On Friday, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes —one of 11 members of the Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol insurrection— filed a court motion seeking his release from jail and appeared to blame Donald Trump for the group’s decision to travel to Washington D.C. on January 6, claiming that they were expecting Trump to impose martial law that day, The Washington Post reports.
In the 41-page court filing, Rhodes’ attorneys wrote that members of the pro-Trump militia group “were not there to storm the Capitol, to stop the certification or to takeover (sic) the government.” Instead, they argued, the Oath Keepers “were waiting for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. He did not, so Rhodes and the others did nothing.”
In response to the motion, New York Times reporter Alan Feuer brought up a “logical” question, writing: Why was Rhodes apparently convinced Trump was going to effectively impose martial law that day?”
A federal judge last month ordered Rhodes to remain jailed pending trial, saying he poses a threat to the public and could evade authorities if he were to flee.
According to BuzzFeed News’ Ken Bensinger, attorneys concede that “Rhodes summoned Oath Keepers to DC on Jan. 6,” but say it was to provide “defensive assistance to attendees” who might be attacked by ‘members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. He added that “a very large part of the argument is that Rhodes believed Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act, at which point it was no-holds-barred and he’d unleash the much-discussed Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and all its guns.”
Read the entire document here.
Oath Keeper leader Stewart Rhodes says he was waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act on J6–an order that never came–thus isn't guilty of sedition.
A logical question: Why was Rhodes apparently convinced Trump was going to effectively impose martial law that day? pic.twitter.com/JP99Q0QwCv
— Alan Feuer (@alanfeuer) February 11, 2022
The much-discussed Quick Reaction Force in Virginia, meanwhile, was "hardly the commando force the Government is attempting to portray it as" & instead a "defensive force, called if and only if required to defend members or those with whom they have been charged with protecting" pic.twitter.com/fNAwfyXLPw
— Ken Bensinger (@kenbensinger) February 11, 2022
