A federal prosecutor said on Friday that the federal government’s “understanding of work” is that the Oath Keepers had a “quick 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 some additional details of what would pose a far greater threat to Congress and then Vice President Mike Pence that day than was previously known. None of the Oath Keepers accused so far are accused of carrying or using weapons, but the suggestion that they had a plan to access weapons raises the specter that the insurrection could have been even more violent and dangerous for the police and legislators within the Capitol.
After U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta pushed for more information, he and Attorney General Ahmed Baset started an unofficial session to discuss the government’s evidence.
The comments were made during a detention hearing for Jessica Watkins, 38, the member of the Ohio Oath Keepers, accused of conspiracy and other crimes for leading others in that group to the Capitol. Watkins is facing some of the most serious charges arising from the insurrection. A grand jury indicted her and eight other members of the Oath Keepers on charges of descending to the Capitol in “an organized and practiced manner” to prevent Congress from certifying the election of Joe Biden as president.
Watkins was trying to be released to house arrest pending trial, arguing that she was not a danger to the community and was dissolving his militia and renouncing his affiliation with the Oath Keepers. After a nearly two-hour hearing, Judge Mehta denied the offer, saying it posed a continuing risk to the community.
He also referred, indirectly, to what he and prosecutors had discussed off the record about the rapid reaction force, referring to “weapons placed outside” the District of Columbia and the fact that “Mrs. Watkins knew these instructions. “
This followed an earlier exchange in which the judge lobbied the prosecutor over whether there was a rapid reaction force stationed outside Washington, DC. “I know there was evidence of planning,” said the judge. “Does the government have evidence that there were indeed … people with weapons?”
“That is our understanding,” replied Baset. “The investigation is ongoing, but that is our understanding … our understanding of work.”
The judge replied: “When you say practical understanding, are you suggesting that the government has evidence that there were indeed people stationed outside the district? And if you want to do that in a non-public session, we can do that. “
At that point, the prosecutor and the judge went into a secret conversation that reporters could not hear.
References to a rapid reaction force have surfaced earlier in the Oath Keepers’ indictment. Two weeks earlier, the same judge denied the release of Thomas Caldwell, 66, who is accused of being one of Watkins’ co-conspirators. Prosecutors accused him of exploring plans to use pickup trucks or boats to transport weapons across the Potomac River at a critical time.
Watkins herself sent a message to another member of her group on January 3 that a “quick reaction force” would be the “law enforcement” arm of the Oath Keepers on January 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 the threats to the capital have not entirely abated.”
The vast majority of the more than 280 people arrested in connection with the insurrection were allowed to return home after their first court hearing. The government generally reserved requests for detention for cases involving more serious charges and allegations, such as conspiracy, assaulting the police or taking a leadership role that day.
The decision to keep Watkins in federal custody came despite her unusual personal appeal; defendants do not normally speak during these hearings. Watkins told the judge that she was “shocked” by the actions of some of her fellow Oath Keepers on January 6 and planned to cancel her participation in the group and dissolve her own Ohio Regular Militia, which she said she founded with her boyfriend to help community in search and rescue operations.
“We’re done with that lifestyle,” she said, saying she wanted to focus on her small business, Jolly Roger bar that she and her partner operate in Woodstock, Ohio.
Watkins’ lawyer, Michelle Peterson, argued that Watkins had gone to the Capitol to provide security at Trump’s rally and that although she had entered the Capitol, she had always been peaceful within him, even assisting the wounded.
Baset admitted that there was a video showing Watkins offering comfort or help to another person, who also appeared to be affiliated with the Oath Keepers. But he also argued that she was part of a conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power and, in fact, recruited others into his militia to do the same. He pointed to her own words in government-obtained text messages, in which she said that she “did not underestimate the resolution of the deep state” and that “it is our duty as Americans to fight, kill and die for our rights”.
In a motion filed with the court on Saturday, Watkins raised another reason why she should be released: because she is transgender and is at “special risk in custody” for that reason. She also claimed that she had already been “harshly treated” while in a local prison in Ohio. But his lawyer did not raise the matter at his hearing on Friday and the court did not discuss it.