and he’s just gonna let himself be removed illegally then we should have brought rifles.”
