Rhodes' *counsel* are on CNN lying about "no evidence" of him planning an attack on the Capitol.

[sprinkleeninow]

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. LOL,

Hey counsel, the jury didn't see it that way, so go suck on a lemon.

[VMA131Marine]

2. Apparently they could not convince a jury of that

My response to them would have been to ask why the 12 person jury didn’t believe their arguments.

[Tribetime]

3. Is he locked up or like all the others free until sentencing

[Tomconroy]

13. He has been locked up since his arrest.

[Tribetime]

22. Ok thank you👍

[Chainfire]

4. You would have to be a horrible lawyer to lose a case where the state had no evidence. ;)

[ProfessorGAC]

7. My First Thought, Too!

Isn't the guy admitting he's a bad lawyer?
That said, I thought Elmer was representing himself. Did that change & I just missed it?

[Tomconroy]

14. He had a lawyer.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Not Much Of One

The guy just admitted he lost a case for which there was no evidence.
Either he's a liar or a buffoon. Maybe both.

[Tomconroy]

16. I tried to follow the case.on twitter to the extent I was able.

It's actually much more complicated than that.
The judge at the end of the trial complimented all of the lawyers involved for their skills at representing their clients. That rarely happens in court.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. I Believe You, But...

...the guy just admitted he lost a case where the state had "no evidence".
If that's accurate (and no, I don't believe it), the defense lawyer is admitting he's terrible.
Or, he's lying about there being no evidence.

[Tomconroy]

19. I didn't see the interview but it was clear that the OKs did not

Plan in advance to attack the Capitol. When they first heard of the breaking they thought it was Antifa.
They eventually went in (except Rhodes didn't) and didn't do very much, at least this group, and left. So I guess the lawyer was saying there was no evidence in advance to assault the Capitol.
I think Rhodes got convicted.because of all the stuff he was saying before Jan 6 about rebellion

He testified and it was a disaster. A couple others helped themselves by demonstrating that they were minor schmucks.
It was a complicated case.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. I Would Guess...

...all that depends on whether we believe Rhodes' version of his motives and the "we thought it was Antifa" thing.
I don't believe anything he or his associates say.
I'd guess neither did some of the jurors.

[Tomconroy]

21. I was surprised seeing the evidence of lack of planning for the

Assault on the Capitol but it was pretty clear.
It seemed the attack on the Capitol was more a Proud Boys project.
Rhodes was planning other stuff.

[spooky3]

12. Good one! Nt

[Hekate]

5. They are not on MSNBC. Recommend Nicolle Wallace.

[sprinkleeninow]

8. I tune into MSNBC regularly, but the TV was on this channel and I was busy deleting tons of emails.

They did have on Michael Fanone who was relieved that Rhodes et al are getting their due.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

6. Fuck CNN (nt)

[MarineCombatEngineer]

9. So Mr. Counsel,

if there was no evidence, then how the fuck did you lose this case? Are you that incompetent that you couldn't even win a case that had no evidence of a crime?

Note to self, don't ever hire this "lawyer" for anything at all.

[sprinkleeninow]

11. His *counsel* suckkked...

[Caliman73]

10. Well then they absolutely suck as defense counsel...

If they couldn't get an acquittal with a lack of evidence, then they are just saying, "don't hire us, we will fuck up your life because we couldn't get our client off even with the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" in our favor PLUS a "lack of evidence".

[mcar]

17. Jury thought differently