Government Uses T-Word about the Oath Keepers

As noted in an update here, Jessica Watkins has now conceded that she didn’t meet with the Secret Service on January 6. Rather, as she entered a pen for VIPs, she obeyed when they told her stash her tactical gear outside the pen, which means hours before she stormed the Capitol believing that protected persons Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Grassley, and Kamala Harris were inside wearing that tactical gear, she had been told by the Secret Service not to wear it around protected persons.

She has also admitted that the Butler County jail put her on suicide watch when she went on a hunger strike, but insists that because she doesn’t believe she was suicidal, the treatment must have been retaliation because she’s transgender (which wasn’t public at the time). None of that eliminates the danger to transgender people in prison or the inhumanity of suicide watch as imposed by US jails and prisons, but she does admit she has been, “treated with respect and dignity” in the DC jail.

That “clarification” was submitted too late for the government to address it. But in their response to Watkins’ motion for bail, they addressed the problem I laid out — that the government has not provided direct evidence tying Watkins’ cell to the violence of destroying the Capitol doors, but has relied on the destruction, generally, to adopt a presumption of detention — this way:

The defendant cannot rebut the presumption of detention in this case. First, she has been charged and now indicted by a federal grand jury for Aiding and Abetting in the Destruction of Government Property, an enumerated offense under 18 U.S.C § 2332(b)(g)(5)(B) from which the presumption of detention arises. The evidence remains unrebutted that she participated in a violent mob that broke the door through which she “forc[ed] entry into the Capitol” moments later. The defendant argues that she did not intend to destroy property and even told others not to engage in such conduct (at 8), however, has no explanation for the video depicting her, along with other Oath Keeper members and associates, gleefully embedded within this mob outside of the Capitol building before moving inside with them after the door was breached. As she stated in the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello app channel, “We have a good group. We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking together and sticking to the plan.” (ECF 15 at 2). Any confusion about the defendant’s intent behind this action, as well as whether law enforcement approved of the breach and entry, is clarified by her January 6 Parler post in which she responds to a comment challenging whether she actually forced entry by confirming, “Nope. Forced. Like Rugby. We entered through the back door of the Capitol.” See Criminal Complaint, January 19, 2021 (ECF 1 at 9).

Second, because the defendant has been indicted on an enumerated offense “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government,” the defendant has been charged with a federal crime of terrorism as defined under 18 U.S.C §§ 2332b(g)(5). Therefore, an additional basis for detention under 18 U.S.C § 3142(g)(1) is applicable. Indeed, the purpose of the aforementioned “plan” that the defendant stated they were “sticking to” in the Zello app channel became startlingly clear when the command over that same Zello app channel was made that, “You are executing citizen’s arrest. Arrest this assembly, we have probable cause for acts of treason, election fraud.” Id. [my emphasis]

The government further relies on communications from October 15 (again, demonstrating the problems with Watkins’ own timeline) and texts directly with Stewart Rhodes to lay out her ideology.

While the defendant asserts that she was just following the constitution and is respectful of law and order (at 4), her adherence is clearly subject to her own understanding of what the Constitution and law mean. As Watkins stated in a text message sent to a recruit on October 15, 2020, when describing her militia: “We are Constitutionalists: non-racial, non-partisan, pro-government so long as that Gov’t follows the Constitution.” The notion that “[s]he recognizes that former President Trump is just that – a former President,” (at 4-5) is belied by the defendant’s statements urging for the need to “fight, kill, and die for our rights” should Biden “still be our President.” (ECF 15 at 4).


Finally, detention is necessary because the defendant’s release poses a serious risk of flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). She has indicated a willingness to go “underground if this coup [Biden election] works,” which comports with the “Warning” issued by the Oath Keeper leader, Person One, calling the current administration “an illegitimate regime” and on members to refuse to obey any acts or orders flowing from this government that are necessarily unconstitutional. (ECF 15 at 13). Moreover, her allegiance to the Oath Keepers and belief in the righteousness of her actions on January 6th has only calcified in the days since. When discussing over text with Person One a media report that portrayed her conduct and that of her fellow Oath Keepers from that day in a negative light, the defendant maintained,

If he has anything negative to say about us OATHKEEPERS, I’ll let you know so we can sue harder. Class action style. Oathkeepers are the shit. They rescued cops, WE saved lives and did all the right things. At the end of the day, this guy better not try us. A lawsuit could even put cash in OK coffers. He doesn’t know who he is playing with. I won’t tolerate a defamation of character, mine or the Patriots we served with in DC. Hooah?!

She has a detention hearing today, which will be an early test of the government’s attenuated use of the damage to the Capitol to label this as terrorism.

The government has shown she planned and trained a cell to fight Joe Biden’s government starting even before the election. Watkins herself has now shown that the Secret Service told her to take off her tactical gear when entering a secured area. The government has now shown she doubled down on her allegiance to the Oath Keepers after the destruction of the insurrection became clear.

We’ll see later today whether that’s sufficient cause to label someone a terrorist.

79 replies
  1. Zinsky says:

    I am struck by how smug, self-righteous and well, privileged, these so-called “Oathkeepers” seem to be. Only their interpretation of the Constitution matters. Only they know who legitimate voters are. Only they can save America from the horror of a Democratic Administration. People might actually have to pay their taxes! Eeek! These people are pathetic.

    I really want the DOJ to probe what was meant by “Arrest this assembly, we have probable cause for acts of treason…..”. What did they mean by ‘this assembly’? Were they planning to “arrest” all 535 members of Congress? Then what? If this is what they meant, I think the Oathkeepers need to only look in a mirror to identify who the perpetrators of treason are.

    • The Dark Avenger says:

      I dunno, interfering with legislative action in a vain attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election sounds like treason to me. At least there’s no problem with the part about two witnesses to it, as per the Constitution.

    • GJT says:

      Law and order has always been about creating an underclass to look down upon, it has never had anything to do with the Constitution. The Oathkeepers are just an extension of the various mixed groups in the US, that have often merged with law enforcement, that have been created to enforce this underclass.

      • Ruthie says:

        A recent Majority Report episode mentioned the origins of policing in the US. It was about the capture and return of fugitive slaves. The through line to present day law enforcement is glaringly obvious.

        • bmaz says:

          So, it was “only” about capturing slaves, and “nothing” to do with crimes and criminals?? That was their hot take? What a load of crap. And, by the way, real criminals kind of are an underclass that needs to be dealt with. Not everything is black and white, nor race, based.

          • Ruthie says:

            You might, if you give it a close read, notice that I use neither “only “ nor “nothing “ in my post.

            My point wasn’t to disclaim the need for law enforcement, just to point out that racialized outcomes have a long history.

                • John Paul Jones says:

                  From the Kappeler piece: “The use of patrols to capture runaway slaves was one of the precursors of formal police forces, especially in the South.” This is classic academic-speak. “One of” admits there may have been multiple pathways, without naming any others; “especially in the South” diverts the potential reader’s attention away from places where those other pathways might have had more prominence.

                  Police Studies Online appears to be a university program rather than an actual journal, and the major source cited by Kappeler is a literature review rather than research.

                  Not to say that “slave patrols” weren’t an early version of police departments; in some cases, they clearly were. But the pathway between them and existing contemporary policing seems somewhat tenuous. Origins don’t always determine outcomes, or even push things in general directions.

                • bmaz says:

                  I’ve heard this bunk for decades. Was there a partial measure of truth in the 1800’s? Sure. But citing that crap now as the basis for “government sucks” or “defund the police” is straight up asinine.

            • Kenster says:

              Oh, please, don’t try to run away from it. Bmaz interpreted it exactly as you meant it, so you might as well own it.

              But understand what you’re owning – if Dems / the left ever want to truly have a chance to win big elections in the future and dominate Congress and the Presidency, they’re going to have to drop this line of attack. It’s anti-LE, and the reality is that the vast majority of citizens have positive interactions with them.
              Republicans are absolutely loving what’s happening in Minneapolis right now – it was all “defund the police” and then they actually did it. And looky loo, crime rose, especially violent crime like carjackings and now people are completely freaking out and the budget’s going right back up.
              You can be anti-racist and pro-law and order. You can be in favor of moving some aspects of policing to other agencies. That’s actually the key to winning it all. Using every opportunity to denigrate LE in the press and immediately connect it to slavery? Yeah, not so smart if you actually want to govern.

                • bmaz says:

                  Maybe this is why “defund the police” is one of the dumbest and most inane political slogans in history?

                • Kenster says:

                  Different situation – the State of California and various courts have essentially legalized crimes under $1K, as below this it’s a misdemeanor, not a felony. It’s also not cumulative – you can break into a car, steal $800 worth of stuff, get caught, get the misdemeanor, then do it again without it becoming a felony. SF city government has been clear that they are a-OK with that, which is why that situation in that city continues to get worse. No surprise that burglaries and car break-ins have increased, as it is actually just a different way of diminishing police ability to do their job.

                  • bmaz says:

                    FWIW, this is not quite right. Something being a misdemeanor does NOT make it not a crime. And relative levels of theft being distinguished into misdemeanor crimes and felony crimes depending on relative value has been a constant in every jurisdiction I have ever seen. The thought that a defendant can blithely go do as many misdemeanors as he or she wants is also not right. There are always exacerbators, including moving up to felony land.

                    There could be many factors explaining the perceived rise in rate including that people are desperate in the time of pandemic depression.

              • Tracy Lynn says:

                “…the key to winning it all….” What “all” are you referring to? The Democrats DID win a big election in November. And one in early January, in which two Democrats were elected senators of a transitioning state.

              • Bill Crowder says:

                If you check the stats for carjackings in Saint Paul (the Twin Cities, right across the river from Minneapolis), you will see that car jackings have skyrocketed there, too. And, there has been no defund the police going on there. Conclusion: car jackings are not a function of defund the police political actions.

                Please pay more attention to the details rather than repeating right wing propaganda.

          • Norskeflamthrower says:

            Come on Bmaz, DOJ is organized in 1870 with priority to respond to the rise of the KKK. Then, ironically, in 1877-78 with the re-enfranchisement of the Confederate south, the DOJ becomes becomes the template for development of civil policing to maintain social and political control on behalf of the new coalition of northern banks, railroad empire builders and southern politicians. You certainly aren’t arguing with that?!! Don’t get hysterical no one is calling for elimination of police deptartments just their demilitarizatiopn

              • Norskeflamthrower says:

                Hyperbole? Around here…well yes, maybe but the more I learn about the facts of our history with regard to civil policing, social control and racism and the constitution, the more inclined I am to hysteria my own self. Namaste

              • Troutwaxer says:

                The “defund the police” slogan is so bad I have to wonder we’re starting a new generation of Cointelpro.* /s

                * Please note, Bmaz, that I’m not entirely serious, just noting that what the left is doing to itself with this phrasing is so bad it might as well be enemy action.

                • Norskeflamthrower says:

                  “The defund the police slogan is so bad…”

                  Nonsense! The ignorant and the stupid vomited up the same toxic lies about “global warming” and we just clarified the truth with “climate change”.

                  • PeterS says:

                    I can’t work out if your observation that “global warming” became “climate change” means you’re in favour of keeping the slogan “defund the police” or against keeping it. Against, I hope.

                • Norskeflamthrower says:

                  Furthermore, I would argue that the word “defund” is empowering to voting citizens beyond the issue of policing because it reminds them that in a real democracy they can defund any activity of their government. And now after January 6th cops everywhere are gunna look at where they are gunna get their political support.

                  • bmaz says:

                    Furthermore, if you want to idiotically kill any real chance for real reform, sure, continue the abject ignorance of “defund the police”.

  2. Silly but True says:

    It will be interesting to see if tactics evolve from self-aggrandizing Tiktoks to use of social media as pre-planned disinfo planted alibi?

    Militia cosplayers thought it great idea to broadcast in clearest terms. Their buds may be less inclined after seeing these examples serving 8 years in prison because they made a video clarifying their crime in no uncertain terms.

    • Rayne says:

      I find the reference to “Tiktoks” here to be inappropriate. It’s not the platform which is the problem; it’s the short videos with wide reach which are problematic. Had Tiktok not become popular recently, it would have been Snapchat, or another platform with short-format embeddable video which weren’t being moderated aggressively.

      Worry about “pre-planned disinfo planted alibi” when these insurrectionists include op-sec and network analysis in their cosplay training weekends.

  3. Frank Probst says:

    What’s y’all’s impression of the lawyering here? I’m only following this with one eye (too much COVID data to look at right now), but it looks like:

    (a) the prosecutors are moving very slowly and deliberately, which is what I would expect for a case like this, particularly when there’s so much evidence to sort through and a lot of pleas to be made (in most cases because the defendants can bargain for probation if they plead out on trespassing charges, and save themselves the money it would take to go to trial), and

    (b) the defense lawyers seem to be admitting an awful lot in their briefs.

    I can’t tell if (b) is bad lawyering or if it’s simply admitting what the person has already posted on social media, so they’re essentially stipulating (if that’s the correct word) certain facts.

    • emptywheel says:

      I don’t think it’s bad lawyer on behalf of hte defense, though I wonder whether Watkins was entirely honest with her lawyer.

      I posted on Twitter that Larry Brock, the Colonel who had zip ties on the floor of the Senate, just got charged with JUST an information by two of the Oath Keepers prosecutors. That seems to suggest he might be flipping, but we shall see.

      • bmaz says:

        It appears mediocre, at best, lawyering for Watkins so far. She included a bunch of material that should have never been in a response to a detain determination brief. Did not bother to verify it (which can be explained given time limit, but that is why you don’t just roll with things from your client that make no sense). Then was forced to correct once the obvious became, you know, obvious. And it that process submitted a less than helpful support letter from a friend making her client out to be a blithering idiot. That is not good lawyering.

        You attach rec letters from friends, family, local clergy and citizens attesting to good character and lack of flight or threat risk and shut up. Now both the lawyer and the client look like complete idiots to the court. I would have expected far more modest and pertinent lawyering by a seasoned senior FPD. in fairness, it is easy to second guess someone actually in that trench, but this case so far is a real head scratcher, and if release of any sort is denied, the lawyering will be a significant reason why.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          I’m seeing a lot of terrible lawyering. The political craziness is contagious, like in a Satanic or communist panic or something similar.

          Bmaz, can you tell us to what extent the lawyer has to follow their clients wishes in a case like this, and how much control the lawyer actually has?

        • timbo says:

          What happens if, as an FPD, your client persists/insists on putting things into the court record that you know is not a good thing for sentencing outcome?

    • subtropolis says:

      My impression is that her lawyer has been signalling that Watkins is wiling to discuss giving up names in return for leniency.

  4. PeterS says:

    I struggle to get inside the heads of these people. Some are no doubt seriously dangerous but some are perhaps fantasists.

    I suspect most of them didn’t expect to gain access to the Capitol, so when they did it was a shock; fantasies met with reality. What would have happened if they’d actually come across Nancy Pelosi? Some would have joined in the kidnapping, while others said, “hey I didn’t really sign up for this”?

    If so, can we know which are which? Using people’s words against them is obviously permissible, though the internet is full of implausible boasting. 

    Looking at the guys who plotted to kidnap Whitmer, I assume their plans became concrete and realistic enough to require action from LE. If you’d asked me on 5 January if a plan to kidnap members of Congress inside the Capitol was realistic I’d have said no.

    It’s odd to think that in a parallel universe LE did the expected thing, kept order and prevented a breach of the Capitol. Then none of the insurrection talk that we now read about would have been actionable (?).

    I’m not excusing anyone and have very little sympathy for these people. I guess I’m just musing on the large and unexpected example of slightly crazy people being hit hard by reality that 6 January has brought us.

    • greengiant says:

      Millions of cult members don’t believe in the rule of law. I’m still shocked by the mob over running the police lines starting at the sidewalk. If that had happened in any one of thousands of George Floyd protests there would be video.
      The insanity is not new. The 2016 stop the steal campaign was so successful I heard about “millions with semi automatic rifles marching on DC” 4 years ago.

      • Ruthie says:

        Yes, they displayed the degree to which white privilege operates in the US. Laws are to be obeyed by “others”, with harsh consequences for infractions, while they felt able to act with impunity to the extent that they basically confessed en masse – in many cases even prior to their arrival!

        I’m not so sure they expected much resistance from law enforcement. It would, after all, have been contrary to all recent history. And there were undoubtedly some who didn’t anticipate or condone violence, but mobs, once assembled, are notoriously hard to control. The conspirators likely knew this and planned to take advantage of it.

        • PeterS says:

          I think you’re pushing the white privilege/impunity thing too far. Part of the philosophy of these type of groups is the anticipation that they will be in armed conflict with the government.

          (Yes there was a racial aspect to the LE response on 6 Jan)

    • Chris.EL says:

      Have no faith in getting inside heads (akin to hiding under floorboards in septic tank?) Frankly, seems there are waayy too many guys with no jobs, no concerns about their welfare, and *not enough* to do!

      Maybe my comment could be filed in the “neither here nor there” department:

      In Scorsese’s “Gangs of New York”, I found it interesting how firefighters were portrayed: basically opposing gangs that showed up to a building in flames and started fighting each other for dominance … so go figure.

      The film was loosely based on non-fiction book by Herbert Asbury, published 1927: The gangs of New York: an informal history of the underworld. (Thunder’s Mouth Press).
      All societal constructions undergo evolution, right?
      Rachel Maddow and others are uncovering more Donald Trump “crookedness”:
      From The Palmer Report: “Rachel Maddow highlights Donald Trump’s suspicious payments to Ivanka Trump” Bill Palmer | 9:34 pm EST February 22, 2021″
      … “For instance, Donald Trump used the Trump Organization to make a series of lucrative consulting payments to Ivanka Trump, and then he wrote them off on his taxes. It wasn’t illegal for Ivanka to accept those payments, but Donald’s write-off very much appears to have been felony tax fraud.” …

      • skua says:

        “Frankly, seems there are waayy too many guys with no jobs, no concerns about their welfare, and *not enough* to do!”
        I’m guessing the same was said about Ben and his anti-imperialist associates. I think the problem is the shit they’ve let into their brains, not an excess of free time – lots of the idle rich just drank, coked, whored or binge-watched GoT through 1/6.
        They’ve been deluded by professional propaganda writers/performers and profit-focussed algorithms in the service of people like Murdoch and Zuk. Another time and with a firm grip on reality they could have been real patriots instead of insurrectionist tools.

  5. d4v1d says:

    Reading her remarkable incoherence, i would be more inclined to use the Ps word, not the T word. Does not seem to be rowing with both oars.

  6. Cliff Hughes says:

    I would remind you that: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

  7. Tracy Lynn says:

    What I find interesting is that she was allowed into a space for VIPs. It doesn’t sound like Watkins was a VIP, which in my mind indicates she had permission to be inside the VIP section, perhaps like she was expected. All she had to do was remove her tactical gear, after all.

  8. paul lukasiak says:

    The whole “my group wasn’t part of the actual break – in” excuse doesn’t cut it in terms of liability, it does put another nail in the coffin of Sund’s absurd claim that the attack involved “thousands of well equipped armed insurrectionists” or that the group that was first seen walking toward the capitol around 12:52PM consisted of of “thousands of well-coordinated, well-equipped violent criminals. ” )

    In fact, what was walking down Constitution Ave at 12:52 was probably a large group that left the rally about 25 minutes or so into Trump’s speech, and can be seen walking past the DoJ Buildings (?) on Constitution Ave at about 12:29 In other words, a large group of MAGA supporters in puffy jackets and baseball caps — who having been primed for violence for months (and that morning) turned into an enraged mob when they got to the capitol.

    None of the video evidence shows anything like what Sund claims attacked the capitol. There weren’t “thousands” of organized/coordinated people. Hundreds perhaps — divided into discrete cell of no more that a couple of dozen each. The rest of the people there were MAGA/Stop the Steal people, infuriated through Trump’s lies to believe that their votes were being stolen that very minute in the US Capitol.

    So the question is “why is Sund lying about the nature of the crowd”? I think the logical answer is that he is covering up for Trump — under the assumption that if the people who breached the capitol were all part of a massive conspiracy involving thousands, then Trump could not be accused of “inciting” the events of Jan 6.

    In truth, the inner perimeter (at the Capitol steps) held until nearly an hour after Trump finished his speech, and it was a MAGA mob that forced the retreat and entered the capitol. But that places the blame more squarely on Trump’s non-organized-militia supporters, and that is bad for Trump.

  9. White-Rose says:

    FBI Seized Congressional Cellphone Records Related to Capitol Attack [The Intercept]
    The inclusion of congressional phone data in the FBI investigation raises thorny constitutional questions.
    On January 11, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., released a statement warning against the Justice Department getting involved in the investigation of the attack, at least regarding members of Congress, asserting that the Senate should oversee the matter due to separation of powers. NSA and other other agencies and service providers would have additional information on calls. Gonna be an interesting investigation. I think few stones will remain unturned – including Roger Stone.

    • P J Evans says:

      I think there are some members of congress who will be having a cow about their phone records being in there, because reasons. Like, perhaps, calling some of the insurrectionists during the lockdown and evacuation?

  10. harpie says:

    Some INFO on PERMITS


    […] The National Parks Service confirmed to ABC7 the group Women for America First originally submitted an application to hold an event Jan. 23, the weekend after the inauguration. However, NPS said the group recently amended their application to move the rally to Jan. 5 through 7. The demonstration itself is slated for Jan. 6. on Freedom Plaza. […] As of Tuesday, [12/22] the Women for America First group is the only organization with a permit application. […] NPS said the group plans to set up Jan. 5 and clean up the day after the event. The application still needs official approval.

    12/31/20 Permit #21-0278 issued by NPS for Women for America First
    1/1/21 Permit #21-0278 AMENDED by NPS for

    Women for America First “March for Trump/Save America” at the Ellipse, Southeast and Southwest Quadrants for a “First Amendment Rally” with 5,000 participants.
    [Person(s) in Charge: Kylie Jane Kremer // On-Site Contact: Justine Caporale]
    Wednesday, January 6
    7:00 AM – 9:00 AM Gates open to public
    9:00 AM – 3:30 PM Rally: Speeches
    3:30 PM – 4:30 PM Conclusion of rally and dispersal of participants

    Activity Overview: Women for America First will conduct a first amendment rally “March for Trump” to demand transparency and protect election integrity. The rally will feature speakers from Women for America First, Congressional Representatives, Roger Stone, Julio Gonzalez, Rudy Giuliani, Diamond and Silk. Women for America First will not conduct an organized march from the Ellipse at the conclusion of the rally. Some participants may leave to attend rallies at the United States Capitol to hear the results of Congressional certification of the Electoral College count.

    Complete Contact Information: […] 12. VIP ADVISOR: Caroline Wren // 13. VIP LEAD: Maggie Mulvaney

    1/4/21 Permit #21-0278 AMENDED AGAIN by NPS for

    Women for America First at the Ellipse, Southeast and Southwest Quadrants for a “First Amendment Rally” with 30, 000 participants.
    Person(s) in Charge: Kylie Jane Kremer // On-Site Contact: Justine Caporale]

    1] Pro-Trump group applies for Jan. 6 rally permit days after President’s tweet Tuesday, December 22, 2020

    2] Here’s What We Know About the Pro-Trump Rallies That Have Permits JANUARY 5, 2021

  11. harpie says:

    The Government [Marcy’s emphasis]:

    […] Second, because the defendant has been indicted on an enumerated offense “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government,” the defendant has been charged with a federal crime of terrorism as defined under 18 U.S.C §§ 2332b(g)(5) […]

    18 U.S. Code § 2332b – Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

    (g) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—
    (5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that—
    (A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;
    (B) is a violation of—
    (i) section [a long list of possible sections] of this title; – – […]

    • harpie says:

      Some items in that long list of sections:

      – – 229 (relating to chemical weapons),
      – – subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping),
      – – 1203 (relating to hostage taking), […]
      – – 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping) […]

      • harpie says:

        At the hearing yesterday, Captain Carneysha Mendoza testified 10:37 AM · Feb 23, 2021 [VIDEO]

        I proceeded to the Rotunda, where I noticed a heavy smoke-like residue, and smelled what I believed to be military grade C-S gas, a familiar smell. It was mixed with fire extinguisher spray deployed by rioters. The rioters continued to deploy C-S into the Rotunda. Officers received a lot of gas exposure, which is worse inside the building than outside, because there’s nowhere for it to go. I received chemical burns to my face that still have not healed to this day.

        It may not considered a “chemical weapon”, but “military grade C-S gas” reminded me of that paragraph Marcy talked about here:

        k. On January 6, 2021, while at the Capitol, CALDWELL received the following Facebook message:
        “All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas”. When CALDWELL posted a Facebook message that read, “Inside,” he received the following messages, among others: “Tom take that bitch over”; “Tom all legislators are down in the Tunnels 3floors down”; “Do like we had to do when I was in the core start tearing oit florrs go from top to bottom”; and “Go through back house chamber doors facing N left down hallway down steps.”

Comments are closed.