Days after an Oath Keeper Event with Roger Stone, Kelly Meggs Described Having “Organized an Alliance” with the Proud Boys

I had been waiting for the moment when DOJ would unveil some of the Facebook content that Graydon Young attempted to delete when he shut down Facebook on January 7. I had similarly been waiting to see how DOJ rolled out Roger Stone as a key pivot between the Florida Oath Keepers (which Kelly Meggs led, and which Stone bodyguards Roberta Minuta and Joshua James were part of) and the Proud Boys (whose key leaders Enrique Tarrio and Joe Biggs live in Florida).

Overnight, in its response to Meggs’ attempt to get bail, the government did both. Ostensibly, they did so to show that Meggs’ interview with the FBI had not been entirely truthful about (among other things) being in DC to protect the cops and vetting Oath Keeper members.

On the first point, yes, Defendant Meggs made a statement to the FBI in the hours following his arrest. But that fact was known at the time of Defendant Meggs’s first detention hearing, and, regardless, simply speaking with law enforcement does not mean that a person is not a danger. This is especially so when some of the statements Defendant Meggs made to the FBI appear to be in conflict with the evidence.


This sentiment appears in conflict with Defendant Meggs’s allegation in his motion (and what he stated to the FBI upon his arrest) that he was at the Capitol to help “protect” police officers. (ECF 82 at ¶ 15.)


On the evening of January 3, 2021, co-defendant Steele sent an email to Defendant Meggs’s email account at Proton Mail,8 copying co-defendant Young. Steele attached her application and vetting form, and wrote: “My brother, Graydon Young told me to send the application to you so I can be verified for the Events this coming Tuesday and Wednesday.” Defendant Meggs appears to have provided instructions to co-defendant Steele, because the following day (January 4), Steele again sent her application and vetting form to another Oath Keepers email address at Proton Mail. On her email, she copied Defendant Meggs. In contrast to this evidence, Defendant Meggs inexplicably told the FBI that “the only person I’ve ever vetted” was a man six months earlier. Interview Tr. at 28-29.

In a filing that revealed details of Meggs’ Facebook, Signal, ProtonMail, and GoToMeeting use, it described Meggs writing on December 19 — five days after his wife and Young did “security” for Roger Stone at a Stop the Steal rally, evidence of which the government presented (the picture below) in their response to Meggs’ wife’s bid for bond — that he had “organized an alliance between the Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys” to “shut this shit down.”

On December 26, Meggs called this insurrection (albeit in response to Trump’s order) explicitly.

On Christmas, Meggs specifically tied protection, almost certainly of Stone, and coordination with a Proud Boy, almost certainly Tarrio, in the same text.

DOJ included some (not all though: there was one called ““florida dc op planning chat” they don’t seem to have included) of the planning meetings on GoToMeeting.

A week ago, DOJ was content to prove that Connie Meggs’ claims that she didn’t know any of these people by introducing the picture where she and Graydon Young posed with Stone on December 14.

And Defendant Meggs obviously was acquainted with other members of the Oath Keepers group who stormed the Capitol with her on January 6; the photo below, which was shared on Facebook on December 15, 2020, shows Defendant Meggs (red oval) posing at a book signing with several other individuals, including co-defendant Graydon Young (green oval):

Yesterday, prosecutors in this case had to get chewed out because former Acting US Attorney Michael Sherwin blabbed his mouth (completely inappropriately) on 60 Minutes, discussing what at that point had been merely a suggestion, that DOJ’s conspiracy case would integrate three different militia groups.

And the bulk of those cases are federal criminal charges, and significant federal felony charges. Five, 10, 20-year penalties. Of those 400 cases, the majority of those, 80, 85%, maybe even 90, you have individuals, both inside and outside the Capitol, that breached the Capitol, trespassed. You also have individuals, roughly over 100, that we’ve charged with assaulting federal officers and local police officers. The 10% of the cases,  I’ll call the more complex conspiracy cases where we do have evidence, it’s in the public record where individual militia groups from different facets: Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, Proud Boys, did have a plan. We don’t know what the full plan is, to come to D.C., organize, and breach the Capitol in some manner.

By the end of the day (having had their secret blown), DOJ showed that not only had the guy in charge of the Stack been thinking in terms of “insurrection” for over a week, but was also thinking about coordinated action among the different militia.

There’s still a problem with this conspiracy, as constructed. The Oath Keepers had a plan — which DOJ has now presented evidence they coordinated with two other militia groups. But the plan wasn’t limited to preventing vote certification (in part, because when they traveled to DC, they still believed that Trump or Mike Pence might make such an action unnecessary). The plan was insurrection.

But that only makes it more likely DOJ will be forced to charge it as such.

233 replies
  1. Peterr says:

    I’m increasingly curious about this whole “providing ‘security’ for Roger Stone” thing. Who/what, exactly, is the danger?

    Snarkily, I can see them protecting Stone’s ego, all while building up their own. Less snarkily, in the context of this post, it sounds like they want to be seen as a pseudo-Secret Service for someone whose importance is expected to rise after the Insurrection has succeeded.

    If there is anyone from these groups who is cooperating, prosecutors might want to probe this a bit . . .

    How were “security” personnel chosen?
    Did they have any particular training?
    What, exactly, was their task?
    Were they given any intelligence briefings before any given day/mission (“today we expect problems from . . .” or “we’ll be going here and need you to watch out for . . .”)?

    If these folks were simply bouncers who volunteered to make Stone look important (Oooooh! He has security!), that’s one thing. But if there was more thought given to who did security, how they were trained, and what kind of specific directions they were given each day, that’s something else entirely.

    • skua says:

      Richard Spencer, American neo-nazi/white nationalist, was giving an interview in public when someone punched him in the head.
      https://[LINK BREAK}
      Not everyone who rejects trumpism also rejects violence against people like Richard Spencer or, presumably, Roger Stone.

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          I remember that…

          And indeed, it was a glorious moment…

          Richard Spencer, the Gregory Marmalard of contemporary, ‘identitarian’ politics…

        • skua says:

          The Proudboys also glorify violence.
          Here is Nordean’s punch that they glorify.
          https://[link break]
          Feelings in general are not a reliable guide to effective action. GW’s feelings of being insulted by 9/11 and deciding to kick some butt have given us +2,000,000 dead Iraqis, ISIS, Russia in Syria, and Trump. Pretty sure GW didn’t plan on causing that.

        • LeeNLP says:

          Sorry for the late response. I just wanted to say that the whole Middle East debacle that started with the 911 attack wasn’t just a consequence of Bush’s bad judgement. There were people spring loaded and waiting for their Pearl Harbor moment to bring about lasting geopolitical changes in the Middle East. It wasn’t a “crime of passion” at all.

        • skua says:

          The neocons had neither sound reasoning nor grounding in M.E. reality behind them. I can see it not being GW’s passion alone.

      • Missing says:

        My father traveled across an ocean to do worse to Nazis. Pardon me for my lack of sympathy at him getting punched.

    • Rita says:

      Stone paid these people for providing security. I believe Jessica Watkins received $1,500 for Jan. 5th and 6th. So it could be a way of siphoning money from the Trump Campaign to Stone to the Insurrectionists. Also it would allow them to be able to overhear conversations between Stone and Trump in which they could figure out what Trump wanted without having to issue direct orders.

      Just my guess, at this point.

    • harpie says:

      — How were they paid?
      It looks to me as if some of them may have been paid by government pandemic loans.
      Congress Helped Their Businesses During the Pandemic. Then They Attacked the Capitol.
      Some of the most high-profile insurrectionists—facing the most serious charges—are people who received government loans during the pandemic.
      Matt Fuller Updated Mar. 23, 2021 9:33AM

      • harpie says:

        Collectively, these business owners took in more than $227,000 from three small business relief initiatives

        The people listed in this article:

        Brandon STRAKA, Dominic PEZZOLA, Julian KHATER, Scott FAIRLAMB, Paul WESTOVER, Richard “Bigo” BARNETT, Roberto MINUTA, Troy FAULKNER, Edward HEMENWAY

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      My first thought is that “providing security” is an excuse for close and repeated contact with Stone. That does two things. First, it creates the impression that Stone is a victim, who needs a phalanx of armed thugs. At the same time, it portrays him as invincible, which inflates everyone’s ego, a necessary feel-good Stone needs to associate with raw violence. It’s right out of the fascist playbook.

      Second, it hides coordination involving Stone, his thugs, and his patrons, notably Donald Trump. Stone is a lifelong high-level dirty trickster. The first thing he would have learned is to use patsies and cut-outs. They disguise his and his patrons’ conduct – and make it harder for prosecutors to prove his and their roles in embarrassing or illegal activity.

      • dude says:

        “Second, it hides coordination involving Stone, his thugs, and his patrons, notably Donald Trump”

        I’d put this down as first.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          In importance, yes. But before the play begins, one must set the stage. A propaganda addict like Stone would be well-versed in that.

          Like Karl Rove, Roger Stone has closely studied the meeting dynamics and theater assocated with the early Nazi movement. The most obvious thing missing from January 6th was the brown shirts.

        • Fran of the North says:

          Brown shirts have been replaced by black and yellow. But orders for the 6th were to avoid the colors, the better to blend in with the rest of the crowd.

          Even more insidious.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          On Proud Boy gang colors: did no one tell Mo Brooks about the Insurrection playbook? He gave a speech on 6 Jan* dressed in blinding black and yellow, yelling Big Lie talking points and waving his arms around. Operating on the baby-boomer-grandad fashion principle that black and yellow worn together would scare the neighbors, Brooks’s garb cannot have been an accident. It was code.
          *It might have been the night before, 5 January; I can’t tell from the video.

        • Leoghann says:

          I am deeply shocked at your negative characterization of boomer attire. Representative Brooks was no doubt proclaiming his affinity with the Killer Bees.

        • John Lehman says:

          ..and let’s not forget what happened to the Brownshirts when their usefulness expired..
          .”alas poor Röhm I knew him well”…

          ..though he (Röhm) was not quite….” a man of infinite jest”.

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          Uh… yes… to all the above…

          As far as blending in on the 6th w/ the greater mass of yahoos, I did see something rather convincing about some individuals wearing orange tape on hats and shoulders…

        • Fran of the North says:

          Indeed. But that was internal signaling among themselves, not to message to the masses. Probably even more important as the numbers of domestic terroristic organizations joined the insurrection.

          Sort of like the black and white ‘Invasion stripes’ that all of the allies painted on their aircraft for D-Day. Allows for quick affirmation of friend or foe status in the midst of chaotic events.

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          Yeah, that’s what I thought watching the video footage I saw… if you weren’t on the lookout for the orange tape, it was easy to overlook it but if you knew what to watch for, it seemed that it made it quite a bit easier to keep track of individuals in such a disorganized mess…

          Sure looked like proof of planning to me…

      • Savage Librarian says:

        Speaking of patrons:

        “Rebekah Mercer Raised Specter of “Armed Conflict” in 2019 Book” – Matthew Cunningham-Cook, 1/27/21

        “The billionaire heir has been financing a host of right-wing individuals and groups involved in the storming of the Capitol.”
        “The Mercers also own a firearms company, Centre Firearms Co., with a warehouse in Queens, New York, that includes “an Mk 19 belt-fed grenade launcher, capable of hurling 60 explosives per minute.”

  2. Frank Anon says:

    Has there been any consideration that the arrest of Tarrio may have been a protective measure by federal handlers, to give him a plausible reason to not be at the Capitol? The arrest seemed too easy, anyone can drive into the District easily undetected from MD or VA. I wondered if the revealed cooperation with the feds from prior years may have carried over?

    • emptywheel says:

      Many, perhaps most, people think that. I’m not persuaded yet, though. Why bring a magazine to DC and get busted for possession?

      • Lady4Real says:

        Somebody had to have the guns for those magazines? Tarrio appears to be setting people up with that arrest move and possession of the magazines being a felon, common sense would have you not possessing prohibited contraband; however, were you setting someone up…then it makes sense. I think the full picture of his cooperation will come at trial. I also believe he probably knows who the bomber was and will be collecting that cash reward.

      • Leoghann says:

        Isn’t it possible that there was already a weapons and ammunition cache in the District? Especially considering what has come out about the length of time some of this has been planned.

  3. PeterS says:

    In the Christmas day antifa text, Meggs talks about “at night”. Would that be that the night of the 5th?

    In the alliance text, Meggs mentions rioters and says they’ll “shut this shit down”. Do we know if the “shit” is e.g. antifa or certification or what?

    In the insurrection exchange, Trump was to invoke the Insurrection Act “next week” (w/c 28 Dec?) and then they would  be in DC on the 6th “to insurrection”. I don’t pretend to understand how these people’s minds work; the NG would stand aside and let all the insurrectionist groups walk into the Capitol?

    (I haven’t read the background documents so may well have missed something)

    • Rita says:

      It sounds like they had contingency plans for dealing with antifa, with the possible declaration of martial law by Trump, or delaying the Certification by creating chaos in DC.

      When the groups that normally would engage with the Proud Boys and others decided not to engage, they removed one of the underpinnings of the extremists’ reason for being in D.C. Sometimes the best battles are those not fought on the battlefield.

      • madwand says:

        And antifa never arrived and the bombs never went off and the right went out of their mind, and then they called it off, but it was clear to every observer that it was the right wing groups , PBs OKs, 3%rs that were doing the assaults and the damage. No amount of revisionist history will change the images saw that day.

        Too bad about Sherwin, but its obvious he’s working for the other guys. A short note about veterans involved, there is a bill advocating that if they participated in the insurrection, they might get their benefits pulled. If that happens look for further grievances by the party of grievances.

      • earthworm says:

        replying to Rita:
        the constant references to “antifa” are like either a codeword, or a cover-your-tracks disinformation.
        These insurrectionists knew perfectly well there was no antifa activity planned. they were creating the rationale for their converging on the capital

        • bmaz says:

          Y’all know there is no such real organized thing as “antifa”, right? It is a codeword for BLM and anybody that would support them. Pretending that such a thing exists as insurrectionists and the GOP uses it in their rants plays into their false and bigoted framing. Don’t play into it. When people whine about “antifa”, they should be laughed at.

        • Knox Bronson says:

          As I mentioned before, my dumb-ass second cousin got busted for being inside the capitol on the 6th. He’s been running with biker gangs, etc., his whole stupid life. His story is that he was in there stopping violence and thefts and was there to fight the “Antifa.” I don’t believe a word of it, but it seems to be what a lot of the insurrectionists are floating as a possible defense/justification.

        • Silly but True says:

          People lose sight that “antifa” is just modern version of loosely-organized cell-structured traditional black bloc anarchist rioters mostly focused on left wing causes, who came into public consciousness as anti WTO rioters in late 1990s through 00s. There is much intersectionality with the causes of the rioting 20 years ago, but younger generation has picked up new causes like BLM, and new tricks like the milkcrete and poo bombs.

          Rabble-rousing tankies have been a mainstay of the radical left movements since even before 1960s civil rights riots. “Antifa” is just the modern contemporary sexy buzzward for today’s Starbuck’s window breakers. In 1999 Seattle, it was just “anarchists” covering the same kind of people.

        • Fran of the North says:

          Slinging that type of unsubstantiated garbage may work elsewhere, but in our little corner of the interwebs. Either you bring it with references, or you don’t bother typing.

          Not sure I’ve seen you around here before, so this might be an honest mistake, or something more combative. My guess is that one of our distinguished mods will have one or more things to say, and they probably won’t be as civil as I am.

        • P J Evans says:

          This one has been here off and on for a while, and bmaz has jumped on their less-reality-connected comments.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Too much Faux Noise. Breaking coffee shop windows is a pattern of the right, often falsely attributed by it to the left. Seattle in 1999 was about protesting environmental degradation and the WTO. The right and the MSM made up a lot of crap about who broke what.

        • Doug Fir says:

          For what it’s worth: A friend of mine was a free lance, left wing rioter in the 60s & 70s.

          He and his “colleagues” would travel from one demonstration to the next. Confronting and fighting LE was the main MO. No organizing, just loose affiliations and “cells” of friends/compatriots. There was excitment, incitment, comradery.

          IIRC he also spoke of the need to push boundaries in order to create the space where non-violent, progressive political actions could be seen as palpable and might take root. My friend was also a righteous adrenaline junky who wanted to “bring it to the man”.

          Sorry I have no documentary evidence, just old stories.

        • Silly but True says:

          We all do. Beware those who want to erase their sacrifice and gaslight their existence. They’re not interested in quickly tearing down unjust experiences in our society.

        • timbo says:

          Some or all of the folks from BAMN are generally who might be considered “Antifa” here in the SF Bay Area…

          I have heard a small number of these folks refer to themselves as the “vanguard of anti-fa”. Whether they constitute an organized group beyond the Bay Area is not known to me, although it is possible that they have coordinated their activities with activists in places like Portland, etc. Their origin as an “anti-fa” movement seems to have gelled in the Occupy protest period, during the middle and end of Obama’s first term in office. As with all groups like this, there are likely to be all manner of left wing zealots and other organizations and individuals involved with all sorts of different agendas. Suffice to say that BAMN protest activists do demonstrate a type of discipline that would indicate that they take their rabble-rousing seriously. Certainly the “anti-fa” part is a rallying cry to unite around an agreed upon common cause.

        • bmaz says:

          Good job playing into, and furthering, the GOP’s duplicitous bullshit. Be proud. You and the few left at the eviscerated Newsweek should be proud for promoting a complete fraud.

        • timbo says:

          Or I could just go to a right wing Yiannopoulos rally in Berkeley and see who else shows up… possibly more than once even.

          It’s true that Trump and the extreme right has turned “Antifa” into a pejorative, much as it has “socialist!” and “communist!”, etc, as mentioned before. The fact that some framework does exist for street action by forces (in the Bay Area anyways) who identify politically as “Antifa” doesn’t instantly make me part of any big conspiracy, nor does it instantly make me a dupe.

        • PeterS says:

          How can you be sure what these irrational people were thinking? It looks from different messages as if BLM and the antifa chimera were part of their fantastical vision of what would transpire on 5/6 January.

        • Krisy Gosney says:

          My thought when I read that about “antifa,” I felt like it was a routine thing to add in to tell themselves they are the good guys even though they are planning something bad, it’s “antifa” who is bad and they are righteous, they fight “antifa.”

        • timbo says:

          Well, it makes sense that fascists would try to blame “anti-fa”… It’s also unsettling that so many folks have come to identify with being anti-anti-fascist.

    • harpie says:

      Just a note about a late correction of this entry:
      11/14/20 [Million MAGA March]
      OATH KEEPER MINUTA was photographed with PROUD BOY PEZZOLA.
      PROUD BOY leader TARRIO posted that pic on Parler, and MINUTA replied.

      That photo was taken at the 12/12/20 MAGA Rally, SO, the entry should read:

      12/12/20 [Million MAGA March]
      OATH KEEPER MINUTA was photographed with PROUD BOY PEZZOLA. PROUD BOY leader TARRIO posted that pic on Parler, and MINUTA replied, approx. 12/19

      12/19/20 [approx] Parler conversation between PB TARRIO and OK MINUTA about 12/12/20 PHOTO of PEZZOLA and MINUTA

      >>> This shows PB TARRIO connecting PB’s with OK’s on [approx] 12/19/20.

      • harpie says:

        12/19 is the day MEGGS wrote, at 12:22 PM:

        Author Kelly Meggs (Facebook: 1517304829)
        Sent 2020-12-19 15:22:53 UTC
        Body Well we are ready for the rioters, this week I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys. We have decided to work together and shut this shit down

        • J R in WVj says:

          Nothing like defining the conspiracy in the conspirator’s own words, right!?!!?!!!

          Go on: Make it easy for the prosecution to show there was an organized conspiracy among all these groups of anti-American fascists. Spell it out right in your own words!

      • harpie says:

        Here’s a screenshot of that photo Tarrio called” Lords of War” / TARRIO-MINUTA conversation on Parler
        [Remember Triebert corrects the date for the photo in the thread from 11/14 to 12/12]: [scroll down a bit]

        I think the photo was originally from WaPo, but it seems to be altered here to make it [imo] more “glorified war” / almost videogame-like…don’t know how to say what I’m trying to say.

      • JAMES SCAMINACI says:

        I looked at the Washingtonian pictures. Thanks for that link. There is a photo of Robert MINUTA walking behind and to the left of Michael FLYNN, as if he is doing some personal security. He’s pretty close to him.

        • bmaz says:

          OMG, two humans were in the same proximity? My gawd, that MUST have some criminal implications huh?

        • timbo says:

          It does make it more likely…

          What irks me is all the reliance on pictures and videos to somehow come to some conclusion that there might be a real conspiracy. In the good old days, before there was photos and videos, actual investigative work involved getting sworn testimony from participants in events at which they were observed to be co-temporal geographically. Nowadays, the corrupt won’t even acknowledge that there might be some criminal intent >unless< they're caught with a video explaining how they are stealing cookies from the cookie jar while they steal cookies from the cookie jar. And then they'll claim that it wasn't themselves but "Antifa!" that is to blame.

          Possible guilt by association can no longer be used as a predicate to question folks any longer? It's very odd. Obviously, if Mike claims that he doesn't know the guy, under oath in a deposition, then that should end the question, correct? :D

        • bmaz says:

          Yes. I think there ought be a hell of a lot more than that, even for a nominal release determination.

    • harpie says:

      Someone else I don’t want to forget in regard to possible coordination…FLYNN:

      12/16/20 THREE PERCENTERs [National] say they “stand ready and [are] standing by” “to answer the call from our President” and they “are ready to enter into battle with General FLYNN leading the charge.”

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Absolutely–FLYNN was out there in right-wing land all through December stirring up trouble with speeches and op-eds. I have wondered since what his role was behind the scenes, especially given his brother’s role, and especially *especially* given the lying about his brother’s role.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          I can’t imagine C. Flynn having any “lone wolf” role–not in a command group that included Kash Patel, among other allegedly like-minded power players. The simple fact that the initial official statement outright lied about his (Gen. Flynn’s) participation demonstrates that others were involved, if not in the planning and execution, then in the cover-up.

        • Leoghann says:

          That would be Kash Lee Kelly, who blew a pretty good plea deal on a drug charge by joining in the insurrection. Would only Kash Patel also be sentenced to four years in prison, to begin immediately.

        • PeterS says:

          I’m not going to argue my point further, but to complete my understanding are you sure it was an official statement that “outright lied” about C. Flynn’s participation? I thought there was an off-the-record comment and then a list of participants on the call which didn’t mention Flynn. I’m not clear if Flynn actually “participated” or not, though I gather he wasn’t in the chain of command.

    • harpie says:

      According to the first superseding indictment,
      K. MEGGS wrote [“in relevant part”] on FB:

      12/25/20 K. MEGGS: “I was named State lead of Florida today.”

      WHO gave him that title/role?

      • Fran of the North says:

        Equally important in my mind is the precise meaning of ‘state lead’. Above, EW indicates that Meggs led Florida for the OKs, but unless that had changed on or about Xmas, why would he need to declare it in a FB post?

        I’m wondering if the statement actually meant that he had been assigned as the lead for all groups (OK, PB, 3%, other) in FL. If so, then the capo di tutti capo was probably the one that made that determination. Flynn or another individual with serious rank would be my best guess.

        • Leoghann says:

          He had previously been a defacto leader, by way of his being willing to do some actual work toward organizing a very loose group. His boast indicated that someone he assumed to have the authority to do so, had named him a leader.

        • FL Resister says:

          Obama warned Trump that Flynn was an outlier.
          And there was Michael (WTF is going on) Flynn, in the midst of the Big Lie, proposing martial law after Trump had stacked Pentagon leadership.

          As a layperson, learning Michael Flynn’s brother is on the phone during a plea for help from the Capitol and says, ‘I don’t think so.’ rings alarm bells for me. Too many connections to ignore.

        • PeterS says:

          A lay person can still look into what power the brother had, and his background. I’m not exactly sure what he is accused of, apart from sharing genes. “Too many connections to ignore” is exactly what I hear from my truther friend. I haven’t seen enough evidence to condemn C Flynn, but I may have missed something.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Did you miss that Major General William Walker of the DC National Guard testified to members of the Senate that Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn was on the call expressing his view that sending the NG would be bad for optics?

          What is it about that official report that you cannot accept?

        • PeterS says:

          General Walker testified that he found it “unusual” that optics weren’t considered in summer 2020. I took that to mean he thought optics should always be considered before the NG is deployed against civilians.

          “Optics” is probably not a good word to use in this context, and I am certainly not defending the response on January 6.

          P.S. if anyone can explain the significance of the confirmation of C Flynn’s promotion by “voice vote” in the Senate (last December I think), I’d be grateful.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          To quote the PeterS reply (below) on March 24, 2021 at 10:29 pm to timbo’s (9:24 pm) comment:

          “Spare me this crap.” If C. Flynn can’t determine when to take action, he certainly should not be in a leadership position. Your obsession with objections to the Flynn sibling connections almost seems personal, and feels like an unsuspecting trail of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of someone’s shoe.

        • PeterS says:

          I don’t understand your comment (apart from the insults). As far as I know, C Flynn was not in the chain of command. And I’ve seen no suggestion that C Flynn lied. So we seem to have either a) a clumsy breakdown in communications, or b) a conspiracy involving C Flynn, whoever briefed the press, the others on the call or in the room, and I assume M Flynn. Wanting more evidence before I go with b) is hardly “personal”.

          I suspect that the testimony I mention above didn’t get much attention because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Remind me, what exactly is C Flynn suspected of doing?

        • Eureka says:

          You’re the one perseverating about that voice vote, and you’ve posted more details about it before. How about you just tell us what you want to prove/ moderate / control by citing it.

  4. Amers says:

    So the over arching plan was for Trump to be able to declare there was an insurrection underway, and that would enable him to keep hold the reigns long enough for the next act…?

    • BobCon says:

      I think there were a variety of “plans” floating around, and Trump using the military was one of them, although outside players were working overtime to prevent it. The joint statement on 1/3 warning against military involvement that was issued by former DOD secretaries, including Cheney, shows how seriously concerned a lot of people were.

      I think it is possible by 1/6 the conspirators knew the military would not play along, and the plan may have been changed at that point to try to ensure the National Guard was not deployed in a timely fashion, attack the Capitol, seize key officials, and see what happened.

      I think it ended up a modern right wing crazy parallel to John Brown’s seizure of the Harper’s Ferry armory, a mix of intense narrow tactical planning and messianic pie in the sky aspirations, along with a more practical eye toward cementing long term divisions which could lead to a more serious conflict down the road.

      • David Anderson says:

        I think that is plausible — either hold a lot of hostages and kill half a dozen House Democrats and all of a sudden the GOP has a bare majority in both chambers and everyone is scared shitless of the mob and the challenges to PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ and GA electoral votes are all tossed on party line votes and voila, Trump is “re-elected”

      • John Lehman says:

        John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave.

        …the abolitionists’ fanaticism was one hell of a lot more noble than a bunch of cosplaying wannabes…

      • timbo says:

        Trump certainly is the type of person that likes to see what happens rather than make hard decisions. In this case, according to some of his inner circle at the White House, there was concern about “outside” folks giving Trump “crazy advice” from December onwards (if not before that). I suspect though that plenty of those leaked stories are about giving cover to Trump and his sons when it comes to trying to gin up an insurrection on Jan 6. Yeah, when 10 former leaders of the Defense Department and State write a forceful public statement like that, it’s definitely a sign that something is up somewhere in some military circles. Such a statement has never been issued before. After the Jan 6 uprising, the Joint Chiefs also issued a statement as well, indicating that whatever might have been going on in the military was now over. Both of these public statements are unprecedented in US history, up until January 2021 that is.

      • Judy says:

        “messianic pie in the sky aspirations”
        “then a miracle occurs”
        I think those two ideas sum up January 6th perfectly. As I watched all I could think was what do they want? what do they hope to achieve?
        It really struck home how senseless the whole thing was, when watching a group of them in the Senate and one of them says maybe we should start a government.

    • rg says:

      “able to declare an insurrection underway”
      Yes, if you put quotes around “insurrection”. I have been thinking all along that this Stop the Steal affair has been fakery, just so much theater. It permeates the hyped lingo of the “patriots”, the “saving (and taking back) our country”, and the entire con job of enlisting a mob to do so. I don’t mean that the mob was fake, but the purpose of it had an eerie feel of make believe about it all, including the selfies, and wandering about the capitol as if sightseeing, (after the engineered break-in). Your comment brought it into a sharper focus.

      • subtropolis says:

        Everything about the rally was a con. Its sole purpose was to lure thousands of credulous fuckwits to DC so that they could be incited to march on the Capitol, providing cover to the militia types and PBs. They were mostly just useful idiots. Hence why many of them appeared to not know what to do next once inside.

        That’s not to say that everyone involved in the organization of the rally was in on the plan. Many of them were likewise conned, imho. Not that they aren’t all lovers of fascism. Anyone involved with any that post-election bullshit, in any way, is a shitbag.

      • Stephen Calhoun says:

        I suppose a chain of magical thinking or web of miraculous prospective contingencies comes to the fore in trying to deconstruct the organized seditionists having no coherent baseline plan able to join their actions with those of Trump and the sedition caucus, Brooks, Hawley et al. Such a plan may surface. I’m not holding my breath.

        Trump’s delusion was that if the ritual Congressional affirmation could be slowed down, (if not more grievously disrupted,) he could work the phones to convince GOP legislators to withdraw their prior state certifications. Trump obviously doesn’t give a whit about the Constitution.

        Flynn, for his part, thought given a state of emergency the military could conduct new elections in ‘enough’ swing states to flip the election back. The theatre of the sedition caucus, Hawley et al, is harder to figure because this group wasn’t prepared to argue swing state-by-state the bogus allegations supposing Biden had won by outright ballot fraud. Yet, their delaying the process only seems cogent if it plugs into having GOP state legislators withdraw state certifications. Such withdrawals would have violated state constitutions, (yes?)

        IANAL, but doesn’t this quickly leave the territory of the Constitution? Did ‘important’ seditionists believe taking over the Capitol was the predicate for taking over the government, and, that this all was hunky dory with their being patriots and lovers of the Constitution? Plug in here the hope that the military would collaborate. “We want to seize the government so that it can do our bidding” is frightening no matter where this goal should pop up.

        • cavenewt says:

          “Did ‘important’ seditionists believe taking over the Capitol was the predicate for taking over the government, and, that this all was hunky dory with their being patriots and lovers of the Constitution?…“We want to seize the government so that it can do our bidding” is frightening no matter where this goal should pop up.”

          Ah, but remember that so many of them were comparing themselves to revolutionaries of “1776” — that the Revolution pre-dated the Constitution is a trifling quibble. They saw a total parallel between then and now. Insurrection worked then, it should work now. Never mind the details.

    • madwand says:

      Yep they would first create the conditions, declare an emergency, and then react to the emergency they created. Same thing going on with voting, creating a claim of fraud and illegality among the base, declare there is a real problem with trust by the same base, then propose more laws disenfranchising voters from the other party. Classic overthrow

        • madwand says:

          And then the military would do the dirty work, as so happens out there in the world where these things take place on a regular basis. As has been noted even with his four appointees at the top, Trump did not control the military, basically IMHO why he didn’t succeed. But he came within a hair, had hostages been taken and the Capitol defended by armed insurgents there is no telling where it would have gone.

        • timbo says:

          Unknown. When one ventures into the realm of what might happen, one ventures into a territory in which mortality and luck may play a bigger hand than anything else.

          What seems to be clear is that the Secret Service seems to have not been compromised beyond a certain level. And that the military leaders/units, beyond the few nutters being rounded up since Jan 6, that might have participated in a sedition attempt, were not very viable…if any such larger plot existed at all.

        • PeterS says:

          Spare me this crap. Just because you can’t prove X would happen doesn’t mean it becomes impossible to set out a plausible scenario under which X happens. Unless no such plausible scenario (Trump remaining president) exists.

          (mortality plays a big hand, lol)

        • Mitch Neher says:

          But, but . . . Just because there were no plausible scenarios under which Trump would have remained president doesn’t mean that the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th had not conspired to Stop the Steal and keep Trump in office as president.

          Unless no such conspiracy existed.

        • PeterS says:

          Yes, absolutely. Though there remains a difference between the conspiracy amongst the somewhat deluded thugs who stormed the Capitol and a conspiracy headed by Trump – he had the real power.

        • madwand says:

          I perhaps am stuck in “what was the objective of all this” trap. Was it simply a protest that got out of hand, or was it an attempt to stop the congress from certifying the EC, or was it an attempt at keeping Trump in power at all cost.

          If the last, then it failed, and that is the lens I am viewing this through. I am viewing it that way because it is the most dangerous threat and understanding why it failed becomes a priority, if for no other reason than preventing if from happening again. In that I do not think we have a good handle on what stopped the insurrectionists. I do not think we have a good handle on what happened at the top in DOD. I do not think we have a good handle on QRF’s supposedly stationed within striking distance of the riot. I do not think we have a good handle on who were the intermediate handlers between Trump and the insurrectionists. But we do have a lot of speculation and I think that is good because it expands the realm of possibilities and perhaps in all that speculation will be the one reveal that makes one scenario probable.

          I’m sorry I didn’t answer you more direct up above on your Biden question, one of the answers I had considered was “you mean if he wasn’t executed.”

        • PeterS says:

          Hey, no apology needed. I think there were different objectives for different people. Semi-seriously, I could suggest that the degree to which the objectives were defined was inversely proportional to the power of people involved. Those at the bottom had a nice clear plan: stop certification, martial law happens, Biden never becomes president. At the top, Trump’s plan – starting before the election – was just chaos, chaos and more chaos. 

        • cavenewt says:

          “At the top, Trump’s plan – starting before the election – was just chaos, chaos and more chaos.”

          Money, money, and more money.

          Chaos is icing on the cake.

        • P J Evans says:

          I’m surprised none of those best people he hired ever seem to have pointed out that chaos is bad for business.

        • timbo says:

          Just like so many scenarios in other countries that the US promulgated elsewhere around the world during the Cold War…

          Yeah, people like Flynn were so used to seeing it work when the CIA did it back in the day in other countries that some of them believed they could do it here too. The difference is that here it is a lot harder to bribe military officials with suitcases of cash, promises of power, etc, “unbridled riches”, when the traditions of the US the past couple of hundred years, etc, doesn’t seem to make that seem like a good bet to US military leaders that possess half a sane brain-cell. Overthrowing moderately powerful regimes has all sorts of unforetold consequences, militarily attempting to overthrowing the US government, THE major nuclear power in the world, is not something that any sane US military leader would believe was a good idea at all. The rot in the US is just not that far enough along to involve substantial portions of the US military in such a scheme.

          But, there was some concern somewhere of some military involvement in a possible attempt at something, hence that letter of Jan 3.

        • skua says:

          From memory: Guliana was phoning Senators, as the Capitol was being invaded, trying to get them to refuse to certify the Electoral College votes. Guiliani was saying that they were close to getting enough states to get new pro-Trump Electors (who would cast votes for Trump). If this had come to fruition then there would presumably have been a new counting of Electoral College votes that would had Trump declared as number 46.
          With Trump using his Emergency Powers/the Insurrgency Act, any mass protests by anti-Trump folk could have been put down, and the organisers criminalised.
          Is this plan unworkable in theory? In practice?

        • P J Evans says:

          The EC had already voted, and there’s nothing in the Constitution that allows revoting or new electors once that’s done. There’s also nothing about re-doing elections.

        • Doug Fir says:

          A colleague of mine here in small-town-left-coast Canada fell down the Qanon related conspiracy theory rabbit hole last year.

          In December 2020 he told me that, based on what he’d read on the interwebs, he believed that the “far-right plan” for Jan 6 was to incite insurrection so that Trump could declare martial law. After that the election results would be found invalid, a new, “untainted” election held, and DJT would have his second term.

          This conspiracy was not a secret.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          I am truly sorry about your friend, Doug Fir. I assume that you are essentially quoting him when you write “the election results would be found invalid”; I assume that because those words–that very specific phrasing, with its reliance on the passive voice to avoid specifying what entity would conduct this process–echo the ones I’ve seen repeated ad nauseum on the alt-right websites and comment boards I follow. People like your friend, exhorted to “Trust The Plan,” receive these “plans” and, apparently convinced by the patina of authoritative wording (“martial law”!), fail to notice the gaps or ask the questions they raise.

          Commenters here ask what the ultimate plan was for the 6 January 21 mob. I don’t think we’ll find one. Among all these groups where leaders were asserting their leadership as a badge of identity, all the way up to the CoC, the truth was best articulated in Apocalypse Now. No one was in charge of this mess. Most were trusting a plan that boiled down to trusting the plan.

        • Leoghann says:

          In a state of denial, “trust[ing] the plan” is the only thing that works when the plan, as laid out, makes no sense.

        • Eureka says:

          I get that insisting on a “plan” and or entailments (as here) and or shepherding all comments/ topics/ conversations at this website towards your personal framing* is your kink. And to a degree not seen by my recollection since a certain paid troll showed up to similarly control the conversation post-Barr-Mueller statement.

          To this instance and others like it, by analogy: there’s an empirically-founded adage that lots of murderers spend all sorts of time planning the murder, then find themselves stunned when the have a body to deal with — disposal not so carefully considered ahead. (And that’s why they get caught, aka ultimately fail.) I think it’s fair to say that analogy applies here at multiple scales — to the insurrectionists, Trump and ilk who’d scramble to take advantage of any opportunity, Trump and ilk who’d create such opportunities (Flynn, Powell, Byrne, et al. showing up at the White House late Dec. come to mind)…

          Many of them have long flown by the seats of their pants until some ultimate success ‘arrived’ via patched-together, chained ~ malaprops of law and custom. The Michael Flynn case from start to middle-shift to finish is a great example of this, as seen through EW’s coverage. The ‘but how’ and ‘then what’ couldn’t have been known as Powell first came aboard flinging shit at the court. Any suggestions (including that _DOJ would drop the case_) would have sounded as absurdly implausible back then as do many scenarios about how (post-) 1/6 could have played out.

          *In contradistinction to some idealized ‘perfect logic’ which at times you seem to think you’re bearing in contrast to the rest of us rubes.

          Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki.
          More at Wikipedia

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Amen! And thank you, Eureka! Just the sermon I needed this Sunday morning. And now I have a word and concept to attach to the reality of what has been happening. Very helpful to cast off gaslighting.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          “What is gaslighting?”

          Medically reviewed by Marney A. White, PhD, MS— Written by Jennifer Huizen on July 14, 2020

          [A few examples on a list of] “techniques a person may use to gaslight someone include:”
          “Withholding: When someone withholds, they refuse to engage in a conversation. A person using this technique may pretend not to understand someone so that they do not have to respond to them. For example, they might say, “I do not know what you are talking about,” …
          “Denial: Denial involves a person pretending to forget events or how they occurred. They may deny having said or done something or accuse someone of making things up.”
          “Diverting: With this technique, a person changes the focus of a discussion and questions the other person’s credibility instead.”
          “According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, gaslighting occurs because someone wants to gain control over someone else….”

  5. John Paul Jones says:

    In the photo, Stone is not dressed for being anyplace other than home, and there is a book about Nixon prominent in the foreground. Are we to assume that they all met at Rog’s place for some sort of planning? Or maybe a sleepover?

    • harpie says:

      I read it was at a book signing at a book store in Florida, and that they had a fake oval office set-up for it…and yes, SL it most likely was STONE’s idea! Definitely his “style”.

    • JVO says:

      Stone uses his book signings for generating money and to support his swinging – and planning an insurrection when needed.

      • notjonathon says:

        Two questions raised by your comment:
        1) Who would be willing to swing with today’s Roger Stone?
        2) Wouldn’t it take a lethal dose of Viagra to permit Stone to be a swinger again?

    • Aimee says:

      I believe the photo was taken at a coffee shop near my house (Conservative Grounds — Largo, FL.) Roger Stone was there for a “speaking engagement.” They have the faux oval set-up.


    In a network diagram, what is the initial link between Roger Stone, Enrique Tarrio (leader of Proud Boys), and Kelly Meggs?

    We know that Stone and Tarrio are joined at the cell phone, as it were. Tarrio had the authority to run Stone’s online accounts. What brings Stone and Kelly together? And, is Stone the missing link between Tarrio and Meggs? There might be a lot more to the backstory of Kelly Meggs that we do not know. “Gator” is a good nickname for him because he seems to swim in a swamp of paramilitary groups. It will not surprise me of a III%er link shows up for Meggs.

    Wheeler’s article, “Thomas Caldwell’s ‘Storming the Castle’ Ploy Succeeds,” hits the nail on the head. I will give you some examples of Stewart Rhodes, head of Oath Keepers, talking exactly on the point that the goal, the overriding commander’s intent (Trump and Rhodes), is the overthrow of the duly elected government of President Biden.

    Some of this comes from reporting revealing Rhodes speaking in private Oath Keepers chats, so I will give the sources for verification.

    Here is Rhodes on the public Oath Keepers blog on November 10, 2020 declaring that Oath Keepers will never accept the legitimacy of a Biden presidency and will go to war against the federal government:

    “This election was stolen and this is a communist/Deep State coup, every bit as corrupt and illegitimate as what is done in third world banana republics. We must refuse to EVER recognize this as a legitimate election, and refuse to recognize Biden as a legitimate winner, and refuse to ever recognize him as the President of the United States. This election was stolen by corrupt, law-breaking Democrat partisans on the ground, and by the manipulation of the CIA created HAMMR (“Hammer”) and Scorecard programs.”

    In the same blog post, Rhodes had prefaced this refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a Biden presidency with a declaration of the forces he intended to deploy to DC to act on Trump’s orders:

    “Oath Keepers will also have some of our most skilled special warfare veterans standing by armed, just outside D.C., as an emergency QRF…. Our men will be standing by, awaiting the President’s orders to call us up as the militia.”

    Rhodes closes this blog post with advice from a “Serbian patriot”. Thus, while it is not Rhodes’ words, it is certainly sentiments Rhodes agrees with. These sentiments, in part, were:

    “They are a FOREIGN puppet government…. Police and Military aligned with the people after few hours of fist-fight. We stormed the Parliament And burned down fake state Television! WE WON!”

    DFR Lab writing at Just Security on February 10, 2021, reveals the notes an Oath Keeper took of a private members-only chat with Stewart Rhodes. [When I initially put it in the comment on the cited Wheeler article I mistakenly attributed the quote to Rhodes].

    Here is the impression Rhodes left with an Oath Keeper, November 12, 2020: ““This needs to be our version of the color revolution and we should focus on sustaining DC with replacement waves until our President is lawfully declared President again for a second term.'”

    Unicorn Riot reports on November 16, 2020 (“‘It’s Time to Start Killing the News Media Live on Air’: Oath Keepers Private Chats Show Increased Desire for Post-Election Violence”) regarding a private members-only call Stewart Rhodes had with Oath Keepers leaders or members (it is unclear which) on November 13, 2020, one day before the first “Million MAGA March”:

    “Rhodes continued that ‘[Trump] has a responsibility and duty to suppress that insurrection repel the invasion of the communist Chinese and all their allies [snip] I’m telling you straight up, guys, if he doesn’t drop the hammer on this communist insurrection, we are going to end up fighting a bloody civil war in this country to defeat them. Horrific. More of us are going to die.’
    ‘I think regardless that’s going to happen,’ a member offered.
    ‘Well, sure,’ Rhodes said. ‘But it’s better to fight it while he’s Commander-in-Chief. We’re not going to get out of this without a fight, that’s a friggin’ fact.'”

    Person One (Stewart Rhodes) on a Signal chat, probably on January 3, 2021, according to the government’s filing (page 10) opposed to Caldwell being released:

    “‘We will have several well equipped QRFs outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting outside in case of worst case scenarios.'”

    Stewart Rhodes on Sam Bushman’s Liberty Roundtable internet radio show on January 5, 2021, one day before the insurrection:

    “So, the system from top to bottom and all the branches have been taken over by enemies foreign and domestic. And that is just the reality. [snip] And all the agencies and all the branches, the Chinese have sent money to buy these soulless politicians who only care about political power and money. That’s where we are at. [snip] We are dealing with a total war by a foreign power that is using domestic puppets that are trampling on the people’s rights. [snip] We have no representation in this government because it is stolen, just as they had no representation in Parliament. So, we are being terrorized, our rights are being violated, without the consent of the governed.'”

    Rhodes has been consistent in public Oath Keepers blogs, public internet radio shows, members-only private Oath Keepers chats, and a Signal chat with Oath Keepers leaders involved in the planning of the “DC op.”

    The consistent message is that the only legitimate government in the United States is one headed by Trump. A Biden administration is illegitimate because it is a “puppet” of the Chinese communists. So-called “patriots” must fight to keep their freedom and restore their rights. To that end, Rhodes had planned for several “well equipped” Oath Keeper Quick Reaction Forces to be in DC and had been informed, perhaps by Kelly Meggs who had put together an alliance with Proud Boys, that more QRFs would be standing by.

    Stopping the electoral vote count was one means to an end. As Wheeler correctly noted: “The real goal, after all, was to overthrow the democratic system, and impeding the vote count was just one means to achieve that conspiracy. The conspiring that started even before the election was about overthrowing democracy, not just January 6. [snip] [T]he real goal of the conspiracy [snip] was to do whatever it took to prevent the lawfully elected President from taking power.”

    Rhodes’ words and presumably actions are entirely consistent with Wheeler’s assessment.

    • rg says:

      I don’t want to leave the impression that my reply to Amers ar 12:24 should be a negation of anything stated in this cogently-put summary of events that are not theater (at least not entirely). I know a man who was trained in the army to be a sniper. He said he was trained to be ready to attack at a moments notice and carry out his mission flawlessly… but only when given the go-command. He said they were regarded as attack dogs straining at their leash to be allowed to perform their violence with impunity. We’ve all read accounts of soldiers committing outrageous violence, and unable satisfactorily returning to a peaceful civilian life, seeming to long for the opportunity to again slip the leash and… just GO. All it takes is for someone to assume the authority and direct them to some goal (even if a fantasy one, such as engaging in a “civil war”).

      • timbo says:

        Uh, what? PTSD is a real thing in the military. Don’t make light of it with this sort of speculative armchair garbage.

        The US military takes average people (or these days average volunteers, which may or may not be average psychologically, granted) and tries to turn them into killing machines as part of force training. Making broad assumptions about how well that works for people as individuals, in such broad strokes as you seem to be babbling about, is not how it “works” at all. And once someone does get to killing, it isn’t some sort of magical charm or automaton that a sniper becomes after killing someone for the first time in combat. (Or for the last time in combat for that matter.)

        You might argue that there is some self-selection in the process but there is no evidence that I know of that somehow the US military contains hundreds or thousands of trained snipers that will kill on command without hesitation and without compunction. The Army needs snipers so they train snipers. The Marine’s need snipers so they train snipers. They do not create “killers on command” like you posit, and most certainly they do not train “killers on command” that are somehow no longer subject to their own self-doubts, have somehow magically overcome the likelihood of breaking under the strain of seeing a lot of killing go on around and/or be done by themselves.

        The US military certainly works to weed out those who just can’t do it as much as they can first, but that doesn’t mean that the folks who think they can do it, that the military wants to do it and has deemed they can do it, or the snipers themselves who might even want to do it before they do it, will stand up to the strain of actually doing it. One thing you and other armchair yahoos seem to forget is that, when you go into combat, there’s also a chance, sometimes a good chance, that there’s someone on the other side trying to snipe you, that enemy regular troops will be out to get you; yeah, guess what, enemy snipers are not liked by the opposing sides in a war generally. A sniper’s life isn’t worth a damned if found out by enemy units generally. So, you don’t go in assuming that you will somehow be a hero, you generally go in hoping you will come out the other side alive but not really knowing your fate. Just like anyone else who goes into hot combat… but with less general respect from the opposing side than regular troops would receive.

    • PeterS says:

      I wonder how much the idea of a particularly close connection between Stone and Meggs is supported by the latter’s confident assertion that Trump was going to invoke the insurrection act in the week before January 6, and thus several days before the, er, insurrection. Inside knowledge or crazy talk?

      • bmaz says:

        I dunno, maybe both of you ought chill out on speculative thought and await competent evidence. It is no better for people on this side to engage in conspiracy bullshit than it is, or was, for others on the other side. And that is exactly what Scaminaci and his rambling comments are injecting into this site. Mr. Scaminaci seems to think this is a forum to push out his “theorist” content that he cannot gain traction with otherwise on the internet.

        • PeterS says:

          Hey, you know I agree 100% that “it is no better for people on this side to engage in conspiracy bullshit than it is, or was, for others on the other side”. I have my own way of pushing back against the possible BS.

        • timbo says:

          We’re all certainly tired of a lot of the bunk, that much is clear.

          I’m interested in the theories that might have some merit that might possibly not have occurred to me/us/investigators. Also in the most outrageous fiction too. But the two are clearly different. And it is hard for those with less grasp of the facts, less patience, etc, to constrain our zeal for speculation at times, which is regrettable, but also inevitable.

          Frankly, some of us like to be closer to the goop for whatever reason. It’s great that this site has some really committed folks that keep moving the pieces around until a pattern emerges that makes sense, frankly. It was particularly helpful back in FDL days, and remains so to this day.

        • JAMES SCAMINACI says:

          What “conspiracy bullshit” are you talking about?

          I’ve read the affidavits, statements of fact, and indictments, as well as Wheeler’s analyses, and that led Wheeler to write an article about five intersecting conspiracies.

          At this point, should I quote from Wheeler’s two posts on 12 and 19 March on the number and “real nature” of the conspiracies that the FBI and DOJ are constructing, defendant by defendant, filing by filing?

          So, you must be reading something else if you think I’m spinning “conspiracy bullshit.” But, be sure to tell Marcy Wheeler to stop writing about so many conspiracies regarding Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

          Second, my “rambling comments” are not rambling. My main comment on this post is that Rhodes has said in public essentially what he said in private to leaders and members of Oath Keepers: the incoming Biden administration was illegitimate; it could not be recognized as legitimate under any circumstances; the situation was bleak and dire; and, “patriots” had to be prepared to fight on January 6th.

          All that open source information contradicts Rhodes’ claims to the Washington Post that none of this was planned and he never expected any Oath Keepers to forcibly breach the Capitol building.

          All the public evidence and the snippets of evidence related to Rhodes in various government filings point to the fact that he may be indicted for conspiracy as well. Being mentioned in filing after filing related to conspiracy charges suggests that “Person One” is an unindicted co-conspirator. Each government filing adds just a bit more texture to Rhodes giving instructions to the leaders and members of Oath Keepers regarding January 6th.

          Third, there is a reason why I keep coming back to command-control-and-communications (C3):
          A) January 6th was a military assault on the Capitol;
          B) it involved elements of more than organization;
          C) the elements appeared coordinated;
          D) that cannot be achieved without planning, deconfliction, and communication nets; and
          E) if the DOJ is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not just words, but a real conspiracy undertaken with concrete actions–then the proof will be in the C3 nets–not only the words spoken, but who was connected to who. C3 goes well beyond words and gets to intent and motive. Defense lawyers can spin words all day. Network connectivity will convict them.

          This is not the Hutaree militia telling each other tall tales about what they would like to do to the “gummint.”

          As far as “theorist” stuff I cannot “gain traction with,” I have no idea for the basis of your comment. I have published two articles on Fourth Generation Warfare at Political Research Associates. I have been interviewed by Paul Rosenberg and Chauncey DeVega at Salon on Fourth Generation Warfare. And I have published free articles on Fourth Generation Warfare at academia dot edu. Anybody can download the fully footnoted articles.

          And before I turned my attention to right-wing paramilitaries in the United States I was a senior civilian intelligence analyst heading two teams that went after real ethno-nationalists in Bosnia & Herzegovina. The kind who before the war raped, murdered, plundered, and ethnically cleansed Muslims. And after the war, blew up the houses they were rebuilding and tried to intimidate them not to return. We forced the perpetrators to flee for their safety and not return for about 4 to 5 years. In the meantime, SFOR began disrupting, and in some cases, dismantling their political-criminal power structure.

          I had to put together the network analyses for different geographical areas. And in a special area that had my full attention, I had to put together the C3-I network so that we could dismantle their organization and bring them to justice.

          I don’t know what your background is, bmaz, but I suspect I have more real-world experience going after and figuring out ethno-nationalist militias than you.

        • bmaz says:

          I am talking about exactly the layered conspiracy bullshit you purvey in every one of your over long, ramble on, comments. You have lectured many during your entire 23 comment history here. Only four of which were before you felt so self important as to capitalize every letter of your name.

          You consider yourself a white hat “conspiracy researcher”, but that is only worth so much. What is my background, check my bio right here on this website.

          Other than that, today is the last day in the world you want to fuck with me. I put one of my best friends in the ground today from Covid, and you can flat piss the fuck off.

          And, by the way, you seem to think this is a forum for you because you do not have a better one. It is not. There is a limit as to how many blog post length comments we will leave unaddressed. Learn some moderation in this.

          Also, by the way, that is Marcy Wheeler to you, not just “Wheeler”. We are not your playground.

  7. klynn says:

    On a related note but slightly ot.

    EW on Twitter:
    Here, Christopher Grider argues that 1512 doesn’t apply to “ceremonial” proceedings before Congress, literally treating counting the vote as mere ceremony.”

    All that insurrection planning to disrupt just a ceremony?

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Compare and contrast:

    Liar: I always lie. Am I lying now?
    Sidney Powell: The election was stolen. My client is innocent. Who would believe anything I said?

    If I were a bar association, Powell’s defense to a defamation suit would be Exhibit A in her disbarment proceeding.

    • subtropolis says:

      If I were one of the judges who’d had to put up with her bullshit after the election, would I have any authority to order her back into my courtroom so I could lock her up for contempt?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Apparently, that was last Friday. Getting no response from the administration, she sued this week. Yale claims it’s about Lee’s ethics and her violation of the exceedingly establishment-friendly Goldwater rule, not Yale’s priorities or the number of donors that the brain-addled and ethics-challenged Dershowitz might have corralled into supporting him. Yale supposedly told Lee to shut up and play nice before, but found her non-compliant.

          It would seem to be no coincidence that Lee was highly critical of Trump and his administration. Business- and wealth-dominated boards hate that as much as they hate Congress imposing accountability for business and political excesses. Bandy’s suit might reveal a little about how super-secretive Yale makes decisions, but it will be a Davidia and Goliath battle.

        • BobCon says:

          Using Goldwater like that is almost guaranteed to backfire, at a minimum from a PR perspective, unless Yale has been scrupulous all along in using it. I doubt they have.

        • bmaz says:

          The funny thing is that I knew Barry Goldwater from when I can first remember, about age five or so, until the day he died. He was completely sane until the end. At a minimum, Trump clearly suffers from severe narcissistic personality disorder. Can’t tell about dementia or any of the other things postulated by others, but the narcissism is crystal clear, at a minimum. Firing Lee seems extreme.

        • vvv says:

          I had occasion some years ago to be involved in a legal matter where a forensic psychological evaluation and report was ordered, which caused me to do a significant amount of related research.
          One of the parties involved was provisionally diagnosed (the evaluator was a psychologist who cannot render this diagnosis without, as I understand, an MD’s input) with borderline personality disorder, as well as diagnoses of various co-morbidities (anger management, eating disorders, paranoia and truth disorders, etc.).
          One of and the most serious of the co-morbidities was narcissistic personality disorder, and from the beginning of his campaign I recognized that as seeming to apply to the failed former pres.
          I offer this just to point out that it seemed/seems so obvious to so many of us, and yet he was elected, and continues to be supported …
          The whole thing still amazes and saddens me.

        • bmaz says:

          Right. But the layered requirements there were undoubtedly because to get an opinion like that admitted into court you have to have such foundation. But Lee was just opining in public and had no Dr/Patient relationship required to be honored. So why does she not have the same 1A freedom as anybody else? That is clearly her position as she wasn’t a member of the APA they really should have no say so over her. I think she has a cognizable case but it may be a tough road.

        • pasha says:

          off topic, i am pleased to hear this about goldwater, from one who actually knew him. though i disagreed with most of his thinking, he was never a “bircher,” and always struck me as an honorable man. too many forget that he was among the group that talked nixon into resigning. (and he was an early environmentalist, and an accomplished nature photographer)

        • posaune says:

          Its my understanding that it is a very difficult and prolonged experience to sue a college or university. This was explained to me by Judith Vladeck: Universities are obstinate, arrogant and cheap. Very difficult to bring to the table, unable to admit error or to contemplate a jury’s possible disbelief of their story.
          I wish Dr. Lee a tolerable road ahead.

        • BobCon says:

          I am almost certain she didn’t hold a tenured position, which reduces her legal protections a lot. She is listed as a “clinical professor” which is a term Yale uses for practitioners who work for the university in a nonacademic setting. It’s possible she also held a tenured position, but I don’t think so.

          But the PR implications for Yale are a mess. Her academic credentials are solid, she was expressing her views in professional situations and before Congress; unllike righf wing academics Scott Atlas or Richard Epstein who spread insanely wrong Covid information, she is not a hack or a quack. Her comments have been part of serious academic discussions and not off the cuff mudslinging.

          Knuckling under to Dershowitz like this, and trying to do it under the radar, is classic academic administrator buffoonery. They are multiplying the problems they would have had by dealing honestly and truthfully from the outset.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Yale spox have referred to her as a “voluntary professor,” which is a new term to me and seems to translate to someone whose expertise and reputation we can benefit until we feel like trumping up a reason to show them the door. This Yale apparently did last year; she has been appealing ever since. The lawsuit filed this week is her first public action.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol. She was part of Yale for a very long time, even if not tenured. They knowingly and willingly gave her use of school facilities for free to engage in the discussion. So, yes, your description seems accurate.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Yes, her resume is impeccable. Her MD and M.Div. are from Yale. She is an expert on violence, interned at Bellevue, and was chief psychiatric resident at Mass. General Hospital, the home field for Harvardians. She taught, I believe, at both the law and medical schools.

          Dershowitz undoubtedly threatened a billion dollar lawsuit and years of bad publicity. It’s what he does. He undoubtedly sought out wealthy donors, irritated at Lee’s advocacy, to back him up by threatening to withhold their donations. It’s how the game is played by the supposed creme de la creme.

          The elephant in the room, though, is likely to be the senior psychiatric establishment, which shields fitself and its government funding via the Goldwater rule. (At the height of the Cold War, the CIA was among the top sources for research money for psychologists and psychiatrists. Dick Cheney’s “take the gloves off” approach to interrogation and torture boosted funding for related research.) One must not encourage hoi poloi to abuse their betters.

          It is curious that Dershowitz and Yale waited until Trump was out of office. But revenge is a dish best served cold.

        • pdaly says:

          I don’t know that the APA has sanctions for violating their Goldwater rule, and as bmaz noted above, she’s not a member of the voluntary APA. Hoping she has her day in court.

          FYI: This article was updated with the clarification that Dr. Lee’s tweet was in Jan 2020. In the article the link to the lawsuit Dr. Lee filed this week (March 2021) indicates Dershowitz’ letter to Yale was in Jan 2020, and Yale notified Dr. Lee in May 2020 that her hospital privileges were not going to be renewed. Normally they would renew every 3 years on July 1.

        • pdaly says:

          further clarification on my misunderstanding: the complaint only mentions the faculty teaching reappointment. It does not mention anything about losing hospital privileges. (my bad)

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Yale and Harvard are particularly secretive and defensive and about how they make decisions, especially staffing ones. They portray themselves as au courant, but they are avatars of the old boy net – and its abuses.

        • timbo says:

          Wow, that sucks! Seems like the Twisslerings, no longer in charge of the Presidency in DC, have started looking for other enemies in other institutions to purge… hope she gets reinstated with back pay, etc. Actually, I would hope that she’d get the Presidential Medal of Freedom… if that particular institution hadn’t been so tarnished by ‘Guy 45’. :(

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          “The greatest threat to free speech on campus comes not from students, but from public officials using state power to censor ideas they disagree with.”

          I would add that applies to private as well as public universities, even though the 1A only limits state action. Limiting free speech is becoming an epidemic. The shrine of academic freedom, it seems, admits only those whose opinions donors and administrators agree with.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, indeed. Might also note that Lee had been at it a good long time, including free use of Yale facilities, before they up and fired her summarily.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Yale’s furtiveness and often retrograde actions are notorious here (in the epicenter, New Haven CT). The intersection of academia, politics and medicine with law Dershowitz-style means money, and Yale’s secrecy typically involves money. Fear of losing it–and the status that comes with it–drives the university to bullying the disadvantaged. I hope Dr. Lee benefits from the fact that their timing could not have been worse from a PR standpoint. But I know how hard it is to fight a private university as a non-tenured academic–the reason I will always back unions.

  9. Robert S says:

    For a bunch of alleged ex-military and ex-LEO people, the 3%ers aren’t very good at understanding their enemies. Did they really believe that “Antifa” was going to show up on the 6th?

    • Lady4Real says:

      Luckily lots of workers were told to stay at home on January 6th, so that no Black federal workers were walking around the city to be attacked as ‘BLM or Antifa’, because they would have been the stand-in just for showing their faces around the Capital on that day. The Black people who were inside the Capital were fellow insurrectionists who were with PBs and thus not attacked. In fact, there are already a few Black people who were a part of the insurrection who are jailed and can’t make bail. Typical. They should’ve stayed at home.

      • timbo says:

        Sigh. There seem to be some African-American “federal workers” that did show up that day… For example, members of Congress, Congressional staffers, and also, very importantly, Capitol and Metro police, etc, etc. I point this out because, obviously, I don’t like the implication that somehow it was just a few rioters and no one else dared show their face to protect the Congress, the Constitution, etc.

        My conclusion is that perhaps you should have “stayed at home” with your above ill-conceived and half-crocked comment.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        You’ve never been to DC, have you? Either that or you’ve never been outside of DC NW.

    • subtropolis says:

      Given how many current cops seem to have swallowed the propaganda, it’s not all that surprising.

      Speaking of the 3% crowd, though, has anyone else noticed that none of them have been arrested? We know that they were represented that day, having seen their patches in the crowd. And we now know that they were included in the alliance with OK and PB.

      I don’t mean to suggest that they’re getting a pass, but it is odd.

  10. J R in WV says:


    Shouldn’t this sentence:

    “A week ago, DOJ was content to prove that Connie Meggs’ claims that she didn’t know any of these people by introducing the picture where she and Graydon Young posed with Stone on December 14.”

    have a negative, like “content to disprove”, or even “claims that she didn’t know any of these people were false” since the photo proves she knows those people??

    I’m thinking there’s a typo lurking in that sentence is what I’m trying to say…

    Thanks for all your work in this important arena !!

    • timbo says:

      It proves that there may be a reason to doubt her statements in court. That’s not the same as proving that she’s made false statements… but it certainly advances the predicate notion quite a bit.

  11. Zinsky says:

    The relentless work by EW to link these phony militia types to a pre-January 6th conspiracy deserves recognition. She was on it before anyone. Roger Stone is the key and I’m guessing will be fingered by one of these losers as part of a plea to avoid a long stay at the Greybar Hilton. Stone has cultivated this image of being surrounded by an entourage of armed thugs and legitimate law enforcement has looked the other way. Is it any wonder that some of the Capitol Police and DCMP waved these phony patriot LARPers through, when they were invading the Capitol? Can you imagine if a black Democratic operative traveled with an entourage of black militants shouldering Glocks?

  12. PeterS says:

    When Meggs said he had “organized an alliance between the Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys” to “shut this shit down”, that was part of a sentence starting “well we are ready for the rioters”. Other messages indicate the rioters were expected to be BLM or “antifa” (that antifa isn’t a thing doesn’t mean the insurrectionists didn’t believe it’s a thing; I know someone who believes in antifa).

    These messages make me think of different groups (“firms”) of English soccer hooligans getting together in advance to fight a common foe, e.g. foreign supporters at an away international match, the goal – pardon the pun – being better organized violence.

    N.B. I’m not implying the insurrectionist groups didn’t also conspire to storm and enter the Capitol.

  13. harpie says:

    Look at these these AMAZING MAPS!!!
    [Thanks for the link to this, MARCY!]
    7:59 PM · Mar 5, 2021

    #SeditionHunters – If you’re lost in the Capitol Building, we are here to help you out! Take a virtual tour with: [link]

    And here are copies of the First and Second Floor Capitol Maps provided in the guide. Grab one and mark it up with the #SeditionLocation of your footage! [And Ground floor]

    Here are some quick tips for East vs. West exterior:
    People on vehicles in the plaza? → East side
    People milling around Greek columns → East side
    People on black wrought iron fenced balconies? → East side
    Scaffolding or grandstands? → West side
    White terraces? → West side

    CAPITOL GROUNDS [can be enlarged]

  14. madwand says:

    On a more mundane topic, elections have consequences, the Ga legislature and the Governor have passed and signed into law restrictive voting laws, pretty much all the fever dreams and complaints of DJT during the last election. The main objective of the new laws being to limit voting and make it harder for people to vote not expand the franchise, that despite the claims being made by the Governor. As has been noted, in Ga you can get a gun with no waiting period as the Asian massage parlor shooter did, but voting is a lot harder for targeted groups such as Blacks and Latinos. Losing the general and the two runoff races has literally scared the shit out of Georgia Republicans who are not capable of reforming their message, only restricting those who learned how to play the game better in the last election.

    On a lighter note 16 Republicans are touring the Rio Grande today in Border Patrol boats and armed to the teeth to protect themselves from armed Mexicans on the other side. In the end it all comes down to a gun with Republicans.

      • rip says:

        That’s a good list of large companies in GA. However it really shows the total # of employees hired, no matter where. Still that should be a pressure point.

        Sales / revenues / profits are where the companies really feel the effect of public actions and publicity. I still believe that all of these corporations are quite sensitive to consumer pressures.

      • madwand says:

        It would appear to be the case, the issue is now in the courts with Marc Elias joining a lawsuit to overturn the law.

    • PeterS says:

      Being pedantic (who me?), I don’t think the words “voter suppression” and “mundane” go together. From where I’m sitting, US democracy was already a pretty feeble thing even before Trump and his cronies turned up to give it a kicking. Manchin needs to deliver, one way or another.

      • madwand says:

        I’m not much of an optimist as concerns Joe Manchin, he’s insisting on bipartisanship while states with majority Republican legislatures are conducting an expose of extreme partisanship on voting rights. Unfortunately Democratic priorities, HR1, infrastructure, etc hang in the balance with Manchin’s refusal to budge. Time will tell but IMHO Manchin is a closet Republican.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      Yeah, that’s really cool. But I think NFT’s are an interesting concept, too. I know an artist who makes prints of his digital work to sell. But, his work is much more fascinating in digital form because of the way computers can layer pixels to add depth. His goal is to provide a conduit from the past to the future, using inspiration from ancient spiritual images and mythologies and fusing them with images of current technologies and tools, using wit and whimsy. If I had more energy and motivation, I would try to find a way to convert the animated poem I created into an NFT.

  15. harpie says:


    1] Stacey Abrams on Republican voter suppression:
    ‘They are doing what the insurrectionists sought’ 3/24/21

    […] [Abrams]: They are responding to the big [voter fraud] lie, to the disproven, discredited and, sadly, the blood-spilled lie of voter fraud. And they are responding to it by actually doing what the insurrectionists sought, doing what the liars asked for. […]

    2] Sen. Elizabeth WARREN:
    10:39 PM · Mar 25, 2021

    The Republican who is sitting in Stacey Abrams’ chair just signed a despicable voter suppression bill into law to take Georgia back to Jim Crow. The Senate must pass the #ForThePeople Act and [GOOD TROUBLE] John Lewis Voting Rights Act immediately – our democracy is at stake tonight.

    7:02 PM · Mar 25, 2021

    This is insane: Georgia Dem rep @Cannonfor58 [Rep. Park Cannon] was arrested for trying to watch Brian Kemp sign new voter suppression bill. Look at how she is treated by police. This is straight out of Jim Crow [VIDEO]

  16. harpie says:


    1] Stacey Abrams on Republican voter suppression: ‘They are doing what the insurrectionists sought’ 3/24/21

    […] They are responding to the big [voter fraud] lie, to the disproven, discredited and, sadly, the blood-spilled lie of voter fraud. And they are responding to it by actually doing what the insurrectionists sought, doing what the liars asked for. […]

    2] Senator Elizabeth WARREN
    10:39 PM · Mar 25, 2021

    The Republican who is sitting in Stacey Abrams’ chair [KEMP] just signed a despicable voter suppression bill into law to take Georgia back to Jim Crow. The Senate must pass the #ForThePeople Act and [GOOD TROUBLE] John Lewis Voting Rights Act immediately – our democracy is at stake tonight.

    7:02 PM · Mar 25, 2021

    This is insane: Georgia Dem rep @Cannonfor58 [Rep. Park Cannon] was arrested for trying to watch Brian Kemp sign new voter suppression bill. Look at how she is treated by police. This is straight out of Jim Crow [VIDEO]

    • harpie says:

      Rep. Park CANNON was charged with Felony Obstruction and released after midnight. She had this to say:
      12:28 AM · Mar 26, 2021

      Hey everyone, thank you for your support. I’ve been released from jail. I am not the first Georgian to be arrested for fighting voter suppression. I’d love to say I’m the last, but we know that isn’t true. #SB202

      But someday soon that last person will step out of jail for the last time and breathe a first breath knowing that no one will be jailed again for fighting for the right to vote. #SB202 […]

      Who — and what — are they protecting when they work this hard to suppress our vote? #SB202 / In November and January we refused to be controlled at the ballot box. #SB202 is a direct retaliation.

      I am grateful that my pastor @ReverendWarnock & community held witness and prayed for me, my family & our state. Electing @ossoff and @ReverendWarnock to the Senate united Georgia in hope and gave us the courage to stand up against the hate we face. [link]

      And make no mistake, when I say hate, I mean white supremacy. The closed-door signing of #SB202 and the senseless murder of #AAPI Georgians are both products of a white supremacist system. Different tactics, same goal: fear and control.

      We will not live in fear and we will not be controlled. We have a right to our future and a right to our freedom. We will come together and continue fighting white supremacy in all its forms.

    • harpie says:

      Here are KEMP and TRUMP celebrating their POG’s [Party of Grievances] racism:
      7:10 PM · Mar 25, 2021 I was proud to sign S.B. 202 to ensure elections in Georgia are secure, fair, and accessible. I appreciate the hard work of members of the General Assembly to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. [photo]
      5:26 PM · Mar 26, 2021

      -March 26, 2021-
      Statement by Donald J. Trump,
      45th President of the United States of America
      Congratulations to Georgia and the Georgia State Legislature on changing their voter Rules and Regulations. They learned from the travesty of the 2020 Presidential Election, which can never be allowed to happen again. Too bad these changes could not have been done sooner!

      • harpie says:

        This is what TRUMP said on 1/6/21 at his RALLY to INSURRECTION:

        And then I had to beat Stacey Abrams with this guy, Brian Kemp. I had to beat Stacey Abrams. And I had to beat Oprah, used to be a friend of mine. You know, I was on her last show, her last week, she picked the five outstanding people. I don’t think she thinks that any more. Once I ran for president, I didn’t notice there were too many calls coming in from Oprah. Believe it or not, she used to like me. But I was one of the five outstanding people.

        And I had a campaign against Michelle Obama and Barack Hussein Obama, against Stacey. And I had Brian Kemp, who weighs 130 pounds. He said he played offensive line in football. I’m trying to figure that out. (laugher) I’m still trying to figure that out. He said that the other night, “I was an offensive lineman.” I’m saying: “Really? That must have been a very small team.” But I look at that and I look at what’s happened and he turned out to be a disaster. This stuff happens.
        Stacey Abrams. She took them to lunch. And I beat her two years ago with a bad candidate, Brian Kemp. But they took, the Democrats took the Republicans to lunch because the secretary of state had no clue what the hell was happening. Unless he did have a clue. That’s interesting. Maybe he was with the other side.

        But we’ve been trying to get verifications of signatures in Fulton County, they won’t let us do it. The only reason they won’t is because we’ll find things in the hundreds of thousands. Why wouldn’t they let us verify signatures in Fulton County, which is known for being very corrupt. They won’t do it. They go to some other county where you would live.

        I said, “That’s not the problem.” The problem is Fulton County, home of Stacey Abrams. She did a good job, I congratulate her.

        But it was done in such a way that we can’t let this stuff happen.
        We won’t have a country if it happens.
        [end blockquote]

        • harpie says:

          TRUMP said the above around the same time the following message was sent by someone at Federal Protective:

          Sent: 6 Jan 2021 17:35:49
          Subject: RE: National Crisis Coordination Center (NCCC)
          Good Afternoon team,
          Noon briefing:
          There is a man with what appears to be a rifle in a tree near the Eclipse. MPD is on the scene.

          There are approximately 300 Proud Boys at the US Capitol. No incidents at this time.

          There are approximately 25,000 people around the White House. Do to the bag restrictions at the White House, individuals are hiding bags in bushes around the building.

          The Proud Boys are threatening to shut down the water system in the downtown area, which includes government facilities.
          Together we stand!


    • harpie says:

      People respond:

      Sen. Jon OSOFF:
      9:30 PM · Mar 25, 2021

      Tonight Georgia’s legislature passed a bill brazenly intended to make it harder for Georgians to vote.

      Among its outrageous provisions: it criminalizes *giving water to voters who are waiting in line.*

      It’s no wonder Gov. Kemp hid behind closed doors while he signed it.

      To which Ted BOUTROUS responds:
      11:05 PM · Mar 26, 2021

      It’s extraordinarily hard, almost impossible, to pass a law that violates constitutional “rational basis” review, but I think a law that bars one citizen from giving another citizen food and water lacks any rational basis and violates the Constitution.

      • harpie says:

        Sen. Raphael WARNOCK: 12:55 PM · Mar 26, 2021

        When I think about the work that we’ve been able to do … with passing the American Rescue Plan, that could not have happened — it would not have happened — if the people of Georgia had not stood up in the ways that they did with historic turnout in the election.

        The people of Georgia have been voting like this for years. Now all of a sudden it’s a problem? I think they don’t like the outcome. And so rather than change their message, they’re trying to change the rules. […]

        You’re literally going to make public policy based on a [voter fraud] lie? Based on the feeling that some people have that things didn’t turn out the way they should have turned out? Is that how we make public policy now?

        • P J Evans says:

          I hope the Chief gets visited by the ghosts of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and John Lewis, every Friday the 13th night.

      • harpie says:

        Will BUNCH:
        9:09 AM · Mar 26, 2021

        1. You’ve probably seen this picture of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and his gaggle of white men signing the state’s voter suppression law — the new, new Jim Crow. But there’s a shocking angle to this story that you haven’t heard. Sit down for this one…

        2. Notice the antebellum-style portrait behind Kemp as he signs the suppression law? Thanks to Twitter crowdsourcing and particularly @TheSeaFarmer, I can report the measure to limit Black voting was signed under the image of a notorious slave plantation in Wilkes County, GA […]

        9. In short, the Callaway Plantation is a monument to Georgia’s history of brutal white supremacy that unfortunately didn’t disappear when Mariah Callaway and the other slaves were emancipated in 1865. […]

        • harpie says:

          [Bunch, cont’d]

          By the 1890s, Georgia’s white ruling class enacted a series of harsh Jim Crow laws to segregate all public facilities and block Black people from voting.

          The state, for all of Atlanta’s “Too Busy To Hate” bluster, was a KKK hotbed in the 1960s’ civil rights era, and in the 1980s Georgia blazed a trail into the new era of mass incarceration and voter suppression, epitomized by Brian Kemp and his purges of legitimate voters and other Jim Crow-inspired tactics.

          In 2021, the irony of Kemp signing this bill — that makes it illegal to give water to voters waiting on the sometimes 10-hour lines that state policies create in mostly Black precincts — under the image of a brutal slave plantation is almost too much to bear.

          13. The symbolism is no accident. Brian Kemp and his white henchmen have created an image for our times, in working to continue a tradition of inhumanity and white supremacy that now spans centuries, from the human bondage that took place behind the placid scenery of Brickhouse Road in Wilkes County, to the suppression now hidden behind a phony facade of “voter integrity.”

          This legacy is a crime against humanity, and it cannot stand

      • harpie says:

        Ari BERMAN with the details [I added the numbers]:
        12:55 PM · Mar 25, 2021

        Breaking: Georgia House passes 95 page GOP voter suppression bill
        1] allowing GOP takeover of state/county election boards,
        2] unlimited challenges to voter eligibility,
        3] restricting drop boxes &
        4] making it crime to give voters food & water in line

        Georgia House voter suppression bill includes massively undemocratic power grab
        5] giving GOP legislature control of state election board,
        6] allowing them to take over county election boards &
        7] stripping power from GOP sec of state after he stood up to Trump [link]

        Links to:
        After Trump Failed, Georgia Republicans Pass Bill to Make It Easier to Overturn Elections
        “It will make what we all lived through in 2020 child’s play.”

    • harpie says:

      About HR-1 and the FILIBUSTER:

      Rep. Bill PASCRELL [NJ]:
      9:27 PM · Mar 25, 2021

      Here is the new Jim Crow. Republicans want to steal your right to vote to rig elections. Passing #HR1 is essential to saving our democracy.

      Georgia republicans just made it illegal to bring water to people waiting on hours-long election lines republicans created.

      Republicans have offered at least 253 bills trying to suppress voting. Do you see your state? [There are 40 STATES on the Brennan Center list] American democracy is under assault. [screenshot]

      • harpie says:

        Sen WARNOCK is asked about the FILIBUSTER:
        8:51 AM · Mar 27, 2021

        The Reverend Senator [WARNOCK] brings down the truth hammer. [link to VIDEO]

        WARNOCK: You know, we will see, but, folks keeping asking what we are going to do about the filibuster. I think they ought to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what are they going to do about voting rights. The question really is not where do I stand on the filibuster. That’s a Senate rule. The most fundamental question is where do you stand on voting rights.

        We wouldn’t have to have this debate about the filibuster, at least on this issue, if the folks on the other side would do the right thing, and stand for voting rights and vote the bill up. They can vote the bill up. Why won’t they stand up for voting rights?

        They see what’s happening right here in Georgia. They see, they see legislators deciding that it’s a crime to give people water[!?], who are standing in lines that they’re making longer?

        And so, I’m a member of the Senate. I respect its traditions. I’m honored to be there to represent the people of Georgia. But the issue of voting rights, is about the democracy itself. It’s much bigger than any Senate rule.

      • harpie says:

        Historian Kevin KRUSE:
        8:26 AM · Mar 24, 2021

        This thread [next comment] doesn’t just show that the filibuster does, in fact, have a considerable “racial history” but that the argument of its defenders — that it somehow promotes compromise — is completely wrong. [link]

        1] When Southern Democrats filibustered anti-lynching bills in the 1930s, they walked away with a total victory.
        The bills never became law, and no compromise measures were passed.
        The filibusterers won everything they wanted. Their opponents got nothing. [link]

        2] When Southern senators filibustered civil rights bills in the 1960s, they walked away in complete defeat.
        The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn’t watered down as a result of their defiance; indeed, it was strengthened.
        Liberals got everything they wanted. The filibusterers lost.

        These two facts are, of course, related.
        Segregationists waged an all-out campaign of “massive resistance” against civil rights in these years, and they refused to make *any* compromise at all with the forces of integration.
        Which is exactly why they relied on the filibuster.

        • harpie says:

          Here is KRUSE’s list of RACIST FILIBUSTERS, with receipts.
          It’s quite long and “not remotely exhaustive”:

          5:07 PM · Mar 23, 2021

          Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1874
          Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1875
          Filibuster against a pension for a black official, 1906 Filibuster against confirmation of a black official, 1909 [screenshots]
          Filibuster against extension of Voting Rights Act, 1982
          Filibuster against creation of MLK Day federal holiday, 1983
          Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1984 [screenshots] […]

      • harpie says:

        Here’s Sean Hecht [via Max Kennerly] responding to Erickson’s lie:
        8:19 PM · Mar 27, 2021

        Just FYI: this is false. The law applies “within 25 feet of any voter standing in line,” the same as the existing law it amends. It’s easy to look this stuff up before you tweet! This hardly even matters, but the aggressive ignorance (“Just FYI”), & retweets/likes, are telling.

        The POG is going to be carpet-bombing US with this LIE.


      • harpie says:
        3:46 PM · Mar 26, 2021

        What is the “problem” this law is meant to solve?

        Georgia officials have admitted there was no fraud in last year’s election. The problem, from their point of view, was that too many of the wrong people voted.

        This is why we must pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
        10:42 AM · Mar 26, 2021

        Republican officials cannot tell their voters the truth about 2020, because the very fact that Republicans lost legitimately is what necessitates all the new voter suppression efforts. Telling that truth would do away with their rationale for them.

Comments are closed.