>>> Tonight attorney general
Merrick Garland says that
tireless work by his justice
department helped secure the
seditious conspiracy conviction
against the leader of the oath
keepers Stewart Rhodes.
We have an exclusive interview
right now with Stewart Rhodes'
attorney.
Sarah Sidener is back with me to
take part in the conversation.
Thank you both for joining us
this evening.
James I want to start with you.
You said this was a fair trial
that government prosecutors,
quote, took us to task, which is
quite honest.
So how significant do you think
it is that Rhodes was found
guilty of seditious conspiracy?
A rare conviction.
It is a rare conviction.
Thank you for having us.
I appreciate it.
I do overall believe we got a
fair trial.
I think the jury stayed out
three days.
And as you had a guest
previously this evening detail,
they kind of came back with a
very interesting selection of
not guilty verdicts and guilty
verdicts.
I think that shows the attention
to detail they had and the
attention they gave to the
verdicts and the trial itself.
The government did take us to
task.
This was a brutal trial for all
parties, long, extensive, lots
of evidence.
And, you know, one person I want
to compliment is judge meta.
Incredibly intelligent man and I
loved his tone and demeanor in
the courtroom and how he ran the
courtroom.
In terms of Mr. Rhodes and his
conviction for seditious
conspiracy.
You know, I would respectfully
still state while I respect the
jury's return on that, based on
the evidence that I feel was
presented, and what was given to
the jury, I actually disagree
with their finding on that
specifically.
>> Right after January 6th,
Phillip, Rhodes said that he,
quote, his only regret -- he
made in a recording that was
later played by the government.
Let's listen to that only
regret.
>> My only regret is -- I tell
you what, if president trump
does the right thing, it's the
wrong thing to do.
>> Should have brought rifles.
He regretted not bringing
rifles.
Does he have any regrets now?
>> Yes, Mr. Rhodes regrets that
some of the oath keepers
actually went into the building.
They were not directed to go
into the building, and the
evidence came out at trial that
those people who went in the
building were off mission at the
time.
And he regrets that officers got
hurt, they weren't hurt by his
people but they were hurt by
people in the crowd and that is
a regret of his.
He didn't direct anybody to go
in.
There wasn't a plan to go in and
the few that did did so on their
own volition.
>> I want to bring in Sara
sidner.
She has a question.
>> I do.
I sat in the trial you and two
other attorneys took this very
difficult case, there was a
mountain of evidence.
But Mr. Rhodes testified in his
own defense standing by this
baseless claim that the 2020
election was in his words
unconstitutional and he wanted
to testify.
That seemed to be made very
clear.
Can you tell us whether or not
you tried to dissuade him or if
you regret that he testified on
his own behalf?
Which is also a very rare thing
dealing with a very rare charge.
>> Absolutely, Sarah.
Good to see you again.
When Mr. Linder and I were first
hired on this case, January
24th, and we went and met with
Mr. Rhodes, he set out two
preconditions for us to
represent him.
One, he would testify at his own
trial, no matter what.
Two, he would never accept a
plea offer.
That's been made clear in the
case, made clear to the court.
So it's nothing we could have
dissuaded him from doing to
begin with.
He's a Yale educated lawyer,
he's very intelligent.
Whether an individual chooses to
agree or disagree with his E
belief systems and we did with
that type of client what was
necessary.
We admonished him as to the pros
and cons legally and strategy
wise regarding waiving the fifth
amendment and testifying.
In his case it was never an
option, nothing we were going to
be able to keep him from doing.
In terms of the unconstitutional
nature of the election,
Mr. Rhodes has done an enormous
amount of research and point you
to article II of the
constitution that requires the
legislatures of each of the 50
states to approve modifications
of --
>> I think we may have --
>> Yeah.
>> Mr. Linder we're hearing a
little bit of the testimony that
we heard from Stewart Rhodes at
the time and I don't know if we
still have Mr. Linder up --
you're back.
All right.
I do have a question here
because you have said that you
are going to appeal.
And this is for either you,
Phillip, or you James.
You have said that you're going
to appeal.
On what grounds since you said
that you felt like this was a
fair trial and this jury came
back with a verdict you didn't
agree with, but it was fair?
>> I'll address this issue.
We believe -- thank you Sarah
for the question.
It's a great question.
We feel that we spent a lot of
time, over a week, selecting a
jury, which we thought was a
fair jury for the district.
Based on their verdict you can
see they individually went
through each defendant and each
count and rendered separate
decisions for each, which is
what they're supposed to do.
And they spent a lot of time
doing that, several days.
We feel we got a fair trial in
that respect.
However, as you know, and as you
watched, there were things that
the government presented in
evidence that we objected to,
which we feel shouldn't have
come into evidence.
There were things that we wanted
to present that judge meta,
though I think he did a fabulous
job, he prevented us from
presenting to the jury.
So the jury didn't get
everything they needed to get to
weigh everything.
They got a lot of evidence, they
got tons.
But there were things they were
prevented from seeing from us,
and witnesses we wanted to
present that we were unable to.
So based on that we don't think
that part is fair.