Thread by @Brandi_Buchman

TODAY, Oath Keepers Jessica Watkins and Kenneth Harrelson will be sentenced at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. Watkins is up first at 9:30AM ET, Harrelson at 1:30PM ET. I will have live coverage for @emptywheel. But first, a moment of zen from my personal collection:

If you missed proceedings yesterday when Oath Keepers Elmer Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs--both convicted of seditious conspiracy--were sentenced, come inside the courtroom with me in my latest piece for @emptywheel:

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1661919848530604033?t=pDAU14SGTRg3tF30VPxBQA&s=19

My extra thanks to @libradunn and @That_Girl_Tasha for speaking to me yesterday for my piece for @emptywheel. I know how incredibly limited your time is! Appreciate you.

So let's recap: Yesterday, Elmer Stewart Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy. That is the longest prison sentence issued in Jan. 6 cases to date. And importantly, Mehta found Rhodes' crimes amounted to domestic terrorism.

Prosecutors pushed for terrorism enhancements on Rhodes though they acknowledged what he did wasn't "blowing up a bldg" or telling someone to. Nevertheless, it was warranted Mehta said, because Rhodes intended to coerce/intimidate the govt and inspired others to use violence.

While both Rhodes and Meggs denied that there was a plan for Jan. 6 as they were sentenced, Mehta underlined that the evidence strongly showed there was a common understanding among them that force could be used to oppose the transfer of power.

The arsenal of weapons that Oath Keepers stockpiled just across the river from DC - an arsenal that Meggs helped coordinate - also provided ample evidence of consciousness of guilt, Mehta said.
Here's a bit from the trial on that:
dailykos.com/stories/2022/1…

Mehta told Rhodes it was "reasonably foreseeable" that people would storm the Capitol after his weeks of propagandizing and further, when things were in utter chaos at the Capitol, Rhodes didn't tell anyone to stay at bay. He told them, "come to me, I'm on the south side"

Mehta asked him why someone would do that if he didn't know OKers would join in the chaos.
It defied logic, Mehta pressed. And then, why bring dozens to the Capitol if you didn't want them to go in? Rhodes' defense was not plausible. Again, force being used was foreseeable.

There was also much attn paid to the leadership role Rhodes held. OKers had a defined hierarchy & it was Rhodes who gave Meggs the greenlight to act as a leader too. Mehta repeated often that he did not believe, based on the evidence, Meggs would have acted w/o Rhodes direction.

As for Kelly Meggs, he was sentenced to 12 years.

Where Rhodes was found guilty of seditious conspiracy, obstructing a proceeding & tampering with evidence, Meggs was found guilty of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding, obstructing a proceeding...

(Meggs' charges continued) ...conspiracy to prevent officials from discharging their duties and tampering with evidence.

While the defense had argued that Meggs did not interfere with police and Meggs again suggested he didn't before he was sentenced, ultimately Mehta said the jury found he did beyond a reasonable doubt. He agreed with the jury's findings.

There was also extensive evidence presented and accepted by the jury that Meggs didn't just lead a faction of OKers, but a fellow OKer, Caleb Berry, testified Meggs told him they were going into the Capitol to stop the certification.

And while Meggs' lawyers argued his rhetoric was bombast, it was a sticking point to Judge Mehta that Meggs didn't shy away from it, or stop following Rhodes as talk of "blood in the streets" mounted. Recall, Meggs said he'd go on a "killing spree" in Nov 2020 if Trump didn't win

All the talk at trial about Oath Keepers only being in DC on 1/6 because they were there to provide a security detail for Trump VIPs (Roger Stone included) didn't hold weight for the jury, nor did it for Mehta.

"They were not waiting for a security detail at the top of the steps," Mehta said.
And he stamped out the suggestion Meggs couldn't see struggling police around him. He's a very tall man, Mehta noted. And Meggs made no attempt to help officers guarding doors he blew past.

Then Meggs got inside the Capitol and he proceeded to lead a group to just outside Speaker Pelosi's office—while staffers were trapped inside. Meggs told someone the night of 1/6, OKers had "looked for her."

Meggs also spoke of deleting msgs, deleting the Signal app and these efforts, the jury and Mehta found, showed consciousness of guilt and therefore, an enhancement on sentencing was warranted for interference of administration of justice.

Judge Mehta impressed upon both Rhodes and Meggs at their separate sentencings that the nature of their crimes is most serious; in fact, sedition is the most serious crime one can commit against the federal government.

Mehta said too that while Oath Keepers did not assault police on Jan. 6, the gravity of the seditious conspiracy itself warranted the hefty sentences. He noted there were "no useful comparators" in other defendant sentencings that OK lawyers presented.

That brings us to today where Oath Keepers Jessica Watkins and Kenneth Harrelson will be sentenced. Both were acquitted of the topmost charge of seditious conspiracy.
So let's go over their respective charges...

Jessica Watkins, a transgender militia leader from OH, was found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding, obstructing a proceeding, conspiracy to prevent officials from discharging their duties & impeding officers during a civil disorder.

From the stand, Watkins admitted to interfering with police and her testimony started out quite sympathetic. That she testified at all came as a surprise. But her earnestness, according to prosecutors, was self-serving and only came after the fact.
dailykos.com/stories/2022/1…

"I lost all objectivity, I wasn't security anymore. I wasn't 'Medic Jess.' I was just another idiot running around the Capitol," Watkins told the jury at trial.
Like other J6ers, Watkins' atty said she was swept up; didn't help she had a steady diet of right-wing fear-mongering

But for someone who was swept up spur of the moment, prosecutors noted how Watkins showed up in paramilitary gear, organized efforts to come to DC and then marched toward with the Capitol with other OKers in stack formations toward the Capitol.

And it didn't help matters that Watkins narrated her march on the Capitol while OKers and others in a Zello chat cheered her on.
Key evidence entered at trial was her remark on 1/6 "We have a good group. We're sticking together and sticking to the plan."

MPD Ofr Chris Owens was on the receiving end of Watkins' push inside. He delivered an emotional victim impact stmt. He cried, apologized, and was told by Mehta, there was no need for an apology.

The horrors of that day are still alive for many.
documentcloud.org/documents/2382…

Prosecutors seek 18 years for Watkins. It is very unlikely of course that she would receive this given that Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years and she was acquitted of the most serious charge.

As for Ken Harrelson, he was another leader on the ground for Oath Keepers.
Unlike Watkins, he did not testify.
During the trial, prosecutors described Harrelson as Meggs' right-hand man.
He was part of the first stack inside and was seen in footage waving ppl in.

Notably, as Harrelson forced his way past police, he shouted "treason." Mehta noted how jurors accepted evidence that showed Harrelson essentially felt up one police officer to detect if he had body armor on, too.

Harrelson also helped arrange the quick reaction force, or QRF (the weapons stockpile) in northern Va.

I'll leave it there since proceedings will be underway shortly.

And away we go. Judge Amit Mehta is on the bench.
Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins is seated, wearing an orange prison-issued jumpsuit. She has a long sleeved white tee on underneath, black glasses and hair pulled back in a half ponytail.

Mehta greets everyone and will begin with a few items around presentencing report. He'll turn to factual disputes raised first.

Watkins' atty is Jonathan Crisp. He is seated at her side.
Mehta won't do a line by line recitation of the report since he presided over this trial but wants to discuss a few issues...

There's a general objection that Watkins plotted to stop transfer of power; Mehta notes she wasn't convicted of seditious conspiracy, but was on 1512k (conspiracy to obstruct) and impeding officers... its not entirely inaccurate to describe her conduct generally...

There's a dispute to the immediate start of the conspiracy being after Nov but Mehta says, evidence came in showing the conspiracy was formed to prevent transfer of power in early nov, through dec and then once it was clear there would be a final opp on 1/6, that is when the...

..ultimate goal of the conspiracy came into fruition.
Watkins said she didn't see fighting with police at Columbus doors.
Mehta: I have no reason to dispute that, where she was relative to doors, she wasn't at front of line but to back. Her vantage may be hard to say, but ...

Mehta cont: ... there's a question of whether she was able to see here....

She did delete messages from her phone, too;

The govt seeks a sentence of 18 years.
Prosecutor now Alexandra Hughs is up.

Her relevant conduct encompassed her acts and acts of co-conspirators. The evidence established this; in days after election, Watkins joined GoTo Mtg on 11/9/20 and that mtg is relevant in court's consideration of...

what Watkins knew about conspiracy from its very earliest days.
After that call, Watkins was spurred into action. She texted a friend, "we march on DC on Saturday..." "this is the real for real shit..."

She spoke of hand to hand combat then. the same night she told Donovon Crowl, this is what they were waiting for etc...
Considering the scope of her participation, that Nov. 9 is an important starting pt because Watkins was aware from earleist days that Rhodes' objectives...

extended beyond 1 moment in time but was targeted toward the peaceful transition of power.
Watkins came to DC in Nov with weapons, loading them into a van. She also brought altered pool cues that she called night sticks in texts.

She was prepared for fighting, prepared for force. The objective of that force was abundantly clear. She told a recruit if "Biden gets the steal..." they already had their necks in a noose...

But for Jessica Watkins, there can be no doubt that bennie parker would have been in restricted area and sandra parker wouldn't have followed her down a hallway toward senate, Hughes says.

She traveled from OH with weapons; left them in Winchester, VA but that is of small comfort. If she received instructions to bring them, there's no doubt she would have brought them in. Therefore, a leadership enhancement is appropriate.

She engaged in a series of actions to hide her communications as well, Hughes notes.
There is no doubt her offense was clearly calculated to influence or effect the conduct of the govt by intimidation or coercion.

Hughes: In her own words, she sstormed the capitol, forced her way into the senate and house, got tear gassed and muscled the cops back like spartans.

Hughes: Her words and actions leave no doubt what was the true object of her force and that is in fact what she did. Compared to her coconspirators, her deployment of force is unique.

Hughes cont: ...she was one of the individuals who threw her body towards these efforts and for that, an enhancement is appropriate under the terrorism enhancement.

Hughes is also seeking a two-level enhancement for obstruction of evidence because she deleted messages before traveling from Ohio to OKer Tom Caldwell's property in Va.

Watkins atty Jonathan Crisp is now up and he says in a vacuum, the facts are damning on a lot of levels. But he says, the convo between Watkins and OK recruit Leah (sp?) it was BEFORE the GoTo Mtg. Mehta isn't so sure that's right. Crisp says...

There were talks both before and after the GoTo Mtg....but the convo about a coming war wasn't related to DC, Crisp says. It was about OH.

Bringing weapons had nothing do with stopping an election, Crisp argued

Crisp: Yes, she was convicted of conspiracy to go into bldg, & that conspiracy can happen in an instance and it did. That is the essence of the conspiracy... I don't believe simply because she brought weapons but didn't actually - if anything, it speaks to...

Crisp cont: ...her lack of involvement...and not aware of what was going to happen. She was brought in at last minute as a medic. That's what Don Siekerman said.

Crisp: I wasn't present for Parkers' trial but Watkins can indicate she was still on the fence about going but was there to go in a different capacity.
She has addressed the Zello chats and Signal too, Crisp says.

Crisp moves onto acceptance of responsibility. Crisp says govt doesn't want to address that Watkins proffered 4 times.
"She came in early," Crisp says, and notes that she left instructions with her boyfriend, Montana Siniff, to give her phone pw to FBI agents

The deleting of messages by Watkins was because she wanted nothing more to do with J6; the protonmail account she set up was arranged because she wanted to hide herself from the press after the New Yorker IDed her in a report.

Crisp also says he offered to have Watkins plead to what she was ultimately convicted to but the govt didn't accept this proffer.

Crisp: She will tell you the jury got this right. She won't contest any conviction and I can represent to the court, her journey, as I've gotten to know her, the transformation she has gone through in even greater detail has been remarkable...

Crisp cont: ...in terms of not only her personal journey but her political journey and her recognition of what her actions truly meant.
(She is transgender)
Crisp adds: She has struggled with who she was since a child. Struggled with acceptance from her family.

Mehta interrupts and says Crisp will have an opportunity to make this argument later and won't rob him of this time later.
Crisp says he understands....and at the end of day, he doesn't believe obstruction was appropriate.

Crisp: Her belief for why she did what she did in the hallway doesn't amount to obstruction.
Deleting the Signal app when there were more exculpatory comments than inculpatory - doesn't amount to obstruction enhancement.

Crisp argues if what Watkins did was terrorism, there's no evidence to support that. She "sat in the rotunda smoking a joint"

Mehta: She was a member of this conspiracy with some degree of leadership responsibility... because of her role, scope of knowledge, her own conduct, I do find it is appropriate to ascribe all other actions of coconspirators presented thru trial...

Mehta: The acts of her coconspirators was within the scope of the jointly undertaken... criminal conspiracy....
Evidence showed she formed OH state regular militia and worked with OKers and considered herself personally to be an OKer. She participated in op in Louisville...

Mehta: Watkins was a participant in 11/9 GoTo Mtg call. This is notable for the fact that Watkins is heard on call asking Rhodes about the propriety of bringing less lethal weapons into DC. It demonstrates she knew exactly what Rhodes had said, was listening carefully on call...

Mehta: It also showed she accepted the message and was prepared to act with violence....

Her messages showed that she understood violence might be needed to ensure Trump stayed in office....

Mehta is reviewing her messages with Donovon Crowl where they speak of bringing "night sticks" (altered pool cues) into DC and there's talk of "Let's make history motherfucker"

Mehta: This and others showed there was a broader move at play here, and not just about protecting Trump supporters in Washington.

On QRF - it wasn't simply a defensive force but an offensive force...

And importantly, Mehta says, on 11/10/20 she says in a mg "Roger that, good to hear from you, we are all hands on deck, gotta help a president stop this coup"
This was focused and directed at keeping Trump in office as early as the 2nd week in November.

Then she brought weapons into DC on 11/14 and started trainings for members of the Ohio militia. That training was scheduled for jan 3-9 but it never occurred due in part to Watkins sustaining an injury and an ultimate decision to go to DC on Jan 6

Mehta: There's evidence she participated in recruitment efforts not just for OH militia but Oath Keepers. She joined Parler for recruiting purposes; msgs showed her vetting and admitted Donovan Crowl as an OKer; got the Parkers to come to DC...

Mehta notes Watkins and OKers discussions about taking up arms to keep Trump in office; On 12/30, Tom Caldwell refers to coordination with Paul Stamey about the QRF and bringing ppl to DC...Siekerman invites her to leadership only planning calls

Mehta: And of course she understood what the QRF was intended to be based on statements Caldwell and others made to her.

Video shows Watkins ordering first stack to move in toward the Capitol. There's statements on Zello call "sticking together and sticking to the plan" and then referencing how she would be "busy" which Mehta says was clear reference to nondescript conducted directed at Cap

Whether she seess police or not at doorways is not material. Once she does enter the bldg, her group is following closely behind her. That includes Graydon Young, Donovon Crowl and Ms. Parker. Video shows her motion forward to rotunda.

She undoubtedly knew the other stack went other direction as she was headed down the senate hallway and began pushing (and encouraging others) to push back against officers.

Mehta: Although she did after 1/6 leave her phone and gear behind for FBI as Crisp points out, there's no question she did delete Signal app and it had to have been within days of 1/6 because she leaves for Caldwell's farm shortly after 1/6...

Mehta: The enhancement for obstruction applies here... she was certainly involved in causing injury to another person and property damage. I need to refer to no more than Watkins' own conduct in senate hallway in pushing up against police, encouraging others to do so

Mehta: This would threaten to cause physical injury and whether it did or not, it certainly contributed to the injuries sustained by MPD Officer Owens and others.

Enhancements: 8-level for threat of physical injury and prop damage, 3 level for interference for admin of justice; 2 level for scope and planning; organizer enhancement appropriate at 3-level...

Mehta will not apply four level enhancement, he explains, because he does not believe Watkins is on same level as Rhodes by any stretch and is a step down from Meggs

She calls on people to "push push push" and video footage shows her hand motioning to command her subgroup. Co-conspirators are shown in footage to be involved in movement against police officers.
Crowl referred to Watkins as my commander,, suggesting a hierarchical role....

On obstruction of justice enhancement, Mehta concedes, we don't know if there was a direct relationship between Rhodes stmts/her decision to delete Signal app. She kept her Parler comms but obstruction standard still applies because evidence shows she knew she'd be investigated

On terrorism enhancement: Her conduct establishes a degree of coercion and intimidate.
I think Watkins is on par with Meggs for a 3-level departure... I will impose that level to others who are less culpable...

Watkins is leaning forward, arms resting on table, she's got her chin resting on her hand, eyebrows are arched up a bit. The body language would indicate to me that she is aware of the seriousness of this moment for her.

Regarding the downward departure request for acceptance of responsibility: Mehta says it is true she did say she would plead to everything except seditious con. but, he says, regrettably, that argument is foreclosed on by circuit precedent.

Mehta says its a similar case, I didn't catch name.

M: It's a similar case to this one. Defendant argued he accepted responsibility because govt refused to allow him to plead guilty to charge he was convicted unless he pleaded guilty to charge he was acquitted of.

Mehta: He took responsibility by testifying before grand jury. Court held in that case that rare circumstance exception still applied (where a defendant offers to plea, govt declines, nevertheless goes to trial and at trial, actually disputed guilt...

Mehta cont: as to counts defendant was charged with in that case.)

M: Watkins disputed govt's charges as to all counts, certainly govt's case in chief. She did ultimately admit to count 6 in her testimony (impede) and that makes it a little different but it doesn't make a material difference. she still put burden on govt with charges

Watkins may argue there is some tension between what she told FBI and what she said at trial about what she knew when she went in the Capitol, but nonetheless, Mehta will factor in that she did turn herself in and attempted to resolve herself

Her military service does not earn her any special deference here.

We are on a short break and should resume momentarily. But, for clarity after all that, the sentencing guidelines for Watkins would put it around 14 to 17 years but I strongly and almost certainly expect that's not happening here.

And we're back.

Prosecutor Alexandra Hughes will begin with a statement now.
Her actions on and after Jan. 6 taken together require a significant sentence. She was an early member of this conspiracy. She was aware OKers objective extended beyond any one mission to DC...

Hughes: She understood their objective was to stop the peaceful transfer of power and she added to that effort with her body by recruiting others and with her words.
On 1/6, after entering the Capitol, Watkins' actions were strategic and intentional.

H: She penetrated into the senate hallway, pushing against the officers who desperately held the end of that hallway. Offier Owens described the cork-like function - 30 or so officer had to join together. She entered into that effort because she wanted to reach the Senate chamber

H: In arguing for responsibility and proffer with govt, Watkins has never fully accepted her role in that day. She has never been able to accept her culpability. she called that highway a trash compactor, she entered w/no other person than to meander down the hallway...

Hughes: That's inconceivable. On 1/8, 2 days after she was in the bldg, she wrote she was met with teargas and officers in the sen. hallway.
She admitted in writing in immediate aftermath, which she has been unable to admit with any proffer session...

Hughes cont: with govt or on that stand, (watkins drinks water)

She was the most physical among the conspirators. She used her body in that hallway, she ears responsibility for mental anguish and physical wounds of officers like Chris Owens.

Hughes cont.:. its not 2.5 years from that day and the ramifications of her actions in that hallway are not in doubt

Hughes: She's expressed no remorse beyond cursory stmts to a jury that determined her fate. In private calls her true fate was reviewed, "boo hoo, poor little police officers, got a little PTSD, wah. i had to stand there and hold the door open for people. wah."

Hughes: A few days later, she once again blamed LEO for the actions of 1/6. the police are responsible for inciting 1/6 and they are responsible for half of their own injuries.

Watkins is looking down, taking notes.
Hughes: She now knows the ramifications of her actions. If she was ever in doubt, she now knows and she refuses to take any responsibility. She remains unbowed. Her indignation shows her actions on 1/6 show wasn't an aberration.

Mehta asks how he should consider her life story. The hard upbringing. The difficulty with her gender identity.
Hughes says it is unsurprising that a person who faces injustices that they would commit those against others. but what she did that day has lasting...

Hughes cont: devastating implications for individuals who showed up that day and never did anything to jessica watkins. Owensnever met her. he can't be blamed for injustices she compellingly suffered

Hughes says Watkins has her sympathies but she is not absolved of her actions. she cannot be. that would imply that anyone who has suffered injustice has the right to serve it on others.

Jessica Watkins is now addressing the court.
She immediately bursts into tears at the podium.

Watkins: I wrote this letter to you today to express m feelings of remorse considering my participation in Jan 6. As I said previously, my actions and behaviors that fateful day were wrong and as I now understand, criminal.

Watkins: This is what has brought me before you today and why you must hold me responsible.

Watkins: The events of Jan. 6 are unfortunate and while I believe in peaceful protest and redress of grievance, violence is never the answer.

Watkins: I also condemned those who assaulted police and I'm eager to see those punished for that crime. I'd like to off script. There's an officer named Kevin Walker who worked in a riot line and somebody in crowd threw a pipe and it bounced off a bike helmet, broke his teeth ..

Watkins cont: .. and nose. I solved his crime for days from my jail cell and i got the whole thing figured out who did it. the violence on the west terrace, i had no idea about and now that i know, it really really others me

Watkins: I feel equally strong about those who committed theft, and vandalism. I realize now my actions in and around Capitol inspired those ppl to a degree. They saw me there and that probably fired them up. Oath Keepers were pat on back.

Watkins: How many ppl went in because we went in? I'm responsible for that.

Wat: But in moment of 1/6, i did take steps to stop ppl from committing vandalism. However my good behaviors don't diminish my own culpability and i dont fail to see irony in trying to stop vandalism while I'm committing crimes. i shouldn't have been in there

Watkins: At trial I said I was an idiot for going in there. But idiots can be held responsible and this idiot must be held responsible

My regret is for adding to the spectacle of jan 6 and crossing from constitutional activity to criminal malfeasance. It took a long time. Shelley petereon wasn't good at that. but Crisp is a colonel in the army and he made it very clear to me how I'm responsible

Watkins: For a long time, I was in denial for my culpability blaming others rather than myself... I can see I was wrong and I am sorry.
I was not recruiting for Jan. 6 because i was really concerned with an invasion (by Chinese communists)

Watkins says she was quite fond of her jury and enjoyed watching their interactions. When someone got covid, for example, she watched how lovingly they treated each other.

Watkins: I respect them and their verdict entirely, though it was not my intent to obstruct. I wanted the cert to continue and sway in favor of ballot aduits. I wanted members to raise objection to election, i believed then as i do now the election needed an audit...

The comments about the police lin were quoted n a vacuum, Watkins adds. (Moved fast, didn't catch entire exchange here, will circle back)

Wat: The debacle of Jan 6 is something I am ashamed of. It has only further divided this country... The echoes continue to reverberate until this day...
It pains me greatly to have caused my country so much distress.

Watkins: Though I can be angry or disappointed, I love this country deeply. It was never my intent or desire (choking back tears) to harm my country.

This may fall on deaf ears in the J6er circles, but: Watkins thanks Mehta for being balanced, cautious to eliminate overly prejudicial evidence when it wasn't probative.
You proved yourself to be an impartial arbiter.

Watkins: I ask I not be judged for beliefs I wrongly held, like an imminent invasion of china....or for crimes prosectution wish i had committed...just for crimes I did commit.

Watkins: I apologized to Officer Owens on the stand and doing it again today (crying) because he didn't deserve that and I wish he was here because I wish I could apologize to his face.

Mehta thanks her for her thoughtful comments. Now Jonathan Crisp comes up to speak for her.
He notes that she provided access to electronics, including most inculpatory info in her possession.

It was Crisp's fear that Watkins when proffering wouldnt be able to parse out the different charges and might admit to one conspiracy over another inappropriately.
Crisp goes into her background.

She was rejected by her parents, rejected herself for a number of years. That does something to an individual psychologically. She was rejected by Army, her colleagues... it happened over decades. To expect all of that is related to her own ID issues cannot happen immed....

Crisp: But the amount of change she has gone through in the last year has been nothing short of inspirational.

Crisp: She acknowledges problematic aspects of her role but I would ask for a significant downward variance in sentence at stake here.

While she may have been a leader in certain roles and done a number of thing, Crisp says, there were also many things she did good. She was a medic and treated ppl at other riots, not part of any violence.

Crisp: I do not believe she is ever going to be in a position

She now has the support of her family and the support of Montana who has been unwavering in her involvement. I ask for a sentence of 60 months for everything she is trying to do (to rehab)

Mehta then asks Crisp how he should weigh her derogatory comments about police on the front lines that day...

Crip: She maintains today that if she saw someone being assaulted in uniform, she would reject that...
I think she has been demonized throughout this process and she's (deemed) responsible for this fiasco and that's been put on her shoulders..

Crisp: . she and OKers are posterchild in this case. Whether that's accurate or not..

Crisp is bouncing around a bit here with his points.. but...

Crisp: The things she' being accused of, she's having a reaction, "I would never do that. " There were things she saw as wrong, in terms of how police were interacting with the rioters and I think what struck me as interesting on Wed ...

Crisp: ... she was a soldier, volunteered to serve in combat environment and did. I was as well. (He underlines he wasn't in any real danger tho he was deployed to Iraq)

Crisp goes on, improvising a lot it seems, as he is reacting on the spot. So thoughts are not totally linear, but he remarks how Watkins likely made the "wah wah" comments about the police because...

It's a response common to people in the military when they see others in a uniform.
if soldiers object to going into battle, or if they say things like "i joined for GI bill, not to get shot at" - that's hard for a soldier to hear.

Crisp says it was hard for her to hear.
Crisp: when you see someone who says PTSD is real,... when you put on a uniform...it is part of the job....

Crisp says yes, there is a cognitive dissonance at play here.
He notes, the young woman who gave a victim impact stmt this week (she carried ballot boxes on 1/6 and proceeded to run from mob in terror) as a senate aide...

Crisp cont: ...she truly had no right to expect to ever be involved in violence. But for a police officer to say that shouldn't be part of their job, it doesn't exonerate acts of criminality but it part of the job. if you comment on it, that's considered evil...

We're on a break before Mehta renders a sentence.

And we are back.

Of all these defendants, I will say that Watkins seems the most sympathetic. I hope however this turns out for her, she continues to deradicalize herself. And I think its important that her family has improved their relationship with her. I hope that continues as well.

Crisp was out of the room for a moment. Someone went looking for him and Mehta jokes, would it be inappropriate to say you went AWOL? (he's JAG)
There's laughter.

Moving on.
Mehta says 168-210 months are guidelines for this. Weighing all factors, avoiding disparities...

Mehta: Defense has put out a handful of cases (Jensen, Hale-Cucinelli, all involved sentences of 5 years or less) as potential comparators. I've said in past and I'll say it again...

Mehta: The other cases by and large are different in kind and I'll elaborate on that in a moment. So the seriousness of the offense, even if precise conduct may be different, its quantitatively different. These cases are terribly helpful as comparators...

Mehta acknowledges she mayy benefit from mental health treatment etc but he will get into nut of it now.
The defense is right to emphasize some aspects of her conduct; she didn't remove barriers, inside for a limited pd of time, didn't force in in sense that she didn't assault

.... police on the way in and perhaps her conduct wasn't quite as violent as others who participated in events of that day. But I think its important for your benefit to appreciate why you're in a different position than others.

Mehta brings up the 1961 SCOTUS case Callanan
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…
He did this yesterday with Rhodes/Meggs - it goes to the profound dangers that conspiracies in a group can generate

No one would suggest yiu're Stewart Rhodes. I don't think your Kelly Meggs. But your role in those events was more than foot soldier, I think you can appreciate that.
(She nods very slightly)

The Parkers are not there that day but for you. Arguably Donovan Crowl is not there that day but for you, mehta says.

She bears responsibility for this collective conduct because she led it. What she did individually is quite significant too, even with those with whom you've been tried

Your role that day was more aggressive, assaultive, and purposeful. You led others to fulfill your purposes, Mehta adds.

Mehta: There was not in the immediate aftermath any sense of shame or contrition. Just the opposite. Your comments were celebratory and lacked a real sense of the gravity of that day and your role in it

Mehta notes the impact her crimes had on hte country; he calls the police the real heroes of Jan. 6 and kept their bodies between the US and something far worse. We all saw it on TV. Once can only imagine what would have happened if those police retreated...

Mehta cont:..They cast aside their only family and concerns. Crisp is right. That was their job that day. But it doesn't diminish their heroism in the face of something that no one, I daresay, would have expected would happen to them.

M: You grew up with modest means, strict religious household earned HS diploma, joined army, deployed to Afghanistan for 3 mos; left army under circumstances that I'll refer to in a moment... then it was a challenging period.. transience..then self discovery

M: 'm happy you have found someone who loves you. You and he tried to make a go of it with your own business. you served as a firefighter and medic and i frankly do believe that was the purpose of the OH state regular militia, not battle our govt.

Mehta: BBut somewhere along the line, that all got waylaid, perverted. I don't know what it was. Whether it was Alex Jones or other corners of the internet you found yourself in, yyu clearly began having delusional thoughts about what the risks were if the other guy won ...

mehta cont:...and what you would need to do to ensure safety of your countrymen...

No one with a human bone in their body could hear her testimony and not be moved.
You've overcome a lot. You are resilient.

Mehta:You are someone who could serve as a role model. I say that at a time when people who are trans are so readily vilified and used for political purposes. It makes it all the more harder for me to understand why there is still a lack of empathy fo those who suffered that day

Mehta: Maybe its part of the process, journey...

But all of this doesn't deflect what she did that day. Mehta says this is never easy and it is particularly hard to pronounce a sentence.

NOW: Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins is sentenced to 102 months or 8.5 years in prison.

She is listening closely, turned toward Mehta, resting her chin in her hand. She nods as Mehta reads through conditions of her sentence/supervision.

Please forgive me for my typos, folks. Moving fast and to be honest, since PB trial, my keyboard was cleaned out but not fixed. I've got some funky keys!

Watkins can appeal within 14 days if she wishes.

Mehta asks Crisp if he can have a sidebar with the prosecutor and Mehta invites them to the bench so he can hear the conversation. I'm not clear on what it is, but maybe its about her placement in detention. The sidebar ends and Mehta wishes her good luck before leaving the bench

We return at 1:30PM ET for the sentencing of Oath Keeper Kenneth Harrelson.

I'm attempting to find out whether wherever Watkins ends up, she will in fact be housed by her identity. In another life, reviewing policies for LGBTQ+ inmates was my job and I'm very curious today.

Tweets are powered today by courthouse cookie.