Crystalizing Conspiracies: Fourth Superseding, James Breheny, Puma’s GoPro, [Redacted], and the Willard Hotel

Since I’ve acquired new readers with my January 6 coverage and since the financial stress of COVID is abating for many, it seems like a good time to remind people this is not a hobby: it is my day job, and I’d be grateful if you support my work.

In this post, I used the imminent guilty plea of Paul Allard Hodgkins to illustrate that we really don’t know what evidence of conspiracy prosecutors are looking at, which means that we can’t really say whether the January 6 investigation will ultimately hold those who incited the violence accountable. I explained how a PhD in Comp Lit might be useful training to see the gaps in prosecution filings that show what secrets they’re holding in abeyance. And, as I further explained, if those most responsible for January 6 are going to be held accountable, it will likely be (at least in part) via conspiracies with the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, including the multiple ties Roger Stone has with both militias.

This post is meant to be read in tandem with that one.

This one will look at four developments in the case against the Oath Keepers in the last week or so.

The superseding indictment turns the screws

Most spectacularly, the government rolled out a fourth superseding Oath Keeper indictment yesterday. The ostensible purpose of it was to add four new defendants: Joseph Hackett, Jason Dolan, and William Isaacs, all from Florida, along with a fourth, accused of just three crimes, whose name is redacted.

The indictment broadens the kinds of communications used to communicate during the conspiracy, including Signal along with Zello, as well as orders to write key details in cursive, then send them via Proton Mail.

It adds a comment Stewart Rhodes made on November 9 laying out what I’ll call the “Antifa foil” — an affirmative plan, laid out months before the insurrection, to use the “threat” of Antifa as the excuse to come armed and a means to foment violence.

At a GoToMeeting5 held on November 9, 2020, PERSON ONE told those attending the meeting, “We’re going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country. Because if you don’t guys, you’re going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war, and a bloody – you can call it an insurrection or you can call it a war or fight.” PERSON ONE called upon his followers to go to Washington, D.C., to let the President know “that the people are behind him.” PERSON ONE told his followers they needed to be prepared to fight Antifa, which he characterized as a group of individuals with whom “if the fight comes, let the fight come. Let Antifa – if they go kinetic on us, then we’ll go kinetic back on them. I’m willing to sacrifice myself for that. Let the fight start there. That will give President Trump what he needs, frankly. If things go kinetic, good. If they throw bombs at us and shoot us, great, because that brings the president his reason and rationale for dropping the Insurrection Act.” PERSON ONE continued, “I do want some Oath Keepers to stay on the outside, and to stay fully armed and prepared to go in armed, if they have to . . . . So our posture’s gonna be that we’re posted outside of DC, um, awaiting the President’s orders. . . . We hope he will give us the orders. We want him to declare an insurrection, and to call us up as the militia.” WATKINS, KELLY MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, PERSON THREE, PERSON TEN, and others known and unknown attended this GoToMeeting. After PERSON ONE finished speaking, WATKINS and KELLY MEGGS asked questions and made comments about what types of weapons were legal in the District of Columbia.

The indictment provides more evidence of a plan to have Oath Keepers from North Carolina stationed as a Quick Reaction Force to pick up weapons from one of two locations in DC and deliver them to others already there (a recent filing arguing Thomas Caldwell needs to keep informing pretrial services of his movements included surveillance video from the Ballston Comfort Inn of the conspirators carrying around presumed guns draped in sheets).

On the evening of January 2, 2021, at about 5:43 p.m., KELLY MEGGS posted a map of Washington, D.C., in the Leadership Signal Chat, along with the message, “1 if by land[,] North side of Lincoln Memorial[,] 2 if by sea[,] Corner of west basin and Ohio is a water transport landing !!” KELLY MEGGS continued, “QRF rally points[.] Water of the bridges get closed.”


On January 4, 2021, CALDWELL emailed PERSON THREE several maps along with the message, “These maps walk you from the hotel into D.C. and east toward the target area on multiple roads running west to east including M street and P street, two of my favorites . . . .”


On January 4, 2021, WATKINS wrote in the Florida Signal Chat, “Where can we drop off weapons to the QRF team? I’d like to have the weapons secured prior to the Op tomorrow.”

On the morning of January 5, 2021, HARRELSON asked in the Florida Signal Chat for the location of the “QRF hotel,” and KELLY MEGGS responded by asking for a direct message.

It provides more details about what the Oath Keepers did in the Capitol (including descriptions of how the kitted out veterans folded — retreated — as soon as they were hit with some tear gas).

When officers responded by deploying a chemical spray, the mob—including CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, and ISAACS—retreated.


JAMES briefly breached the Rotunda but was expelled by at least one officer who aimed chemical spray directly at JAMES, and multiple officers who pushed him out from behind.

Importantly, the superseding indictment adds civil disorder charges against six of the Oath Keepers for interactions they had with cops inside the Capitol. It adds an assault charge against Joshua James for his physical interaction with cops. It adds obstruction charges against Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, and James for deleting comms. Some of these charges were expected; it’s just that adding four new defendants was a convenient time to add them.

As these defendants are sitting here, though, their legal jeopardy is getting worse. Which is likely part of the point. They might stave off any further charges if they decide to cooperate with prosecutors.

When the government first charged this conspiracy, they were way over their skis, with detention requests and claims of danger that they did not yet have (or were not yet willing to show) evidence to support. That’s no longer true, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the government tries to detain a few more of these defendants when they are arraigned on the new charges this week.

James Breheny’s inter-militia network

One of the interesting details of this indictment is the exclusion of Oath Keeper James Breheny from it. Unlike the Proud Boys, all the Oath Keepers have been charged on one conspiracy indictment. The sole exception is Jon Schaffer, who from very early on was cultivated to flip, which he did on April 16. Remarkably, it’s not clear that Schaffer’s cooperation shows up in the new superseding indictment.

Now Breheny joins Schaffer in being charged (at least for now) on his own, which means, as of now, he’s only on the hook for his own crimes, not those of 16 co-conspirators. Breheny is an Oath Keeper from New Jersey who self-surrendered (suggesting ongoing discussions involving a lawyer) on May 20.

Breheny’s charging documents are interesting on several points. First, the affidavit excerpts a post Stewart Rhodes published on December 14, calling on Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, including this paragraph:

You must act NOW as a wartime President, pursuant to your oath to defend the Constitution, which is very similar to the oath all of us veterans swore. We are already in a fight. It’s better to wage it with you as Commander-in-Chief than to have you comply with a fraudulent election, leave office, and leave the White House in the hands of illegitimate usurpers and Chinese puppets. Please don’t do it. Do NOT concede, and do NOT wait until January 20, 2021. Strike now.

This Rhodes post doesn’t appear in the Oath Keeper conspiracies, though it is a continuation of the November 9 comment from Rhodes also calling for insurrection, and it provides context for a comment he made on January 6 about what he expected Trump to do.

Then, Breheny’s complaint describes him inviting Rhodes to “a leadership meeting of ‘multiple patriot groups'” in Quarryville, PA on January 3, 2021. His invite directed Rhodes not to bring a phone and explained,

This will be the day we get our comms on point with multiple other patriot groups, share rally points etc. This one is important and I believe this is our last chance to organize before the show. This meeting will be for leaders only.

Breheny’s complaint also explains that Rhodes only added Breheny to the leadership list for the Oath Keepers on January 6. In explaining that detail, a footnote explains,

numerous individuals affiliated with the Oath Keepers who have been alleged to have participated in the riots participated in this chat and have been indicted in US v. Caldwell et al, 21-cr-28-APM.

It’s a neat way of saying that Breheny conspired with those charged in the main Oath Keepers conspiracy and they conspired with him, without charging him in that conspiracy.

The rest of the complaint explains how Breheny lied to the FBI about what he did on January 6, but after the government got a warrant for his phone, they obtained pictures and texts showing he had done far more on January 6 than he admitted to cops, including fighting his way in the East Doors that all the other Oath Keepers entered.

The government has been selective about whom they’re charging with obstruction for lying and deleting evidence, but their case that Breheny deliberately attempted to obstruct the investigation is quite strong.

Anthony Puma’s GoPro is arrested

On May 27, a guy from Michigan named Anthony Puma was arrested, more than four months after the FBI interviewed him on January 14 and after, on January 17, he shared the SD card from the GoPro he wore on January 6.

On April 23, the government obtained Puma’s Facebook account, which provided video and text evidence that, in his January 14 interview, Puma dramatically downplayed his knowledge of events on January 6. Most notably, they found texts he posted on January 5, knowing that, and precisely when, “we are storming” the Capitol the next day.

Tomorrow is the big day. Rig for Red. War is coming

We are here. What time do we storm the House of Representatives?

Hopefully, we are storming the House of Representatives tomorrow at 100 pm.

There’s no hint in his charging documents that Puma has association with the Oath Keepers. Assuming he does not, it seems likely he was arrested, as I believe a number of other recent defendants were, so he can be forced to authenticate the important video evidence he shot on the day of the insurrection.

As a Comp Lit PhD who had to read a fuck-ton of postmodern theory, my favorite picture from his GoPro shows him filming himself shooting a video on his phone as he approached the Capitol.

But there are two other clips that I suspect are more important — one, showing what I believe to be a second stack of likely Oath Keepers preparing to breach the Capitol.

And another, showing presumed Oath Keepers on their golf cart race from the Willard Hotel to reinforce the Capitol, calling out, “We are inside, they need help, we’ve breached the Capitol.”

So whether or not Puma has a tie to the Oath Keepers, he now has reason to cooperate with prosecutors on making this video available for any trial.


As noted, there were four people added to the Oath Keepers conspiracy indictment, but the name of one remains redacted.

It can’t be Roger Stone, as a lot of people are wishing, because Stone’s not an Oath Keeper.

But whoever [redacted] is, he almost certainly traveled with Roberto Minuta and Joshua James from the Willard Hotel where they were “guarding” Roger Stone and others to the Capitol.

I say that because of four paragraphs from the third superseding indictment describing the golf cart race to the Capitol, three are redacted in the fourth.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that [redacted] has had a child with Roger Stone or anything as exciting as that. It does mean that someone who was a likely witness to what happened on the Willard Hotel side of phone calls between Person Ten (who was the ground commander for the Oath Keepers that day) and James has been added to the conspiracy.

[redacted] appears to have entered the Capitol with Minuta and James, as what had been ¶104 describing their entrance “together with others known and unknown” in the third superseding is redacted as ¶154 in the fourth.

But the potentially more interesting actions of [redacted] appear in ¶¶76 and 77, which explain pre-insurrection communications and planning, as well as ¶99, which must explain what [redacted] did the morning of the insurrection, probably with James and Minuta. And ¶102 likely describes what the three of them were doing at the Willard Hotel while everyone else started breaching the Capitol.

As I said in this post, it takes more than four months to charge a complex conspiracy. But these four developments together add a December call for insurrection (in tandem with events that day in DC), places the Oath Keepers — including Stewart Rhodes — in a January 3 meeting coordinating with other militias, and it seemingly adds a third witness to what went on in the Willard Hotel the morning of the insurrection.

69 replies
  1. Zirc says:

    “As a Comp Lit PhD who had to read a fuck-ton of postmodern theory, my favorite picture from his GoPro shows him filming himself shooting a video on his phone as he approached the Capitol.”

    As a Eng Lit PhD, I chuckled at this line.


      • BobCon says:

        Stanley Fish made a big deal about preaching the virtues of postmodernism to earlier versions of these fascists and authoritarians. His whole tone was predictably LOL nothing matters why are you mad?

        I don’t pretend for a second that Fish mattered more than a tick on the rump of a hog as far as these people. But I think his posturing had a bigger effect on his readers in the NY Times and WSJ in sanding down the viciousness and harm of his clients.

        I can’t imagine ego and pride will ever let Fish admit how deeply he dove into the pool of BS ( as described by Harry Frankfurt) and how much, deep down, he loves the feeling of rubbing these images into his skin. Despite his lies about lack of stakes, he desperately wants these people to win, and always has.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Mirror Stage! I love it–cut my dissertational teeth on Derrida, Foucault and Kristeva, when I should have stuck with New Criticism. But no theory necessary to enjoy the absurd moment you captured here, Dr. Wheeler. Thanks.

        • Rayne says:

          Exchanged some thoughts recently with our co-contributor Ed Walker about gaze theory — certainly wonder whether we should be addressing Lacan. Perhaps Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation as well, since the insurrectionists constructed their own reality on top of and using layers of GOP propaganda, hostile foreign entities’ realpolitik, and Qonspiracy theories.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Lacan: Mais oui! Although I read the ones I listed earlier, Lacan makes far more appearances in my work. And I like BobCon’s comment about the impact of postmodern critical theory, as promulgated by Stanley Fish and others (we had a Big Theory Star where I did my grad work), on other fields and the culture in general. (I think there’s a reason why the label “critical race theory” has been embraced by its antagonists–the phrase invites those with no understanding of it to bring an attenuated popular idea of “critical theory” to their arguments. They’d definitely rather not admit the “race” part.)

          I’m looking forward to seeing what you and Ed come up with. Will be digging out my Baudrillard meanwhile.

  2. joel fisher says:

    Only a question and maybe not even a good one: if a leader in one of the several distinct conspiracies is in operational contact with leaders of other conspiracies, to what extent are the followers in one conspiracy criminally responsible for the behavior of followers in a separate conspiracy?

    • bmaz says:

      Complicated question! Depending on the number and nature of the overt acts in common, they could be linked together. We shall see.

      • jeco30 says:

        The grand conspiracy was stopping the certification of Biden’s election and the execution of this attack was carried out by the various militias like an Italian military operation. Although they all look the same to us, apparently there was some element of coordination , Proud Boys here, 3%ers there and then the Golf cart cavalry arrives! I think the link to Il Duce will be “the set up”, the understaffing of the Capitol PD, the delays in response by military (think about trumps pentagon plants and dyed in the wool, insurrectionist, Flynn’s brother’s slow walking of the response.

        The response of the Washington DC muni police may have been all that prevented a successful coup and without them we could be under martial law and unable to discuss 1/6.

        • jeco30 says:

          I appreciate that it hasn’t been legally proven yet that these weren’t just typical DC tourists. But I think many breadcrumbs will be found leading to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in due time.

        • bmaz says:

          Actually, I think it has been established these were not common tourists. But thinking that some amorphous “breadcrumbs” will lead to Trump or anybody else in the WH being charged, much less convicted, is a pipedream.

        • joel fisher says:

          As is often the case with Trump, his behavior is out in the open for all to see. People routinely do his less-than-overly-communicated bidding and get themselves into trouble while leaving Trump, more or less, in the clear. The only sure path for consequences is either a prosecution on the false answers he gave to Mueller or a stint in a witness chair where he could not resist lying.
          Doesn’t make a difference, civil or criminal, he will lie so the sooner the Trump-as-witness event happens the sooner he will find his Waterloo.

      • P J Evans says:

        I assume you’ve seen that M Flynn was pushing sedition and a military coup again.

        • ducktree says:

          Just in time for Independence Day… (that day, I’ll be on vacation very near the Canadian border – with my passport and vaccination card).

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s a great question! That’s the big question if these conspiracies continue to work their way up.

      • joel fisher says:

        At the very least, one could say that the leaders of the various conspiracies would be members of any conspiracy with whose leaders they were in contact. But wouldn’t that contact have to include more than information sharing? Wouldn’t there have to be an agreement to preform some act? Or am I failing to look at the big picture? Many Defendants and soon to be defendants showed by behavior, and often words, that they wanted to prevent Congress from preforming an official act. But others probably did simply get caught up in the moment. The “caught ups” only agreed to be trespassers, but if one of their number decides in the course of the agreed behavior to beat someone up, wouldn’t that bring all the “caught ups” into charges that ensue from the assault?

  3. noromo says:

    Thanks, Doc, for all your hard work. Keep it up. Have a beer, on me.

    But as “a Comp Lit PhD,” is someone questioning your bona fides? Screw them.

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s a bit of a joke, but also a real reference (made in the last post) to my training in narrative theory.

      • John Paul Jones says:

        This is why I love teaching Wilkie Collins’ “The Woman in White” and “The Moonstone” on occasion. He was the first person to explicitly put in my mind the idea that a trial is the prosecutor telling a story to the jury, giving them an explicable narrative of events and leading them to a conclusion. As for theory, sorry, Theory, most of it strikes me as pretty vapid and not well founded philosophically, which probably explains why I never finished my doctorate; my supervisor tumbled to the notion that I wasn’t the right sort to be awarded a PhD.

        • gmoke says:

          Posted this here recently but it seems germane once again: “For example, years ago Mr Justice Cardozo pointed out that law was really literature.”
          The Folklore of Capitalism by Thurman W Arnold, published 1937

        • emptywheel says:

          Many countries in the 19th century had a split in the humanities, from what was “letters” or rhetoric to law and literature. The split was often tied closely to nationalist movements.

          I think all three — non-legal writing, law, and literature — have suffered from the split.

        • JR says:

          Just discovered you and subscribed. As an over degreed, post modern thinking lit, conflict studies rhetoric person…. Reassuring to find you is an understatement. I’d like to think if these insurrectionists were all trained in post modern thinking they would choose not to do this. Not too please to think it would have made their insurrection more successful. Whew.

        • P J Evans says:

          Writing computer programs is *writing*. So is documentation. (I rebuilt a manual, for work, reorganizing all of the material so it was in coherent chapters, and added a whole section on the more problematic stuff that we ran into. The users loved it.)

        • emptywheel says:

          At least when I was in grad school, it counted as a language for the purposes of CompLit’s language requirements.

        • P J Evans says:

          It didn’t even exist when I was in public schools, back when PCs were a dream. Some of the kids in another math class got to use a remote computer for a couple of weeks. (We did know they existed: it was a very high-tech area.) When I started CS fifteen years later, the requirement was that you have had Basic or Fortran to get in at all. (I took Pascal and Latin at the same time.)

        • bmaz says:

          Late in high school, we had a computer terminal that you click a phone receiver into that hopefully connected to a server at the county college. Was taught Basic for that. Got an A, but did not really learn much. In college actually used the punch cards on a giant Univac, later a Hewlett Packard that took up a building (freezing cold to keep it healthy). Is good thing I don’t have to fall back on any of the early stuff now.

        • Anvil Leucippus says:

          In UX design (sorry for saying it out loud; I hate that ‘X’ too) there is a school of thought that in explaining a complex issue as a story, it engages the parts of the brain that make people more likely to pay attention. I’m never going to have to convince a court of anything, but if I did, I would definitely try the narrative approach first.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Meh, the fourth be which us?
          Meta force be with us…
          May the “for”s be with us.
          Metaphors be with us!

        • Savage Librarian says:

          🎶 Yes, my heart belongs to Data,
          But it simply couldn’t be stuck in beta,
          Yes, my heart belongs to Data,
          Da, da, da, da, da, da, Data 🎶

  4. yogarhythms says:

    i’m proud to support your work. Your academic bona fides are impressive and your writing more so. Resistance has had some successes in court against infringing legislation. DOJ prosecution of activist armed infringement of legislative action is a wish fulfillment I could only dream about. Thank you and your Emptywheel team for your continuous hope honesty courage reporting truth to power.

      • harpie says:

        Marcy, is receiving contributions by check a pain in the neck for you? I’ll change my method if you’d like. I let a lot of stuff slide in the past six months or so, but hope you’ve received my latest [about mid to late April].

        I very much appreciate what you do! THANK YOU!

  5. subtropolis says:

    “Remarkably, it’s not clear that Schaffer’s cooperation shows up in the new superseding indictment.”

    Might the evidence of his cooperation be in the three new names?

    “… Breheny’s complaint describes inviting Rhodes …” Do you have this reversed? In this and two other sentences, should it not be the other way around? Recall that it was Rhodes who’d put Breheny on the leadership list, not vice versa.

    • emptywheel says:

      Breheny forwarded the invite to the PA event to Rhodes. That’s a inter-militia event.

      And then Rhodes added Breheny to the leadership list on Jan 6.

      This may suggest DOJ is going to build out another conspiracy from those who attended the Jan 3 event, and they’re making sure that Breheny gets included in the main OK conspiracy. Overlapping conspiracies, using the interlocked networks of the terrorists.

  6. greenbird says:

    these were fun.
    S4 ppg 128 vs S3 ppg 91 – no mention of ‘others known and unknown’ puts ‘redacted’ in the spotlight, because when S4 dropped, ‘redacted’ – in those ppgs only – is ‘known.’
    jameson ? oirish caffee ?

  7. Troutwaxer says:

    Hi Marcy. I realize I’m asking you to speculate, but what’s the end-game look like here? I’m assuming that eventually all the people who can be linked to any one of several conspiracies get all tied together; Oath Keepers in one basket, Proud Boys in another, Q’Anon believers in a third, plus a bunch of people who didn’t “conspire” but did breach the capitol or attack cops or steal documents/laptops, and all this gets mapped out as best as can be managed…

    What happens then? Is everyone currently getting the minimal charges to get them in front of an interrogator, with a big upgrade to “insurrection” or “terrorism” charges later? Will there be a grand “overarching” conspiracy charged which reaches up to Stone/Jones/Flynn and maybe higher? What are prosecutors filling in the pieces to ultimately develop? Do you think the prosecutors have a better picture of what’s going on than they’re currently allowing the rest of us to see? And how clear is that picture currently?

    Lastly, how clear do you think everyone is on the idea that Germany didn’t use nearly enough force against the people who ran the Beer Hall Putsch, and maybe we shouldn’t make that same mistake?

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Since you raised QAnon, Troutwaxer, I wanted to jump in and ask if anyone has any idea whether “QAnon followers” are being treated like members of a conspiracy, the way PBs and OKs are. If so, would an investigation pursue the generator of Q posts (recently identified as Ron Watkins, 8chan moderator)?

      My impression has been that the overtly Q people who attacked on January 6 mostly had affiliations with another group (like OKs) that has/had an existence in the offline world. Following Q is not mutually exclusive with Oath Keeping or Proud Boying. These seem like great tastes that go great together. Or, you know, not that.

  8. Coffae says:

    Love the peek into all the innerworkings and intrigue. I am still trying to shake off the disgusting feeling of having Trump as a “leader” (I can’t say the whole thing….)

    I wonder about the maps that were being passed around:
    1. Is there a map of the Capitol Building?
    2. Is there a map for the still unfound bomber?

    • P J Evans says:

      They had (at least some of them) maps of the Capitol. There are still questions about how they found the offices that *aren’t* shown on maps.

  9. Eureka says:

    The way they chopped and chimera’d the OK and possibly interlocking militia conspiracies evidence between the OK S4 and Breheny’s doc seems kind of weird. I take from your comments that this might be a way to dam the flow of information until the gov is ready to let it go…

    In the Part I post of this pair you reiterated your belief of the PB-OK junction running through FL but I’d sure like to know who all was out in Lancaster County.

    Not pedanting, but because I think you’d care: the gloves (Part I) are better described as “latex-style” or something, given that many/most are non-latex such as nitrile and vinyl. (IOW when the gov describes these gloves they might also use a modifier, absent knowing what they are. Especially to the extent any writers (FBI folk) wear such gloves.) #sociolinguisticdivisionoflabor on glove (un)natural kinds

    • Eureka says:

      Since Breheny is from North Jersey I wonder if there is a connection to Minuta [either via the defiant reopening rallies which OKs attended at Minuta’s Newburgh, NY tattoo shop, or after Rhodes granted Minuta a lifetime (NJ) OK membership at/because of said rallies].

      Any chance someone “important” like Minuta, tasked with guarding Stone, would have joined regular OK leaders at a regional inter-militia coordination meeting?

      I’m finding these questions beg more questions like how the security details (sic) were selected, when, and by whom. (Like was this guy “special” before he was picked?) Didn’t see reference to Minuta’s activities ca. Jan 3, don’t recall if they’ve been disclosed (criminal complaint notes that his vehicle travels south toward DC on Jan 5th- from where is not stated, though the return trip is stated to be towards NJ).

  10. Dutch Louis says:

    Is it possible that the “threat” of Antifa was fabricated as a tale to come true: “Let Antifa […] If they throw bombs at us […], great, because that brings the president his reason and rationale for dropping the Insurrection Act. […] we’re posted outside of DC, um, awaiting the President’s orders. . . . We hope he will give us the orders. We want him to declare an insurrection, and to call us up as the militia.”

    “Hopefully, we are storming the House of Representatives tomorrow at 100 pm.”

    Long story short: the bombs were there, 1.00 p.m came, the Oath Keepers were there, 1.00 p.m went, the bombs did not explode and the President didn’t call.

  11. Fran of the North says:

    One minor detail in one of the posted pics that I find interesting, specifically the ‘Stack Prep’ photo.

    We’ve seen many photo’s of the ‘tourists’ with orange blaze marks. In this photo, we see two with green. It makes one wonder: Quite probably, this is operation ID for quick recognition in chaotic events for a different group than ‘Team Orange’.

    Wonder whether there is forensic analysis being done to identify which colors belong to which groups. If so, tracking the various team member behavior might shed some light on operational plans – e.g. Team orange penetrates Senate, team green goes House side, thus providing even more evidence of coordination between disparate groups.

  12. Savage Librarian says:

    Looks like Walden is the 4th guy:

    “Birmingham Man Faces Charges Related To Jan. 6 Capital Breach
    Jonathan Walden, of Birmingham, has been charged with conspiracy and obstruction, among other charges related to the U.S. Capitol breach.” –
    Michael Seale, Jun 3, 2021
    “The FBI released a statement Thursday saying Walden aggressively berated and taunted law enforcement officers guarding the perimeter of the building after arriving at the Capitol. The FBI also accused Walden of sending a message to co-defendant Joshua James before the Jan. 6 breach looking to join a team set to provide military-like support at the breach.”
    The indictment says Walden arrived at the Capitol at 2:30 p.m. “equipped with goggles, scissors, a tactical vest with attachments, gloves, a backpack, fatigues, boots, and his dog.” The indictment also says Walden brought his dog inside the Capitol when he and the group he was with entered the building.”

    “Walden faces the same charges as three Florida men who reportedly rode with Walden to the Capitol in golf carts from their hotel in Washington. The other men have been identified as Joseph Hackett, 50, of Sarasota; Jason Dolan, 44, of Wellington, and William Isaacs, 21, of Kissimmee.”

Comments are closed.