[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. For those of you who've been waiting for some real criminal charges for January 6th against some bigger fish organizers, they have now started to come. Stewart Rhodes, founder of the armed extremist group Oath Keepers, and 10 other people believe to be members of the group, were charged yesterday with seditious conspiracy. That is, they allegedly planned in advance to obstruct certification of President Biden's election through the use of force.

The indictments helped to make the case that the insurrection was no spontaneous riot but a planned event. If that's true, it raises questions like about how much law enforcement knew or should have known about it through social media postings and whether President Trump or any other government officials knew what was coming and helped to plan it or failed to report it. Stewart Rhodes denies the charge. He founded Oath Keepers in 2009, President Obama's first year in office, it's comprised largely of former law enforcement personnel and members of the military.

With me now is Washington Post national security and law enforcement correspondent, Devlin Barrett. He was on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election and is author of the book October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election. Devlin, thanks for coming on for this, welcome back to WNYC.

Devlin Barrett: Thanks for having me, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Seditious conspiracy. It's a crime very rarely charged. Can you explain what it is under the law?

Devlin Barrett: Sure. Seditious conspiracy is, like you said, very rarely charged, and part of the reason it's very rarely charged and is the subject of so much debate is because it's actually quite loosely written. The law itself basically makes it illegal to try to use force to prevent or delay the execution of any law of the United States. On its surface, that's a very broad definition, but the law also contains some language about making it a crime to conspire to overthrow the government, but the core element of it is actually very simple.

The challenge that justice department officials have from time to time run into when they apply this law is that judges don't necessarily see the law as being correctly applied sometimes. For example, the last time this was really leveled against suspects was in a case involving basically some wannabe militia types in the Midwest, and the judge eventually threw out those charges saying that the government had overcharged. Here though, I think you're dealing with a set of actions that if you can prove Stewart Rhodes and his followers did these actions, I think you're getting more into the heartland of what the original law was meant to combat, which is, as I said earlier, this notion of plotting to overthrow or destroy the government.

Brian Lehrer: I want to read the text of some of the messages that Oath Keeper's founder, Stewart Rhodes, sent according to the indictment as I've seen these quotes reported. On November 5th, "We aren't getting through this without a civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, spirit." That was on November 5th, 2020.

On December 11th, as the prospect of Biden being sworn in as president was coming closer, Rhodes wrote, "It will be a bloody and desperate fight. We are going to have a fight. This can't be avoided." On January 6th itself around as the violence was beginning, around 1:30, "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything, so the Patriots are taking it into their own hands. They've had enough." Well, Devlin, that's some pretty damning stuff. What does it add up to?

Devlin Barrett: Well, I think the key thing about that language is, obviously, that is incredibly alarming language, but if you look at the history of the Oath Keepers, they are motivated and attracted to a fairly apocalyptic vision of the future. They have a little bit of a fascination with the notion that the government is going to collapse. Everyone's going to have to fend for themselves, and that includes arming up and stockpiling food. They are part of what some folks call the prepper culture, but here's where I think it really becomes important to what the Justice Department and the FBI is doing.

The Oath Keepers have talked like that for years. What's so different about the last year and change is that this time they appear to have actually acted on that talk, and you can see that obviously in the many, many videos of horrible things happening on January 6th and what they did and prepared for to do on that day, and that's so much what the indictment talks about, not just those words, but all the steps they took to actually act out what for them had, for many years, been mostly talk.

Brian Lehrer: There's an example that I saw that they lined up a number of members of the Oath Keepers in single file in fatigues to march as if in a military formation up the Capitol steps. Certainly, an indication to people who have served in the military, I imagine, that something like an organized assault might be coming. If the allegations in the indictment are true, how pre-planned and organized was the break-in, and how close to an actual attempted coup was being planned?

Devlin Barrett: What the indictment lays out is that right after the election, the Oath Keepers, as you said, are talking about violence, but it doesn't appear from the indictment that they are already fixated on January 6th yet. That seems to come in December when you start seeing more and more conversations according to the indictment that really focus on January 6th as a showdown day, and they talk about trying to scare lawmakers into voting not to certify Biden's victory. They talk about bringing their weapons and having a QRF, basically a stash of guns in Virginia right near the Capitol in case they need to go get them and come back into the city with the guns.

It becomes pretty clear from their conversations in December that they have decided January 6th is going to be the focal point of what they're going to do, and that's when the violent rhetoric seems to pair up according to the indictment with an actual plan of, "Here's where we're going to go, here's what we're going to do, and we're going to go there with a lot of gear and we're going to try to wreak havoc."

Brian Lehrer: Wreak havoc is one thing, actually physically block the certification from taking place is another, right? Which are they being charged with?

Devlin Barrett: They're being charged with conspiring to obstruct Congress. The charges are very blunt in that regard. I think part of what you have to think about when you talk about even the Oath Keepers, even within the Oath Keepers, prosecutors see varying degrees of culpability and forethought and planning. For example, the charges that were just unsealed against Stewart Rhodes and 10 others, this is the first time we've seen the prosecutors basically say, "Look, here is the core group of Oath Keepers leaders who were talking about violence and planning for violence for at a minimum weeks before January 6th." Then there's an additional about, I would say, 16 or 17 folks who are charged as Oath Keepers and charged with committing crimes that day but who prosecutors clearly don't consider to be the core leadership group that is mostly responsible for what the Oath Keepers did that day.

Brian Lehrer: If this indictment is an example of going up the chain of command, like they often do with mob investigations, little fish flip on the bigger fish, is there higher yet to go, or is Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, the alleged kingpin?

Devlin Barrett: For the Oath Keepers, Rhodes is the pinnacle of that world, but that is in a small but important part of what happened on January 6th. I think there's a couple of things that the indictment hints at but doesn't tell you exactly how prosecutors are planning to go forward. For example, a number of the folks who are allegedly part of Rhodes's inner circle were working as essentially Roger Stone's personal protective detail that day. It's been very clear throughout this investigation that the FBI is interested in Roger Stone's role in all this.

Stewart Rhodes has been identified in court papers for months and months and months as person one within the Oath Keepers' organization, but in other charges in other court documents, Roger Stone keeps coming up in an unnamed way. I think there's definitely been a long time interest in Roger Stone, but Stone says he did nothing wrong and was horrified by what happened that day because according to him, the violence killed the cause and the goal that they were trying to reach of getting the vote not to be certified.

I think they are still looking up the ladder, but as one lawyer put it to me, the problem with working up the ladder in a case like this is that the bottom rung is as wide as an ocean. You could spend years just toiling on the bottom rung here. I think what prosecutors are doing by charging Rhodes is sending a signal. We're not going to say just on the bottom rung, but it is true that it has taken a year to get to Stewart Rhodes in terms of charging him. It really does speak to the degree to which there are many, many-- if you use the mob analogy, there's a lot more rungs in theory that you have to think about before you get to the top of the ladder, let's say.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Well, let's keep going up that ladder. I'm going to play a clip of Stewart Rhodes in a second here that I think is very interesting from right around election day. Listeners, we can take your calls for Washington Post national security and law enforcement correspondent, Devlin Barrett, who's reporting on the first sedition charges, seditious conspiracy to be precise, filed by the federal government in connection with January 6th. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or a tweet your question @BrianLehrer.

Here's the 32nd clip of Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, on the right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones radio show, Infowars, just after the election on November 10th. I'm particularly interested in what he says at the very end of these 30 seconds. Listen.

Stewart Rhodes: What we're doing is we have men already stationed outside DC as a nuclear option in the case they attempt to remove the President illegally, we will step in and stop it. We're going to be there to also help secure the coming rally this Saturday and your caravan coming in. I've got good men on the ground already. We've reckoned there last week, and we're sorting out where we're going to be staging, and we'll be there. I'll be inside DC. We'll also be on the outside of DC, armed, prepared to go in if the President calls us up.

Brian Lehrer: Actually, that whole thing was really fascinating. Devlin, near the beginning of the clip, he talks about a nuclear option in case they attempt to remove the President illegally. Well, we know President Trump thinks that he was removed from office illegally by a fraudulent vote. Stewart Rhodes said in that clip, "We will step in and stop it, and then at the end, we will be on the outside of DC, armed, prepared to go in if the President calls us." It implies at least the question of how coordinated this alleged attack by the Oath Keepers was with President Donald Trump.

Devlin Barrett: Right. One key thing to understand about that clip, and I agree with you, that's a very important window into what he's thinking at that time, that the really important thing to understand about that clip is that a lot of the Oath Keepers, including Stewart Rhodes, at that time, were talking about the possibility that the President would invoke the insurrection act. I don't want to bore you with too many codes and statutes, but essentially, the idea that some of them had was that the President, at some point, would declare a giant national emergency, and militia groups like the Oath Keepers would essentially be publicly asked by the President to help secure the country.

That plays into not just the Oath Keepers' apocalyptic visions of what was going to happen, but also frankly, the concerns in government and why so many parts of the government were unwilling to talk tough or appear tough to the Oath Keepers or the protestors running up to January 6th because they didn't want to provoke a confrontation because people in government were also worried about the issues involving the insurrection act.

Some of these folks had this notion, and you see this in the indictment and the charges that they did in fact bring a stash of weapons to keep in suburban Virginia right outside DC in case they wanted to quickly go get them and bring them into the city. As they get closer to January 6th, it becomes pretty clear from the communications and other things we've seen among Oath Keepers that they become a little bit disillusioned and disappointed that the President doesn't seem to be willing to pull the trigger on the insurrection act. Then what do you have? You have a bunch of very heavily armed people in and around Washington who are looking for a confrontation and they're not getting the green light that they hope for from the President. What do they do? Then you have January 6th.

Brian Lehrer: That's exculpatory with Trump himself.

Devlin Barrett: I'm not trying to make it sound like that means that everything's okay. I'm just saying that when it comes back and forth between the President and folks like the Oath Keepers, that dance is actually a little more complicated than just believing that President wants them to do this. There's a little more back and forth. There's a little more, "Well, who's going to take the lead? Okay, We'll take the lead. We're not going to wait for the call anymore."

Brian Lehrer: Andy in North Salem, you're on WNYC. Hi, Andy, thank you for calling in.

Andy: Thanks, Brian, for taking my call. Just a quick comment. You'd mentioned at the top that some of the folks that are part of Oath Keepers are former law enforcement, and our experience has been on, in full disclosure, I'm a gun control advocate, is that when we've done events, Oath Keepers have showed up over the years in opposition to our work and their current law enforcement. I just want to be clear that it's not just former law enforcement that are part of this militia and in fact other militias too. I'm curious what your guest would have to say about that particular issue.

Brian Lehrer: Andy, thank you. Devlin, current law enforcement.

Devlin Barrett: Yes. Look, I think we've been able to see that there are definitely some current law enforcement folks who are if not members of Oath Keepers, then adherent supporters, fellow travelers in that sense ideologically, and certainly, formers as well. It's funny, one of the conversations I've had over the course of the last year with former FBI personnel is that the FBI has been dealing with Oath Keepers in different ways for a number of years now.

I think as much as it is true that there is this military law enforcement element to the Oath Keepers, I think that is part of their public image in a way that doesn't act-- there's a lot of Oath Keepers who just don't have any military or law enforcement connection but who enjoy dressing up in the camo fatigues and the gear and talking about the right to bear arms. It is very much true that Oath Keepers has a current law enforcement and military element to it, a former element to it. There's also just a lot of Oath Keepers who are just into that lifestyle, I guess, is the kindest way I could say.

Brian Lehrer: I guess it certainly presents a dilemma, and every police force, I guess, has to make a determination for itself, what is appropriate with respect to keeping people on the force who are also members of the Oath Keepers if the Oath Keepers are a group that are seen as-- I know they try to straddle this line from their own perspective where they say they're there in support of law enforcement, but then really, if they're the ones breaking the law or they don't like the law the way it's being executed, like installing President Biden as president after he was elected, then they become lawbreakers at least allegedly. Do you want people like that on a police force? Should Oath Keepers membership be a disqualifier for somebody staying on a police force? I don't expect you to answer that question. Maybe that's a question that forces have to answer.

Devlin Barrett: Oh, yes. I think you've seen different police forces struggle with that since January 6th because, obviously, there was a fair number of law enforcement personnel off duty in that crowd, and some of them were charged with crimes. Some of them were in that crowd and were not charged with crimes, and as far as we know, did not commit any crimes, but this is something that police departments have been wrestling with since, I think, one or two days right after January 6th.

Brian Lehrer: I see the Oath Keepers described in the press largely as an antigovernment extremist group with the membership we've been talking about, but that description is antigovernment. The tag white nationalist more gets attributed to the proud boys and others. What would you say motivates the Oath Keepers fundamentally, and how much does race appear to have to do with it? I do note that Rhodes founded the group in 2009 from what I've read, which coincidentally was when President Obama was sworn into office.

Devlin Barrett: Right. I think one of the things you have to be careful of when you talk about the far-right extremist groups is there are not a lot of absolute hard lines and definitions for a lot of these folks. If you think about the Oath keepers themselves, while they present themselves as very militaristic and hierarchical, they're a fairly fractious bunch of human beings. It's not like Stewart Rhodes gives an order and everyone hops to and does what he says. There's plenty of evidence to show that, in some ways, you should think of this as an affiliate of a bunch of state chapters of these guys and Rhodes is like the spiritual ideological deep thinker, if you want to call it that, of the group, but they're not in lockstep with each other by any means.

I think when I talk about the Oath Keepers in my conversations with Oath Keepers and people who've investigated them, I think what comes across is, there is a big element of a belief that the country is falling apart, and that falling apart is inevitable. It's very apocalyptic, very the end is near kind of stuff, and it's very, like I said, very attuned to prepper culture, frankly.

Out of that, they come up with a bunch of other arguments, which is people need to arm up, people need to get active in securing important parts of society, up to and including securing their own homes from this notion of marauding bands of criminals. It's a very, I would say, almost cartoonish notion of a law and order ideology. I think that certainly has racial overtones, but I would not say that that is the primary driver of what these guys seem to care the most about. I think what they seem to really be most focused on a belief that the government is fundamentally corrupt and out to get them and they have to fight back.

Brian Lehrer: This is WNYC FM HD and AM New York, WNJT FM 88.1 Trenton, WNJP 88.5 Sussex, WNJY 89.3 Netcong, and WNGO 90.3 Toms River. We are a New York and New Jersey Public Radio, few more minutes with Devlin Barrett, Washington Post law enforcement and national security correspondent, on the first sedition charges, seditious conspiracy in connection with January 6th, issued yesterday against Stewart Rhodes, leader of the group Oath Keepers, and 10 other alleged members. On what we were just talking about, Paula Whitney in Crown Heights, you're on WNYC, thank you so much for calling in today.

Paula Whitney: Brian, good morning. Mr. Devlin, thank you very much for calling on me. I'm trying not to be too emotional, but clearly, this is an emotional topic. I am a lawyer. I'm a tenured college administrator, I have three degrees, I make nearly six figures. I do very well for myself. I'm African, Caribbean, American, and I'm dark skinned. That's not true among lots of my brothers and sisters. My query is very simple. It's a five-part question. What do white folks want? What do this guy who was indicted on sedition charges, what do you want? You control everything. You can sell industry, the art, government, what do you want?

This weekend, I'm teaching a hard plot PowerPoint presentation on the dividends, and stocks, and bonds. Every African person I meet, what is dividends, stocks, and bonds? "I don't know." I'm going to put an end to that vagueness or ignorance. You control other things. Brookings institution, net worth gaps. In 2016, white families were nearly 10 times the net worth of Black families. The income gap, this is a little bit tricky, but while whites and Blacks may earn the same amount of income, whites are better off because then Black they have prior income and hindrances, and finally, the homeownership gap. In 2016, there was a 30 points gap between the two groups. What's going on? You have everything, white supremacy. I'm done. Thank you for taking my call.

Brian Lehrer: [chuckles] Paula Whitney, thank you very much. We've talked about a lot of those stats on the show recently. I think there's even more of an income, meaning current annual income disparity between whites and Blacks than she says, but that wealth disparity, 10 to 1, is well documented.

When you look at Oath Keepers, or Proud Boys, or any of-- well, a lot of the right-wing, they don't even have to be January 6th insurrectionists or conspiracy theorists, but a lot of right-wing thought in America, it is white people thinking that they are the ones being disadvantaged. We get callers like Paula Whitney saying, what do white folks want? I don't expect you to answer that, Devlin. To finish the point on the Oath Keepers in race, do the demographic makeup of that group?

Devlin Barrett: I know that they're overwhelmingly white. I also know that, for example, one of Stewart Rhodes' most senior advisors and aides within Oath Keepers is a Black former police officer. Like I said, I think race and the idea of who's on top in society is a very, very big part of Oath Keepers' worldview, especially the notion that the country is collapsing, but I don't think it's absolute. I don't think it's necessarily neatly defined, because so much of what the Oath Keepers talk about is the end of civilization, and that's a category unto itself, to be honest.

Brian Lehrer: Stewart Rhodes, I see, went to Yale Law School and served as an army paratrooper before founding the Oath Keepers and feeling so oppressed. Last thing, your article reminds us that around 700 people have been charged so far with some kind of crime related to the riot. Officials are seeking another 200. Are 200 people fugitives from justice around January 6th right now?

Devlin Barrett: Sort of, in the sense that they're wanted, but not in the sense that there have been identified and the FBI is trying to hunt down Bill Smith. If they have a name to these images, they can usually find and arrest that person. Look, at the end of the day, you're going to have well north of 1,000 people charged or facing charges as a result of January 6th. That's an incredible number. I've never seen a case like that in terms of number of defendants, just departments ever had a case like that in terms of the number of defendants. I think the legal work, the gears of the criminal justice system are going to spend years processing all of those cases.

Brian Lehrer: Devlin Barrett covers law enforcement and national security for The Washington Post, two beats that definitely intersect when we're talking about the Oath Keepers. Devlin, thank you so much.

Devlin Barrett: Thank you, Brian.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.