CNN has an article pointing out that the rioters went to Olive Garden for dinner and spent $400 after the riot. The article implies that where they went for dinner, and how much they spent, is relevant to their trial.
Why does it matter where they go for dinner and how much they spend? What they did at the Capitol was both illegal and immoral, but going to Olive Garden is neither.
The article says:
Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence.
Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines.
The article also says [bold italic emphasis mine]:
Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution.
“The conditions would never be better. Yet, Rhodes and the others left the Capitol grounds and went to Olive Garden for dinner,” lawyers for Rhodes wrote. “The answer is quite simple: because stopping the certification, overthrowing the government, was not Rhodes’ intent. It was not the Oath Keepers’ intent.”
So, from the CNN article, it seems that the prosecution interprets this as celebrating a successful attack whereas the defense argues that leaving the Capitol to go for dinner instead of continuing the attack proves that they didn't want to overthrow the government.
Why does it matter where they go for dinner and how much they spend?
It doesn't matter where, exactly they went, which restaurant they went to, and that it was an Olive Garden.
For the prosecution, what matters is that they appeared to celebrate, for the defense, what matters is that they left the Capitol.
It also doesn't matter how much, exactly, they spent. What matters is that the amount of money can be used as a proxy (by the prosecution at least) for how many people attended the "celebration", how long it lasted, and how much value was placed on the "celebration". (In general, people spend more money when they are celebrating something than when they are just getting a bite because they are hungry.)
So, in short:
I believe that they're using the Olive Garden meeting as a demonstration of mens rea, with one side arguing that the casual act of organizing a dinner at the restaurant means that the activities were committed with a cool mind, and likely intentionally, and the other side arguing that it indicates a lack of guilty mind. To use an analogy, if someone beat their father to death with a hammer, called the police, and then sat down and had a sandwich while waiting for the police to arrive, the prosecution might argue that the sandwich indicates a cruel indifference to the act, which argues more of a criminal mind, while the defense might argue that it indicates a reduced capacity to recognize the harm that had been done, that the defendant clearly didn't realize the severity of their action since they performed such a mundane activity afterwards.
The choice of location, and the money spent, are simply facts in the case, but are largely irrelevant to establishing that the actions indicate the criminal mind, or lack thereof, of their actions.
The relevant legal question as opposed to media question would be (1) whether the transcript is relevant and admissible, (2) whether the defense objected to the evidence, and (3) what reasoning the prosecution used to support admission. If the defense did not object, then that moots questions 1 and 3. Strategically, the transcript would be evidence supporting the allegation that there was a conspiracy, which is essential to the government's case (seditious conspiracy is one of the charges, not just simple law-breaking). I have not found any hard indications that the defense objected and was overruled.
I think Jörg's answer is correct, but I would add that there's likely an effort on the part of the defense to portray the rioters as hapless bumpkins, who got in over their heads, etc., etc. As the popular comment to the original post suggests, Olive Garden occupies a particular place in American culture. If they had gone to a fancier restaurant, or even a more upscale chain (like an Outback Steakhouse), it might look more sinister.
This is of course a rhetorical point, not a legal one. There's no reason one couldn't commit any crime and then go out to Olive Garden.
