[ad_1]
A federal prosecutor said Friday that the federal government’s “working understanding” was that the Oath Keepers had a “rapid reaction force” stationed outside the District of Columbia on January 6, prepared with weapons during the siege of the Capitol.
Speaking in open court, prosecutors provided few additional details on what would represent evidence of a much greater threat to Congress and then Vice President Mike Pence that day than previously known. . None of the Oath Keepers indicted so far are charged with carrying or using weapons, but the suggestion that they had a plan to access weapons raises the specter that the insurgency could have been even more violent and dangerous. for police and lawmakers inside the Capitol.
After U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta insisted on more information, he and U.S. Deputy Prosecutor Ahmed Baset quickly entered an informal session to discuss government evidence.
The comments were made during a detention hearing for Jessica Watkins, 38, a member of the Ohio Oath Keepers accused of conspiracy and other crimes for bringing other people in that group to the Capitol. Watkins faces some of the gravest charges in the wake of the insurgency. A grand jury indicted her, along with eight others associated with the Oath Keepers, for descending on Capitol Hill “in an organized and practiced manner” to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election as president.
Watkins was seeking to be returned to house arrest pending trial, arguing that she was not a danger to the community and was disbanding her militia and renouncing her affiliation with the Oath Keepers. After a nearly two-hour hearing, Judge Mehta rejected the offer, saying it presented a continuing risk to the community.
He also touched on, obliquely, what he and prosecutors had unofficially discussed about the Rapid Reaction Force, referring to “weapons placed outside” of the District of Columbia and the fact that “Ms. Watkins knew these instructions.
This followed an earlier exchange in which the judge pressed the prosecutor on whether there was a rapid reaction force stationed outside of Washington, DC. “I know there was evidence of planning,” the judge said. “Does the government have any evidence that there were in fact … people with guns?”
“This is our understanding,” Baset replied. “The investigation is ongoing, but it is our understanding… our working understanding.”
The judge replied, “When you talk about working understanding, are you suggesting that the government has proof that in fact there were people stationed outside the district? And if you want to do it in a non-public session, we can do it. “
At that point, the prosecutor and the judge opened the case in a conversation reporters could not overhear.
References to a rapid reaction force have already been raised in the context of the prosecution of the oath observers. Two weeks earlier, the same judge had refused the release of Thomas Caldwell, 66, accused of being one of Watkins’ co-conspirators. Prosecutors accused him of exploring plans to use pickup trucks or boats to transport weapons down the Potomac River at a critical time.
Watkins herself texted another member of her group on Jan.3 that a “rapid reaction force” would be the “law enforcement” arm of the Oath Keepers on Jan.6, according to court documents.
Mehta, at the end of Friday’s hearing, called the rapid reaction force “the most disturbing aspect of planning in these cases.” He also noted: “The threats to democracy and threats to the capital have not fully abated.”
The vast majority of the more than 280 people arrested in connection with the insurgency have been allowed to return home after their first court appearance. The government generally reserved requests for detention for cases involving more serious charges and allegations, such as conspiracy, assault on police, or taking a leadership role on that day.
The decision to keep Watkins in federal custody came despite an unusual personal plea on his part; defendants generally do not speak at these hearings. Watkins told the judge she was “appalled” by the actions of some of her fellow Oath Keepers on Jan.6 and that she planned to cancel her membership in the group and disband her own regular Ohio militia, which she said she founded with her boyfriend to help the community in search and rescue.
“We’re done with that lifestyle,” she said, saying she wanted to focus on her small business, the Jolly Roger bar that she and her partner operate in Woodstock, Ohio.
Watkins’ attorney, Michelle Peterson, argued that Watkins went to the Capitol to provide security during the Trump rally and that although she entered the Capitol, she had always been peaceful inside, providing even assistance to injured people.
Baset admitted that there was a video showing Watkins comforting or helping another person, who also appeared to be affiliated with the Oath Keepers. But he also argued that she was part of a plot to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and recruited others into his militia to do the same. He underlined her own words in text messages obtained by the government, in which she said she does not “underestimate the resolve of the Deep State” and that it is “our duty as a Americans to fight, kill and die for our rights ”.
In a court application filed on Saturday, Watkins had raised another reason why she should be released: because she is transgender and is at “particular risk in detention” for this reason. She also alleged that she was once “treated harshly” while incarcerated in a local Ohio jail. But his lawyer did not raise the issue during his hearing on Friday and the court did not discuss it.
[ad_2]
Source link