An Army veteran who stormed the U.S. Capitol in a military-style formation with fellow members of the Oath Keepers was sentenced Friday to more than eight years in prison, a day after the far-right group’s founder received an 18-year prison term in the January 6, 2021, attack. 

Jessica Watkins, of Woodstock, Ohio, was acquitted of the seditious conspiracy charge that Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was found guilty of in November, but jurors convicted her of obstruction and conspiracy to impede Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s victory. 

She was the third member of the anti-government group to receive her punishment this week in one of the most serious cases the Justice Department has brought in the riot. Rhodes’ 18 year-term was the longest sentence that has been handed down so far in the hundreds of Capitol riot cases. 

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said that while Watkins was not a top leader, like Rhodes, she was more than “just foot soldier,” noting that at least three others charged in the riot wouldn’t have been there if she hadn’t recruited them to join. He sentenced her to 8½ years behind bars. 

“Your role that day was more aggressive, more assaultive, more purposeful than perhaps others,” he told her. 

‘Just another idiot’

Watkins tearfully apologized for her actions before the judge handed down her sentence. She condemned the violence by rioters who assaulted police, but said she knew her presence at the Capitol “probably inspired those people to a degree.” She described herself as “just another idiot running around the Capitol” on January 6. 

“And today you’re going to hold this idiot responsible,” she told the judge. 

The judge, for his part, said her personal story of struggling for years to come to terms with her identity as a transgender woman made it especially difficult for him to understand why she had shown “a lack of empathy for those who suffered” on January 6. Watkins testified at trial about hiding her identity from her parents during a strict Christian upbringing and going AWOL in the Army after a fellow soldier found evidence of her contact with a support group for transgender people. 

During the nearly two-month trial in Washington’s federal court, lawyers for Watkins and the other Oath Keepers argued there was no plan to attack the Capitol. On the witness stand, Watkins told jurors she never intended to interfere with the certification and never heard any commands for her and other Oath Keepers to enter the building. 

Evidence shown to jurors showed Watkins after the 2020 election messaging with people who expressed interest in joining her Ohio militia group about “military-style basic” training. She told one recruit: “I need you fighting fit” by the time of the inauguration, which was January 20, 2021. 

On January 6, Watkins and other Oath Keepers wearing helmets and other paramilitary gear were seen shouldering their way through the crowd and up the Capitol stairs in military-style “stack” formation. She communicated with others during the riot over a channel called “Stop the Steal J6″ on the walkie-talkie app Zello, declaring “we are in the main dome right now.” 

Another Oath Keeper and fellow Army veteran, Kenneth Harrelson, was to be sentenced later Friday. One of their other co-defendants, Florida chapter leader Kelly Meggs, was sentenced Thursday to 12 years behind bars for seditious conspiracy and other charges. 

More sentencings next week

Rhodes, 58, of Granbury, Texas, was the first January 6 defendant convicted of seditious conspiracy to receive his punishment for what prosecutors said was a weekslong plot to forcibly block the transfer of power from former President Donald Trump to Biden. Four other Oath Keepers convicted of the sedition charge during a second trial in January will be sentenced next week. 

During his sentencing Thursday, Rhodes defiantly claimed to be a “political prisoner,” criticized prosecutors and the Biden administration, and tried to play down his actions on January 6. The judge described Rhodes as a continued threat to the United States who clearly “wants democracy in this country to devolve into violence.” 

The Oath Keepers’ sentences this week could serve as a guide for prosecutors in a separate January 6 case against leaders of the Proud Boys extremist group. Earlier this month, a different jury convicted former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and three other group leaders of seditious conspiracy for what prosecutors said was another plot to keep Trump in the White House. 

Before Thursday, the longest sentence in the more than 1,000 Capitol riot cases was 14 years and two months for a man with a long criminal record who attacked police officers with pepper spray and a chair as he stormed the Capitol. Just over 500 of the defendants have been sentenced, with more than half receiving prison time.
…

The US Labor Department says the number of children employed in violation of labor laws has been on the rise since 2015. While the total number of violations is still lower than it was two decades ago, experts say the increase is troubling. For VOA News, Maxim Moskalkov has the story. Camera and video edit: Andre Sergunin and Anna Rice
…

The White House on Thursday released the first-ever national strategy aimed at countering antisemitism amid a rise in violence against members of the Jewish community and a gain in antisemitic beliefs among Americans.

Prominent American religious advocacy groups noted that the White House strategy would placate critics who worry about conflating criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism. The White House did this by not basing the strategy solely on the definition used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Although its definition of antisemitism does not mention Israel, many of its cited examples of antisemitism do.

“At its core, antisemitism divides us, erodes our trust in government, institutions and one another,” said second gentleman Douglas Emhoff at the launch of the strategy. “It threatens our democracy while undermining our American values of freedom, community and decency. Antisemitism delivers simplistic, false and dangerous narratives that have led to extremists perpetrating deadly violence against Jews.”

Emhoff, who is Jewish, described disturbing incidents in recent American life, such as schoolchildren finding swastikas drawn on their desks and parents of young children being met with slurs at school drop-offs. In 2022, according to the Anti-Defamation League, there were nearly 3,700 antisemitic incidents throughout the United States. More than one-third of those incidents involved vandalism or assault.

The White House said 63% of reported religiously motivated hate crimes affect members of the Jewish community — although Jews account for only 2.4% of the nation’s population. Overall, Jews are the target of 4% of all reported hate crimes in the United States, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

And the ADL, which helped the White House shape the new strategy, reported earlier this year that 85% of Americans believe at least one anti-Jewish trope — a jump from 61% in 2019.

Global implications

Antisemitism also has global implications, said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, in praising the strategy.

“The strategy reaffirms the United States’ commitment to combat antisemitism globally — including efforts to delegitimize or isolate the state of Israel at the U.N.,” she said in a statement.

The four-pillar plan — which includes increasing awareness and understanding of antisemitism and why it matters; improving safety for Jewish communities; reversing the normalization of antisemitism; and building cross-community solidarity — has gained support from prominent American Jewish and Muslim groups.

“We welcome President Biden’s commitment to confronting the threat of antisemitism, a dangerous and pervasive form of bigotry that has become even more widespread in recent years, largely due to the rise in extremist, far-right political leaders,” Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement.

His statement continued: “We also look forward to the release of the White House’s strategic plans to confront other forms of bigotry, including Islamophobia. We also appreciate the White House’s use of language which makes clear that these national strategies should not be used to either infringe upon the constitutional guarantees of free speech or to conflate bigotry with human rights activism, including advocacy for Palestinian freedom and human rights.”

And T’ruah, a Jewish human rights organization that also worked with the White House, praised the White House’s decision not to adopt the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism as its only definition.

Larger fight

“We are glad to see the administration taking the threat of antisemitism seriously, and we welcome the announcement of a national plan that situates the fight against antisemitism within the larger fight against white nationalism, violent extremism, rising authoritarianism and hate in all its forms,” said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the organization’s leader, in a statement.

“The administration made the right decision by not codifying a definition of antisemitism, which would only have made it harder to recognize and respond to antisemitic attacks in context, and which would have opened the door to infringement of First Amendment rights,” the statement said, adding, “There is a long road ahead, and we look forward to continuing to work with the White House to stop antisemitism and other forms of bigotry.”

Emhoff said his own family history was shaped by antisemitism. His great-grandparents, he said, escaped persecution in what is now Poland, around the turn of the 20th century. They fled to the United States, where, 120 years later, their great-grandson became the first Jewish spouse of a U.S. president or vice president.

“We must not forget the joy that comes from celebrating our faith, celebrating our cultures and celebrating our contributions to this great nation,” he said. “There is more that unites us than divides us.”
…

The Air Force fighter pilot whom President Joe Biden nominated Thursday to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff got his call sign by ejecting from a burning F-16 fighter jet high above the Florida Everglades and falling into the watery sludge below.

It was January 1991, and then-Captain Charles “CQ” Brown Jr. had just enough time in his parachute above alligator-full wetlands for a thought to pop into his head. “Hope there’s nothing down there,” Brown said in an interview at the Aspen Security Forum last year.

He landed in the muck, which coated his body and got “in his boots and everything.” That’s how the nominee to be the country’s next top military officer got his call sign: “Swamp Thing.”

Brown, now a four-star general and the Air Force chief, was introduced by Biden on Thursday as his nominee. If confirmed, Brown would replace Army General Mark Milley, whose term ends in October. Biden made the announcement during a Rose Garden event on Thursday afternoon.

“[Brown] gained respect across every service from those who have seen him in action and have come to depend on his judgment,” Biden said.

“More than that, he gained the respect of our allies and partners around the world, who regard General Brown as a trusted partner and a top-notch strategist,” he added.

The call sign story was a rare inner look into Brown, who keeps his cards close to his chest. He’s spent much of his career being one of the Air Force’s top aviators, one of its few Black pilots and often one of the only African Americans in his squadron.

To this day, his core tenets are to “execute at a high standard, personally and professionally,” Brown said this month at an Air Force Association conference in Colorado. “I do not play for second place. If I’m in, I’m in to win — I do not play to lose.”

He’s been many firsts, including the Air Force’s first Black commander of the Pacific Air Forces, and most recently its first Black chief of staff.

If confirmed, he would be part of another first — the first time the Pentagon’s top two posts were held by African Americans, with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin the top civilian leader. Brown would not be the first African American to be chairman, the Pentagon’s top military post; that distinction went to the late Army General Colin Powell.

Brown, 60, has commanded the nation’s air power at all levels. Born in San Antonio, he is from a family of Army soldiers. His grandfather led a segregated Army unit in World War II, and his father was an artillery officer and Vietnam War veteran. Brown grew up on several military bases and in various states, which he said helped instill in him a sense of mission.

His four-decade military career began with his commission as a distinguished ROTC graduate from Texas Tech University in 1984 and led him to his White House nomination this week. He was widely viewed within military circles as the front-runner for the chairmanship, with the right commands and a track record of driving institutional change, attributes seen as needed to push the Pentagon onto a more modern footing to meet China’s rise.

For the past two years Brown has pressed “Accelerate, Change or Lose” within the Air Force. The campaign very much has China in mind, pushing the service to shed legacy warplanes and speed its efforts to counter hypersonics, drones and space weapons, where the military’s lingering Cold War-era inventory does not match up.

In person, Brown is private, thoughtful and deliberate. He is seen as a contrast to Milley, who has remained outspoken throughout his tenure, often to the ire of former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers.

“He’s not prone to blurt out something without some serious thought in his own mind, some serious kind of balancing of the opportunities or options,” said retired Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley, who knows Brown from when Brown worked for him as a member of the Air Staff.

Brown has more than 3,000 flying hours and repeat assignments to the Air Force Weapons School — an elite aerial fighting school similar to the Navy’s TOPGUN. Only about 1% of Air Force fighter pilots are accepted, Moseley said.

He later earned a spot as an instructor, “which is like 1% of the 1%,” Moseley said.

Brown returned to the weapons school as its commandant. By then it had expanded from fighter-only exclusivity to teaching combined airpower operations, with tankers, bombers and cargo planes.

Brown saw that the school “required a different approach and attitude,” said retired Air Force Lieutenant General Bill Rew. Earlier commandants had tried to institute a new mantra, “Humble, Approachable, Credible,” but it had not taken root.

Under Brown the cultural shift took hold and remains in place today, said Rew, who was one of Brown’s instructors at the weapons school and wing commander during Brown’s time as commandant.

“It takes a certain kind of leadership that doesn’t force cultural change on people but explains it and motivates them on why that change is important,” Rew said.

In June 2020, Brown was just a week from being confirmed by the Senate to serve as chief of staff of the Air Force when he felt the need to speak out on George Floyd’s murder.

It was risky and inopportune time for the general to offer his private thoughts. But he did so anyway, after discussions with his wife and sons about the murder, which convinced him he needed to say something.

In a June 2020 video message to the service titled “Here’s What I’m Thinking About,” Brown described how he’d pressured himself “to perform error-free” as a pilot and officer his whole life, but still faced bias. He said he’d been questioned about his credentials, even when he wore the same flight suit and wings as every other pilot.

“I’m thinking about how my nomination provides some hope, but also comes with a heavy burden — I can’t fix centuries of racism in our country, nor can I fix decades of discrimination that may have impacted members of our Air Force.

“I’m thinking about how I can make improvements, personally, professionally and institutionally,” so all airmen could excel.

His decision to speak out did not cost him. His Senate confirmation vote was 98-0.

But like the brief moment in Aspen, the personal video message was a rarity. After confirmation, he lowered his public profile again, and got to work.
…

The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply limited the federal government’s authority to police water pollution into certain wetlands, the second decision in as many years in which a conservative majority narrowed the reach of environmental regulations.

The outcome could threaten efforts to control flooding on the Mississippi River and protect the Chesapeake Bay, among many projects, wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, breaking with the other five conservatives.

The justices boosted property rights over concerns about clean water in a ruling in favor of an Idaho couple who sought to build a house near Priest Lake in the state’s panhandle. Chantell and Michael Sackett objected when federal officials identified a soggy portion of the property as a wetlands that required them to get a permit before filling it with rocks and soil.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that wetlands can only be regulated under the Clean Water Act if they have a “continuous surface connection” to larger, regulated bodies of water. There is no such connection on the Sacketts’ property.

The court jettisoned the 17-year-old opinion by their former colleague, Anthony Kennedy, allowing regulation of what can be discharged into wetlands that could affect the health of the larger waterways.

Kennedy’s opinion covering wetlands that have a “significant nexus” to larger bodies of water had been the standard for evaluating whether permits were required for discharges under the 1972 landmark environmental law.

Opponents had objected that the standard was vague and unworkable.

Environmental advocates said the new standard would strip protections from millions of acres of wetlands across the country.

Reacting to the decision, Manish Bapna, the chief executive of the Natural Resources Defense Council, called on Congress to amend the Clean Water Act to restore wetlands protections and on states to strengthen their own laws.

“The Supreme Court ripped the heart out of the law we depend on to protect American waters and wetlands. The majority chose to protect polluters at the expense of healthy wetlands and waterways. This decision will cause incalculable harm. Communities across the country will pay the price,” Bapna said in a statement.

The outcome almost certainly will affect ongoing court battles over new wetlands regulations that the Biden administration put in place in December. Two federal judges have temporarily blocked those rules from being enforced in 26 states.

EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said the Clean Water Act has been responsible for “transformational progress” in cleaning up the nation’s waterways.

“I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision that erodes longstanding clean water protections,” he said in a statement.

Damien Schiff, who represented the Sacketts at the Supreme Court, said the decision appropriately narrowed the reach of the law.

“Courts now have a clear measuring stick for fairness and consistency by federal regulators. Today’s ruling is a profound win for property rights and the constitutional separation of powers,” Schiff said in a statement issued by the property rights-focused Pacific Legal Foundation.

In Thursday’s ruling, all nine justices agreed that the wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are not covered by the act.

But only five justices joined in the opinion that imposed a new test for evaluating when wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Alito would have adopted the narrower standard in 2006, in the last big wetlands case at the Supreme Court. They were joined Thursday by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal justices charged that their colleagues had rewritten that law.

Kavanaugh wrote that the court’s “new and overly narrow test may leave long-regulated and long-accepted-to-be regulable wetlands suddenly beyond the scope of the agencies’ regulatory authority.”

Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority’s rewriting of the act was “an effort to cabin the anti-pollution actions Congress thought appropriate.” Kagan referenced last year’s decision limiting the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

In both cases, she noted, the court had appointed “itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” Kagan was joined in what she wrote by her liberal colleagues Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Sacketts paid $23,000 for a 0.63-acre lot near Priest Lake in 2005 and started building a three-bedroom home two years later.

They had filled part of the property, described in an appellate ruling as a “soggy residential lot,” with rocks and soil in preparation for construction, when officials with the Environmental Protection Agency showed up and ordered a halt in the work.

They also won an earlier round in their legal fight at the Supreme Court.

The federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the EPA’s determination in 2021, finding that part of the property, 300 feet from the lake and 30 feet from an unnamed waterway that flows into the lake, was wetlands.

The Sacketts’ own consultant had similarly advised them years ago that their property contained wetlands.
…