Las Vegas Review-Journal (Sunday)
Scope of Oath Keepers’ plans hazy, hampering prosecutors
BOSTON — There’s little doubt the Oath Keepers were planning for something on Jan. 6. The question at the heart of the criminal case against its members and associates in the attack on the U.S. Capitol is: What, exactly, did they intend to do?
Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6.
“The plan was to unlawfully stop the certification of the Electoral College vote … and the plan was to be prepared to use violence if necessary,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy said during a hearing this month. But the Oath Keepers “did not know precisely the way in which force and violence might be needed to support this plan,” she said.
More than 300 people are facing federal charges, and more are expected. The most serious charges have been brought against 10 people described as members and associates of the Oath Keepers and several members of the Proud Boys.
But as the investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys.
“The government presented a theory (without evidence) that there was a weekslong plan to invade the Capitol,” an attorney for one of the Oath Keepers, Jessica Watkins, wrote in a recent court filing. “There was no such plan.”
Defense attorneys argue any discussions their clients had before Jan. 6 were in reference to providing security at the rally before the riot or protecting themselves against possible attacks from antifa activists.
The defendants can still be convicted of conspiring to obstruct Congress even if the plan was formulated only moments before they stormed the Capitol, said Jimmy Gurule, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at the University of Notre Dame law school. And prosecutors have some “pretty compelling circumstantial evidence,” he said.