Case Study In Why You Don't Put Your Criminal Defendant Client On The Witness Stand

RHODES now explaining his view of the term "quick-reaction force" — a military term that the Oath Keepers used to describe their cache of weapons.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 4, 2022

Q: Were you happy with the election?

RHODES: No.

Q: Did you believe the election had been stolen?

RHODES: I believe the election was unconstitutional ... that made it invalid.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 4, 2022

In other words the group was illegal insofar as it ever tried to "deter antifa" or "protect the White House [but not Congress!] from violent actors" unless Trump "deputized" them. Did we mention he'd already testified he was a graduate of Yale Law School and designated a "constitutional expert" by Yale?  He knows better, in other words.  He can't claim a legal defense that he thought what he was doing was allowed under law.  At best he can say he acted in accordance with what he wants the law to be.

That's not a defense.  And the only reason you put your criminal client on the stand is because the prosecution has made such a good case, you need a defense.  Any defense.

RHODES compares his effort to get on Trump's radar and raise alarms about election results to "Horton Hears a Who."

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 4, 2022

A case specifically rejected by the Court, the arbiter of what is, or is not, "constitutional." We cannot, as a government of laws, cede that authority to...well, men.

Rhodes' argument seems to be that because he thought the election was unconstitutional, he was authorized to do whatever he pleased, especially if Trump had just deputized him and let him run rampant enforcing the law, or his own preferences, as he saw fit. 

This is not a defense to a charge of seditious conspiracy.  This is a confession.