Connect with us

News

Prosecution and Defense Sum Up in Oath Keepers Sedition Trial

Published

on

Prosecution and Defense Sum Up in Oath Keepers Sedition Trial

Prosecutors on the sedition trial of 5 members of the Oath Keepers militia made their closing remarks to the jury on Friday, saying that the far-right group, underneath the route of its chief, Stewart Rhodes, strove after the 2020 election to cease Joseph R. Biden Jr. from getting into the White Home in a sweeping plot that culminated within the violent assault on the Capitol.

Portray a distinct image, a lawyer for Mr. Rhodes argued that there was no plan to assault the Capitol that day — or to cease the lawful switch of presidential energy. As a substitute, he informed the jury, the Oath Keepers went to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, to do what that they had executed all through the tumultuous election yr: defend supporters of President Donald J. Trump.

The rival summations, supplied in Federal District Courtroom in Washington, marked a closing stage in an expansive seven-week trial that centered on essentially the most critical prices to go to trial to this point within the Justice Division’s sprawling investigation of the Capitol assault and what led to it.

The decision might be a primary main check of the federal government’s assertion that the violence of Jan. 6 was the product of a deliberate conspiracy, and it may affect an identical trial set for mid-December through which 5 members of one other far-right group, the Proud Boys, additionally stand accused of seditious conspiracy.

The Oath Keepers case is the primary of almost 20 trials stemming from the Capitol assault through which jurors have been requested to contemplate a conspiracy cost. The jury’s deliberations, that are set to start out subsequent week, will seemingly concentrate on the query that was debated in courtroom on Friday: whether or not there was a premeditated plan to make use of drive to disrupt the peaceable switch of energy.

Advertisement

Prosecutors spent a month laying out what they mentioned was proof of a conspiracy, introducing a whole bunch of encrypted textual content messages exchanged by members of the group and firsthand testimony from a number of former Oath Keepers. However in an uncommon and dangerous transfer, Mr. Rhodes and two of his co-defendants — Jessica Watkins and Thomas Caldwell — took the stand in their very own protection and denied that the Oath Keepers had a plan on Jan. 6.

Over the course of almost two hours on Friday, Kathryn Rakoczy, one of many lead prosecutors within the case, informed jurors that inside days of the election, Mr. Rhodes rejected the legitimacy of Mr. Biden’s victory and stoked his followers to organize for a violent intervention to assist Mr. Trump preserve his grip on energy.

Mr. Rhodes was mainly obsessive about convincing Mr. Trump to invoke a regulation generally known as the Rebel Act, which the Oath Keepers believed would have given him the ability to summon militias like their very own to assist him towards his enemies. However Ms. Rakoczy pointed to messages displaying he additionally informed followers that if Mr. Trump didn’t, they’d act anyway.

Finally, Ms. Rakoczy informed the jury, fearing the outcomes of the election can be set in stone, Mr. Rhodes led his group in an assault on “a essential custom of our democracy”: the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory at a joint session of Congress.

“On Jan. 6 they struck,” Ms. Rakoczy mentioned. “They noticed the riot unfolding on the Capitol. They threw their our bodies to the trigger and so they took it. Our democracy is fragile. It can not exist with out respect for the rule of regulation. And it’ll not survive if people who find themselves dissatisfied with the outcomes of an election can use drive and violence to vary the result.”

Advertisement

In his personal closing arguments, James Lee Shiny, a lawyer for Mr. Rhodes, sought to color the Oath Keepers as a law-abiding good Samaritan group that went to Washington on Jan. 6 to guard distinguished Trump allies like Roger J. Stone Jr. He additionally informed the jury that the Oath Keepers — regardless of their fame — have been a various group, noting that a number of members of the group have been Black and that Ms. Watkins, one of many defendants, was a transgender girl.

Mr. Shiny acknowledged that he couldn’t dispute a lot of the federal government’s voluminous proof, together with statements by Mr. Rhodes and others about their outrage regarding the election. However he mentioned that nowhere within the prosecutors’ presentation was any proof of a conspiracy — a “assembly of the minds” that they’d break the regulation.

“Did you discover a plan to storm the Capitol?” he requested the jury. “No. Did you discover a plan to breach the Rotunda? No. Did you discover a plan to cease the certification of the election? No.”

Prosecutors went into the trial after a 20-month investigation with tens of 1000’s of encrypted textual content messages displaying that Mr. Rhodes and a few of his subordinates believed that Mr. Biden was a “puppet” of the Chinese language Communist Social gathering bent on destroying the US and {that a} violent civil warfare may be wanted to maintain him from taking workplace.

Federal brokers additionally interviewed scores of Oath Keepers from across the nation, a few of whom admitted they have been troubled by Mr. Rhodes’s incendiary language and by his fixation on the leftist motion generally known as antifa, which he feared was set on attacking Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

Whereas a lot of this proof was used throughout the trial to determine Mr. Rhodes’s mind-set, Mr. Shiny harassed that prosecutors by no means produced a smoking gun that explicitly confirmed the Oath Keepers had a plan in place to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6 and cease the certification of the election. Certainly, a few of the authorities’s personal witnesses admitted underneath cross-examination that the breach of the constructing, whereas linked to the group’s wider complaints in regards to the election, roughly unfolded on the spot.

Throughout the identical months that the Oath Keepers have been more and more discussing civil warfare, the group’s vp, Greg McWhirter, was secretly serving as an F.B.I. informant. However the authorities by no means referred to as Mr. McWhirter to testify about what he knew, nor did they name three Oath Keepers who pleaded responsible to seditious conspiracy and cooperated within the authorities’s investigation.

In a tacit nod to those problems, Ms. Rakoczy informed the jury that Mr. Rhodes and his co-defendants — Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Ms. Watkins and Mr. Caldwell — weren’t charged particularly with getting into into an settlement forward of Jan. 6 to storm the Capitol. They have been charged with utilizing the “alternative to assault the Capitol” to additional their broader purpose of retaining Mr. Biden out of workplace, an goal they pursued till almost Inauguration Day.

“The assault on Capitol was a method to an finish,” Ms. Rakoczy mentioned. “That finish being to make use of any means obligatory, together with and as much as using drive, to cease the lawful switch of energy.”

To show seditious conspiracy, prosecutors have to point out that Mr. Rhodes and his co-defendants knowingly shaped an settlement to make use of drive to oppose the authority of the federal government or to subvert legal guidelines governing presidential transitions.

Advertisement

The 5 have additionally been charged with two different conspiracy counts. One accuses them of plotting to disrupt the election certification course of on Jan. 6. The opposite prices them with plotting to forestall federal officers — on this case, members of Congress — from discharging their duties that day.

Ms. Rakoczy dwelled at size on Mr. Rhodes’s testimony when he tried responsible a few of his compatriots for being “off mission” as they went contained in the Capitol. Throughout his time on the stand, Mr. Rhodes additionally claimed that he had nothing to do with a closely armed “fast response drive” that was staged in a resort in Arlington, Va., and was poised to convey a cache of firearms to the Oath Keepers on the bottom in Washington.

Attacking Mr. Rhodes’s credibility, Ms. Rakoczy mentioned the proof flatly contradicted this account.

“Why lie,” she requested the jury, “except the reality is simply too damning?”

Ms. Rakoczy additionally accused Mr. Rhodes of mendacity when he testified that he referred to as his fellow Oath Keepers to hitch him on the Capitol on the peak of the assault to maintain them out of bother.

Advertisement

“He was calling folks to the scene of the riot to maintain them from the riot?” she requested sarcastically. “Does that make any sense?”

Each side homed in on a vital second on the bottom on Jan. 6: a 90-second telephone name between Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Meggs and the Oath Keepers’ “floor commander” that day, Michael Greene, who’s going through prices in a separate case.

Ms. Rakoczy informed the jury that inside minutes of the decision, Mr. Meggs led a military-style “stack” of Oath Keepers up the east-side steps of the Capitol and into the constructing, the place some went in the hunt for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The protection maintains that regardless of the information that the decision occurred, the individuals have been unable to speak. Mr. Shiny additionally reminded the jurors of testimony that Mr. Rhodes had mentioned that Oath Keepers who breached the Capitol have been silly.

“There have been no orders to go in,” Mr. Shiny mentioned. “There was no plan to go in.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

What's in the Senate's version of Trump's 'big bill'?

Published

on

What's in the Senate's version of Trump's 'big bill'?

For more politics coverage and analysis, sign up for Here’s the Deal, our weekly politics newsletter, here.


The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (let’s say “OBBBA”) is President Donald Trump’s signature agenda item in Congress.

It will affect the daily lives of tens of millions of Americans. It is a massive project, with potentially the largest tax cuts, spending cuts and additions to the national debt in U.S. history.

WATCH: Can Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” make it through the Senate?

This week, we have a critical, new development to dive into: the Senate Finance Committee’s own draft of how it wants to handle tax cuts and Medicaid cuts.

Advertisement

(For the most adventurous among us, all 549 pages can be found here.)

The big picture

  • Tax cuts. The Senate draft would add and lengthen some tax cuts, both for businesses and individuals.
  • Green energy cuts. It would slightly delay the elimination of tax credits for solar and wind energy. The Senate draft would push back cuts for nuclear, geothermal and hydropower far more significantly.
  • Medicaid cuts. It would cut Medicaid more than the House-passed bill.

OK, let’s go a little deeper.

A close-up of the words “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” printed on an agenda for a House Rules Committee’s hearing in May on President Donald Trump’s plan for extensive tax cuts. Photo by Nathan Howard/Reuters

Some tax specifics

  • Individual tax rates. Senate and House Republicans are in sync on this. They would make current tax rates permanent. Without action, nearly all individuals will see a tax increase.
  • Standard deductions. The Senate draft would give most adults a bigger tax deduction from the start. Without extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, the standard deduction that many individuals take to lower their tax burden is slated to decrease nearly in half at the end of the year. The Senate would not just keep but raise the deduction amounts — to $16,000 for individuals and $32,000 for married couples filing jointly.
  • Child tax credit. The current tax credit of $2,000 per child is set to drop to $1,000 at the end of the year. The Senate would raise the credit to $2,200 permanently. The House would raise the credit to $2,500, but only until 2028.

Green energy

  • A slash to green energy funds. The House and Senate are both moving to eliminate major tax credits for wind and solar from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
  • But the Senate gives a slightly longer phase-out, allowing a partial tax credit for projects that start construction next year or in 2027. The House would end the credit almost as soon as the bill is enacted.

Medicaid

  • Targeting the “provider” tax. This is the most notable cut that the Senate draft is adding. Right now, states use a loophole to help them get more federal dollars for Medicaid. They tax hospitals and doctors (a “provider tax”) and spend that money back with the hospitals and doctors. The more states spend, the more the federal government will match.
  • A cut on this tax. For states that expanded Medicaid, the Senate draft would gradually reduce the maximum amount of provider taxes, which is currently up to 6%, until it reaches a 3.5% threshold by 2031. Many Republicans like this reform, but others say it would significantly cut funds available for Medicaid. The House bill would block new provider taxes.
  • Work requirements. Both the House and Senate would add an 80-hours-a-month work requirement for “able-bodied” adults, or those without disabilities, on Medicaid. The Senate makes one significant change: exempting parents of children under 14 years old from the requirement. (There currently is no federal work requirement for Medicaid.)

What now?

This Senate version is experiencing some initial turbulence.

Four Republican senators have openly questioned the Medicaid cuts in the House bill: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

And now, West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice has told a Semafor reporter that he wants the Senate’s Medicaid section to revert to the House version, which would ban new or increased provider taxes.

Hawley told me Tuesday that the cut to the provider tax was a total surprise to him and others. Trump, too, was surprised when alerted about the change and its ramifications for rural hospitals, Hawley said.

Advertisement

This is not unusual. Big bills often have big problems when they are released.

But. Republicans are trying to get this historic legislation through Congress — not just the Senate — in the next two weeks.

At this point in the process, similar large bills (think the Affordable Care Act) usually take months to get through the Senate and back through the House again.

Republicans are determined to pass a version of the bill, but increasingly my sources are saying the question is “not if, but when.”

Support PBS News Hour

Advertisement

Your donation makes a difference in these uncertain times.


Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Inside Trump’s Shifting Stance on Iran

Published

on

Video: Inside Trump’s Shifting Stance on Iran

President Trump spent the first months of his term holding back Israel’s push for an assault on Iran’s nuclear program. With the war underway, he has now expressed support for Israel. Jonathan Swan, a White House reporter for The New York Times, breaks down how the president got to this point.

Continue Reading

News

Donald Trump plans to delay TikTok ban for a third time

Published

on

Donald Trump plans to delay TikTok ban for a third time

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

The White House has said it will allow TikTok to continue operations in the US for another 90 days, extending a deadline for the popular Chinese-owned social media app to divest a stake in the platform to satisfy American law.

“President [Donald] Trump will sign an additional executive order this week to keep TikTok up and running,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday. “As he has said many times, president Trump does not want TikTok to go dark.

“This extension will last 90 days, which the administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure.”

Advertisement

Last year, Congress passed legislation to force ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese owner, to sell the app or face a ban in the US.

Trump has promised to “save” the app and has twice extended the deadline — first from January to April, and then from April to June 19 — after failing to deliver a deal, which requires sign-off from China.

Ahead of the April deadline, the White House was closing in on an agreement that would spin off TikTok from ByteDance and create a US company to receive new investment, diluting the stakes of Chinese investors. 

Under the terms of that deal, investors, including Andreessen Horowitz and Blackstone, would have owned about half of TikTok’s US business, while large existing investors, including General Atlantic, Susquehanna and KKR, would have held about 30 per cent of the new entity.

The Financial Times has previously reported that the White House had considered other potential outside investors, including rightwing media star Tucker Carlson.

Advertisement

ByteDance told the White House and investors that Beijing was willing to approve the deal, according to one person familiar with the matter. But after Trump announced tariffs on China and other countries on April 2, ByteDance informed the investors that Beijing had rescinded its approval. The White House was waiting for the US-China trade tensions to ease before trying to resurrect the deal, according to the person.

In 2020, during his first term as president, Trump moved to block TikTok, writing in an executive order that its data collection “threatens to allow the Chinese Communist party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information”.

Trump changed his approach to the platform, however, after he used it to reach younger voters in the 2024 election. In May, Trump told NBC that he had “a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok”.

Continue Reading

Trending