A federal prosecutor said Friday that the federal government “works to understand” that the Janissaries had a “rapid response force” outside the District of Columbia on January 6, ready with weapons during the siege of the Capitol.
In open court, prosecutors provided little additional detail on what would have been a much bigger threat to Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence on that day than was previously known. None of the sworn guards so far are accused of carrying or using weapons, but the suggestion that they had a plan to gain access to weapons gives rise to the specter that the uprising is even more violent and dangerous. for police and lawmakers in the Capitol.
After U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta asked for more information, he and Assistant U.S. Attorney Ahmed Baset quickly moved on to an out-of-court hearing to discuss the government’s evidence.
The comment comes during a detention hearing for Jessica Watkins, 38, a member of the Oath Keepers of Ohio who is charged with conspiracy and other crimes for leading other people in the group to the Capitol. Watkins is facing some of the most serious charges that have come out of the uprising. A grand jury has charged her and eight other allies with the Oath Keepers on charges that they descended on the Capitol in an organized and rehearsed manner to prevent Congress from confirming the election of Joe Biden as president.
Watkins sought to be released into house custody pending trial, arguing that she was not a danger to the community and that she was disbanding her militia and renouncing her commitment to the Oath Watchers. After a nearly two-hour trial, Judge Mehta denied the bid, saying she posed an ongoing risk to the community.
He also referred obliquely to what he and the prosecutors discussed outside the Rapid Reaction Report, referring to ‘weapons placed outside the District of Columbia’ and ‘the fact that’ Watkins knew these instructions. ”
This follows an earlier exchange in which the judge forced the prosecutor on the question of whether there was a rapid reaction force outside Washington, DC. “I know there was evidence of planning,” the judge said. “Does the government have evidence that there were in fact … people with weapons?”
“That’s our understanding,” Baset replied. “The investigation continues, but it is our understanding … our understanding of work.”
The judge replied: ‘Do you imagine that the government has proof that there are people stationed outside the district when you say that you understand work? And if you want to do it in a non-public session, we can do it. ‘
At that point, the prosecutor and judge went off the record in a conversation reporters could not hear.
References to a rapid reaction force have been mentioned before in the persecution of the Oath Guards. Two weeks earlier, the same judge had denied the release of Thomas, 66, who is accused of being one of Watkins’ accomplices. Prosecutors accused him of investigating plans to use pickups or boats to transport weapons across the Potomac River at a critical time.
Watkins herself sent another member of her group a message on January 3 that a ‘rapid reaction force’ on January 6 would be the ‘law enforcement’ arm of the Oath Keepers, according to court documents.
Mehta, at the end of Friday’s trial, called the rapid reaction force “the most disturbing aspect of the planning in these cases.” He also noted: “The threats to democracy and the threats to the capital have not diminished completely.”
The vast majority of the more than 280 people arrested in connection with the uprising were allowed to go home after their first court appearance. The government has usually reserved arrest requests for cases that include more serious charges and allegations, such as conspiracy, assaulting police or taking a leadership role that day.
The decision to keep Watkins in federal custody comes despite an unusual personal plea from her; defendants usually do not speak during these trials. Watkins told the judge she was “appalled” at the actions of some of her fellow sworn guards on Jan. 6 and planned to cancel her membership in the group and dissolve her own regular Ohio military in Ohio, which she said was was established with her boyfriend. assist the community with search and rescue operations.
“We’ve done with the lifestyle,” she said, adding that she wants to focus on her small business, the Jolly Roger Bar, which she and her partner in Woodstock, Ohio.
Watkins’ attorney, Michelle Peterson, argued that Watkins went to the Capitol to provide security during Trump’s rally and that although she entered the Capitol, she was still peaceful while in it and even provided assistance to the injured. .
Baset conceded that there was a video showing Watkins comforting or helping another person, who also appeared to be attached to the Oath Watchers. But he also argued that she was part of a conspiracy to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, and in fact recruited others in her militia to do the same. He pointed to her own words in text messages received by the government, in which she said that she did not ‘underestimate the resolution of the deep state’ and that it was’ our duty as Americans to fight, kill and die for our rights’.
In a motion filed in court on Saturday, Watkins argued another reason why she should be released: because she is transgender and therefore has a special risk in custody. She also claimed that she had been ‘treated harshly’ in a local jail in Ohio. But her lawyer did not raise the case in her trial on Friday and the court did not discuss it.