Feds say Oath Keepers plot went beyond Jan. 6 attack on Capitol

[Jilly_in_VA]

A federal judge on Wednesday expressed skepticism about releasing the founder of the right-wing Oath Keepers organization ahead of his trial on seditious conspiracy charges in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, as prosecutors revealed new evidence about the plot and how it extended beyond the U.S. Capitol attack.

Elmer Stewart Rhodes III was arrested in January, charged along with several other Oath Keepers in a seditious conspiracy case that alleges they "planned to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power" and keep former President Donald Trump in office.

The feds said that Rhodes — who was on the grounds of the Capitol on Jan. 6 — had helped organize “quick reaction forces“ (QRFs), including at a hotel in nearby Virginia.

A federal magistrate judge in Texas ordered Rhodes held until trial last month, and his attorneys appealed. Since his first detention hearing, Rhodes testified before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

Federal authorities argued before Judge Amit P. Mehta on Wednesday that there were no conditions of release that would reasonably assure the safety of the community and Rhodes’ future court appearances.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/feds-say-oath-keepers-plot-went-jan-6-attack-capitol-rcna16474

[PatSeg]

1. Thank goodness

[empedocles]

2. Yes

[MissMillie]

3. Wish some of these folks would read what they publish

Last edited Thu Feb 17, 2022, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)

"A federal magistrate judge in Texas ordered Rhodes held until trial last month,..."


His trial wasn't last month. The judge ruled last month.

"A federal magistrate judge in Texas ordered last month that Rhodes be held until trial..."

[2naSalit]

4. +1

[ProfessorGAC]

5. I Found It Awkward, Too

As I was reading it, it just didn't feel right.

[crickets]

6. Good. No way he should be out to cause more mayhem.

[Judge] Mehta questioned Wednesday whether a private militia could be called upon by the president to take action, given that they weren't a state militia.

Almost there. So close to making the point that should be made. Why call Oath Keepers a 'private militia' as though that's a legitimate thing? It's a terrorist organization. Call it what it is.