“A Tale of an American Political Prisoner”

Part 10.3: The Federal Courthouse; Washington, DC

–The “OathKeeper 1” Trial: Opening Arguments–

by: Jessica Watkins (X: @J6ssicaWatkins)

A True Story; 100% verifiable with Courtroom Transcripts, Evidentiary Exhibits, Court Documents and Testimony.

The Opening Arguments were a s***show. The Prosecutors can literally say anything they want, without Objections or rebuttal. There’s no witnesses. No cross examination. No evidence presented. Nada. it is an opportunity for the Prosecution to lay out hyperbolic and exaggerated rhetoric as best as they possibly could; to frighten the Jury into believing that THESE VERY PEOPLE in THIS VERY COURTROOM were the VERY MONSTERS that almost overturned Democracy itself as they attempted to install President Trump as their God Emperor. (yes, now it’s my turn to exaggerate). The Jury was seated and sworn in, and the sham began. Jeffery Nestler was play-acting as the Lead Prosecutor while Curly pulled his puppet strings from the Gallery. It was nearly comical. Nearly. He promised the Jury everything. They said that we had come with rifles with the intent to use force against the US Government in order to keep President Trump in power. They promised that we had geared up for battle and led the crowd by forming a “tactical Stack Formation” as we spearheaded the breach on the US Capitol doors; that in doing so we committed acts of vandalism; that we aided and abetted the crowd as they waged medieval warfare on the brave Capitol Police. All of this was a lie, one they told proudly with gusto.

The entire sequence of the Opening Arguments was presented with a slideshow that featured images and videos that showed violence against the Capitol Police. Violence that had nothing to do with us. Violence that occurred somewhere we had never been. Violence we had never witnessed. Damage that had nothing to do with us. Damage that occurred long before we arrived. Damage that occurred when we were half a mile away. Damage we had never witnessed. Those videos were intermingled with actual videos of us, to paint the false picture that we were somehow involved. They claimed that we had been plotting this violent coup since the day of the Election on November 3rd, 2020. I’m tellin’ ya, this sham went on for HOURS. If I had the transcripts in front of me, I could give you some direct quotes. But you will just have to take my word for it. It was a lie of epic proportions. I was long desensitized to their bald faced lies by now, but I was still furious. They were selling these lies to my JURY! They were lying to their face. I shook my head with my fists balled up under the table as I bit my tongue and tried to restrain my temper. This went on for hours. If I recall correctly (and I don’t recall perfectly so bear with me) I am pretty sure that the Opening Arguments for the Government lasted all morning and into the Afternoon. I think it was after our midday break that they concluded their bulls*** presentation, and the Defense Attorneys were able to present their Opening Arguments. In hindsight, I think the Prosecution WAY oversold their case. Hell, they didn’t even HAVE a case. They fed the Jury a line of bulls*** that would have stretched for miles.

It was clear we didn’t do ANYTHING they claimed we did, and frankly, when they laid out their Case in Chief, it was so riddled with inconsistencies, errors, and fallacies that it never lived up to their inflated claims during the Opening Arguments. They promised the Jury a coup, a well orchestrated plot to overturn the results of an election. The evidence they presented didn’t even reveal a sporadic riot for 10 minutes. Their presentation obfuscated incessantly, and the truth was deliberately concealed. But the truth was irrelevant to them. All that mattered was that they scared the Jury into a verdict that they wanted, so their “First Impressions” needed to be convincingly terrifying to leave a lasting impression throughout trial. And they DID make us seem terrifying. So, when Lee Bright and Stanley Woodward presented their Opening Arguments, it felt like we were already behind the curve. It seemed that we were trying to play “catch up” already, to undermine their lies and prove our innocence. The opening Arguments for the Defense were good, but far more subdued. There was no inflated rhetoric. The Defense laid out a calm and rational argument for our innocence. That we had a contract to protect the stage and escort VIP’s and Congressmen; that we rescued Officers, helped the injured and stopped vandalism; that we were just proud Americans that were in the wrong place at the wrong time and that we tried to make the best of a bad situation. I think the day ended with Stanley Woodward, who was one of the Defense Attorneys for Kelly Meggs. His presentation was excellent; calm, cogent, and rational – with plenty of evidence to back it up. I remember feeling like I could breathe again; like everything would be OK. We just had to prove they were lying, to show that we were innocent. The day ended halfway through Opening Arguments. I seem to remember that Attorneys Jonathan Crisp (for me) and Brad Guyer (for Kenny Harrelson) were set to deliver their Opening Arguments the following day.

The next morning when we came in, we all got settled and the Jury was brought out. But before the Opening Arguments for the Defense could resume, we had an order of business. That night, the Nancy Pelosi orchestrated January 6th Select Committee had decided to hold an “Emergency Hearing”. ***OPINION*** I believe that the J6 Select Committee wanted to do a little Jury tampering. I am 100% convinced that they wanted to influence our trial directly. Remember, there are NO coincidences in Washington, and the legitimacy of the J6 Select Committee had hitched their horse directly to the success of the DoJ in the OathKeeper 1 Trial. They had called Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenny Harrelson and I out BY NAME during their hearings; claiming that we had fomented a Seditious Conspiracy, a crime we were all charged with. Now all 4 of us were in a Court Room together, and America was holding their breath. On the evening of the Opening Arguments, Liz Cheney called ME out BY NAME. She alleged that “…Jessica Watkins engaged in a Seditious Conspiracy…” in the opening days of MY trial! There’s no way in hell that was a coincidence. So, before the day began, Judge Mehta had to ensure that “none of the Jurors had watched the J6 Select Committee the previous evening, or had been influenced by news articles or Social Media posts that discussed THESE SPECIFIC Defendants”. But, in the end… how would we know or prove that, even if they had? I was LIVID. The balls on Dizzy Lizzy Cheney were impressive, that she had the nerve to call me out by name in front of the ENTIRE COUNTRY; to accuse me of crimes (ones I’d be found Not Guilty of) during the opening days of my trial. After the Jury told Judge Mehta that “Nah, we’re good. No biases here. Lets roll this gravy train!”, the Opening Arguments resumed. Brad Guyer and Jonathan Crisp were up. Each laid out a simple Opening Argument. Neither lasted more than an hour; they were simple and to the point. More importantly, they revealed the lies that the Prosecution had laid out. But the next day began the Case in Chief for the Department of Justice. The s*** show was just beginning.