DOJ’s Curious Militia Math

The government has responded to Ethan Nordean’s claim that texts that confirmed he was a recognized leader in the Proud Boys were exculpatory. In a filing that lays out more of how the Proud Boys responded — first with glee, then with cover stories, then with plans to regroup — to the events of January 6, DOJ includes a curious paragraph describing Enrique Tarrio establishing a very hierarchical upper leadership of the militia.

On December 29, 2020, the Proud Boys Chairman announced the leadership and structure of the Ministry of Self-Defense. The leadership and structure included an “upper tier leadership” of six people, which included Proud Boys Chairman, Nordean, Biggs, and Rehl. Later that evening, Donohoe explained the structure with reference to the upcoming trip to Washington, D.C. Among other things, Donohoe explained that the MOSD was a “special chapter” within the organization. The “special chapter” was not to have any interaction with other Proud Boys attending the event.

Other Proud Boys attending the event were to coordinate with their own chapters and “do whatever you guys want.”1

The filing goes on to describe the statements of, “one member (“Person-1”) of the upper tier leadership” and “another member of MOSD leadership (Person-2).” In addition, it describes the comments of our old friend UCC-1, an unindicted co-conspirator, clearly distinguishing that person’s legal risk from the others.

When UCC-1 was first introduced in the indictment against the Proud Boys Leadership, it was implied that both he and Charles Donohoe were also in the leadership MOSD, and described the total membership as the four indicted defendants plus “a handful of additional members.”

39. On after Chairman’s January 4, 2021, shortly after Proud Boys Chairman’s arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by D.C. Superior Court, DONOHOE expressed concern that encrypted communications that involved Proud Boys Chairman would be compromised when law enforcement examined Proud Boys Chairmans’ phone. DONOHOE then created a new channel on the encrypted messaging application, entitled, “New MOSD,” and took steps to destroy or “nuke” the earlier channel. After its creation, the “New MOSD” channel included NORDEAN, BIGGS, REHL, DONOHOE, and a handful of additional members.

40. On January 2021, at 7:15 p.m., DONOHOE posted a message on various encrypted messaging channels, including New MOSD, which read, “Hey have been instructed and listen to me real good! There is no planning of any sorts. I need to be put into whatever new thing is created. Everything is compromised and we can be looking at Gang charges.” DONOHOE then wrote, “Stop everything immediately” and then “This comes from the top.”

41. On January 4, 2021, at 8:20 p.m., an unindicted co-conspirator (“UCC-1”) posted to New MOSD channel: “We had originally planned on breaking the guys into teams. Let’s start divying them up and getting baofeng channels picked out.”

Perhaps it’s because I’m what one of Nordean’s buddies calls a “purple haired faggot,” and so can’t understand Tarrio hierarchical logic. But by my math, these two filings suggest the MOSD leadership looks like this:

  1. Enrique Tarrio (who correctly anticipated he’d be arrested in advance of the insurrection)
  2. UCC-1
  3. Joe Biggs
  4. Ethan Nordean
  5. Zach Rehl
  6. Person 1
  7. Person 2

One-two-three-four-five-six-seven. Not six, seven. And that’s assuming Donohoe is not part of the group, though the indictment had suggested he was.

Whether UCC-1 is in or out of that leadership group is a key distinction. The government has a presumed informant who said some of the most inflammatory things in advance of the insurrection:

UCC-1: I want to see thousands of normies burn that city to ash today

UCC-1: The state is the enemy of the people

If this person was an active informant for the FBI going in — as an Aram Rostom story suggests — it means someone at the FBI lost control of their informant and rather than punishing the informant for participating in an insurrection and not informing the FBI about it, it is giving the person a pass. It would mean that because this person had made accusations to feed Billy Barr’s demand for dirt on Antifa, he is getting a pass on insurrection.

But if this informant provided the FBI some kind of warning, then it means the Bureau failed, badly, because the FBI has claimed that it had no warning of events of the day, not even with multiple Proud Boys in its informant ranks, including, possibly, one with top level access.

Not to mention the fact, if this guy had the access some of these filings suggest, it raises real questions about why the FBI still doesn’t know precisely how the operation rolled out.

David Headley and Tamerlan Tsarnaev demonstrate that one way to plan a terrorist attack without the FBI seeing it is to serve as an informant. And if the Proud Boys managed to carry out fairly complex planning for an insurrection because so many of them were trading information on Antifa, it would mean FBI’s handing of informants, plus DOJ’s commitment, from the very top, to prioritize Antifa at the expense of right wing militia, were key ingredients to the success of January 6.

19 replies
  1. Rapier says:

    Stand back and stand by has two parts. Jan 6th wouldn’t have gone down like it did unless a lot of people in government stood back. Not just MAGA’s either. At least now the top won’t be in stand back mode so those who stood back out of pressure from the top and stayed quiet or not involved will act properly again. Meanwhile how many stand backers are scattered across the government is anyone’s guess. Then too it’s best to entertain the idea that there will be a lot more stand by people going forward.

    • J R in WV says:

      We should never forget that the FBI we speak of with regard to Jan/6/2021 was managed by top cop appointed by TFG. The DoJ was managed by TFG appointees as well. So even if knowledge of the plans of these several insurgent groups came into DOJ/FBI management circles, this could be denied by those traitors until the last possible moment.

      Even if experienced agents had informants keeping them informed of planned activities for Jan/6/2021, and informed management of those plans, still, any move to prepare to oppose those plans could have been balled up and interfered with by Trumpista actors in critical roles within those agencies.

      I certainly hope that all of such activity will be disclosed and all such actors will be indicted and prosecuted, beginning at the very top with TFG from Mar-a-Lago. But it very well may not ever come to light, as working with such traitors could result in the loss of pensions, jobs, security clearances, etc, etc.

  2. Peterr says:

    The government has a presumed informant . . .

    On what basis do you presume that UCC-1 was a pre-Jan 6th informant? Not disagreeing, just wondering if I have missed something here, because my first thought upon reading this was that the govt is still digging into whomever UCC-1 might have been talking to, especially inside the Trump campaign, the Trump hangers-on, and the Trump administration.

    Could it possibly be the case that UCC-1 came to the FBI’s attention post-Jan 6th, at which point they pulled UCC-1 in and have been leaning on him to flip on folks outside the Proud Boys and inside the Trump orbit? If so, then by not indicting him along with the others, they were perhaps showing a willingness to make a deal.

    • Rugger9 says:

      Any chance UCC-1 is Roger Stone? The rhetoric fits, and let’s recall Stone used PBs as his “security” which makes sense if he’s in leadership as well as the unofficial link to DJT’s campaign.

      • subtropolis says:

        Not a chance, imho. Stone is too savvy. If he was involved (and I believe that he was) he wasn’t texting the group like this. Rather, he’d have limited his communications to direct conversations with one or two people at a time.

        Also, although he is very friendly with the PBs, it was the OKs who were acting as his security.

    • Eureka says:

      Unless I’ve misunderstood, by pointing to Rostom’s piece she is further IDing a specific PB informant as UCC-1 (assuming that the one Rostom states left the group in December really did leave the group by then and is ruled out). That would be “Aaron PB” as IDed in Reuters: the other half of the cited Telegram “informant” chat discussed there is Zach Rehl.

      While on the topic: given their rules to not affiliate with other/non-leader PB as outlined in Marcy’s post, Rehl either broke the rules, the rules changed, or a third/separate Philly PB is a part of this leadership tier. Rehl was standing with him near the building (after Rehl had unglued himself from Biggs (esp.) and Nordean). Rehl and this other PB summoned folks forward at 2:47 PM (“you guys wanna go in?”); Rehl subsequently entered the building through the door Biggs had initially entered.

      Caveat: haven’t had time to read this new filing

      • Eureka says:

        It should be noted re the Rostom piece Marcy links that Reuters has since removed several paragraphs (six, by my count, which used to follow the chat excerpt) which name and discuss (via an attorney on another matter) “Aaron PB” and Philadelphia Proud Boys-as-informants-related content per archived versions. Yet the live Reuters page indicates no “update” that I can see.

        Several relevant links in this thread:

        Here, the Telegram chat transcribed/link to screenshot:

        Scroll up in thread to 1:47am for a link to an article by an independent journalist who IDs that third Philly PB with whom Rehl stands outside the Capitol (in contradistinction to their “rules”, unless the rules changed or he is also a leader).

        The pre-entry video, “you guys wanna go in?”:

      • Eureka says:

        There’s a(nother) discrepancy in the gov’s filing. On page 5 — one of a few which lack OCR, btw — they identify “Person 1” as making the comment hoping that the “normies” “burn that city to ash” (last full paragraph). On page 7, as EW quotes above, they attribute that statement to UCC-1.

        From the ~ emphatic context on page 5, it seems like page 5 is more likely to be correct (unless Person 1 _is_ UCC-1).

        Also re page 5 (image): wtf were the PBs going to do at/re the SPLC HQs, and when?

        • Eureka says:

          *^(who’s on first): seems like page 7 is more likely to be correct, given emphatic context on page 5 (see also preceding para.)

      • Eureka says:

        After a full reading the impression I got was that Person 1 might be an “Aaron” (or other Rehl-affiliated)-type — specifically because of the (potential) parallelisms of rank, scale, and pre-existing relationships (geo-located leader buddy clades!) with which P1 likens the quality of P1’s own orders to Biggs’, and Rehl’s orders to Tarrio’s.

        To state the obvious the most interesting outstanding element is that _they_ all know who are UCC-1, Person 1, and Person 2.

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Back in the day, some of J. Edgar’s FBI informants were his own undercover agents. The technique has not gone entirely out of fashion. The UK is, for example, currently enduring a scandal concerning undercover police officers going so undercover that they married and had children with members of the group(s) they were spying on.

  4. John Paul Jones says:

    As to the Tsarnaev story, even if he was an informant, I don’t think that’s what turned him into a murderer. I read through the MacPhee piece, and while MacPhee has been following this story for a long time, and the report is interesting, it also skirts things, it has a long central section that is a kind of narrative loop (we come out exactly where we went in, with no clear additional information), and the only really new facts – the FBI emails, re: citizenship – raise questions which the state of our information doesn’t allow us to answer. I hope MacPhee is still following the trail, because I believe there is more to be uncovered.

    As to why Tsarnaev was never stopped at JFK on his way to Degestan, stories I’ve read – and apologies for lack of citation, I read them years ago – was that the people who were supposed to do that job at the airport tended to set their own priorities on a day-to-day basis, and they didn’t flag Tsarnaev as a particularly high priority, perhaps because the guys in Boston whose job it would’ve been to send JFK a notification, somehow failed to do so. To me, stupidity, laziness and over-work seem like more likely explanations for some of the things MacPhee implies were part of a recruiting campaign. The money for Tsarnaev’s travels (and the hundreds of dollars needed to build the bombs) likely came from the murders of Tsarnaev’s drug-dealing former best friends. In an earlier bust, police took $21,000 out of their apartment along with pounds of dope, so if it is the case that the Tsarnaev’s slaughtered them (it seems to me quite likely), it’s possible that a lot of money was involved. Very little money and drugs was left at the scene of the murders, which seems a bit counter-intuitive, given the previous bust.

    Tsarnaev was also, most likely, psychotic or schizophrenic. He heard voices telling him what to do. All three of the murdered dealers were Jewish, and Tsarnaev was known to his acquaintances as a noisy anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist. His family decided not to use doctors to help him, but to use Islamic “methods,” that is, to straighten him out by making him more pious; that was the decision that led him farther down the rabbit-hole of conspiracy theories with an Islamist tinge, and which ultimately led to the bombings, though he had been a conspiracy buff for a long time before. I hate determinism with a passion, but I don’t think any of the agencies tracing him could have stopped him, once he got fully absorbed into the Salafist mindset, because it fit uniquely well with his delusions and theories. He was always going to do something violent; the Islamism gave his urges a focus, and the involvement of the FBI confirmed his paranoid fantasies.

    • Drkoon says:

      I have an aphorism I like to use here: never assume a conspiracy when incompetence is a more parsimonious explanation.

      Of course, here we are certainly dealing with a conspiracy, one that also has its own manifes incompetence. The idea that the PBS could somehow use compartmentalization to work around gang or conspiracy charges is pretty silly, and probably won’t work as a legal defense, given that this evidence shows that compartmentalization is part of the conspiracy.

  5. BroD says:

    “if this informant provided the FBI some kind of warning, then it means the Bureau failed, badly”

    FBI’s not looking good either way.

  6. Wajim says:

    Wheels, a “purple-haired faggot”? I love purple hair (and blue, so sexy). And “faggots,” well, my best friend is one, as she says, “Gay as Fuck.” So, no Proud Boys ID card for me, sadly. And I look so hot in a tac vest and camo pants. No, really, you should see . . .

  7. earthworm says:

    re “purple haired faggot” : who uttered this insult, a concealed-carry lizard-person?

  8. madwand says:

    On Velshi this morning they are now describing MOSD as the Ministry of Self Defense, looks like the same guys at the top to me. As far as UCC-1 these turned guys can operate both ways when it suits them. In the East African campaign in WW1 the British eliminated a double agent working primarily for the Germans by sending him $10,000 for services rendered, taking care to make sure German Intelligence found out and they duly executed him. UCC-1 sounds to me that he is working both ends but primarily the MO
    SD end.

  9. DAT says:

    Is it possible there are only six distinct individuals in MOSD, and the list of seven names has two names that refer back to just one person?

Comments are closed.