The January 6 Militia Witnesses Are Cooperating with DOJ, Probably Not the January 6 Committee

Liz Cheney made a comment in Thursday’s public hearing that has attracted some attention. As part of her explanation that the January 6 investigation is ongoing, she said,

As we present these initial findings, keep two points in mind. First, our investigation is still ongoing. So what we make public here will not be the complete set of information we will ultimately disclose. And second, the Department of Justice is currently working with cooperating witnesses and has disclosed to date only some of the information it has identified from encrypted communications and other sources.

Some have wondered whether this reflects some kind of insight into where the DOJ investigation is headed.

I doubt that Cheney’s comment reflects any greater insight into where DOJ is headed than I’ve gotten from tracking DOJ’s investigation closely, though as I’ll explain below, the Committee undoubtedly has non-public insight into how the militias coordinated with those close to Trump. (One possible — and important — exception to this assumption might be Joshua James, the Oath Keeper who is known to have testified in an NYPD inquiry targeting Roger Stone associate Sal Greco.)

While the Committee showed clips of depositions it had with Stewart Rhodes (pleading the Fifth in response to a question about arming members), Enrique Tarrio (expressing regret he didn’t monetize the Stand Back and Stand By comment), and Jeremy Bertino (who is Person-1 in the sedition indictment charging the Proud Boy leaders and who told the Committee that membership tripled in response to Trump’s comment), the more substantive claims about the militias on Thursday always cited the indictments against them, not evidence independently gathered by the Committee.

For example, Cheney described how Trump’s December 19, 2020 tweet, “initiated a chain of events. The tweet led to the planning for what occurred on January 6, including by the Proud Boys, who ultimately led the invasion of the Capitol and the violence on that day.” In his questioning of documentarian Nick Quested, Bennie Thompson likewise cited the indictment against the Proud Boys for claims about the lead-up to the attack.

To be sure, Thompson laid out details of the attack that are not generally known, but which are public: the Proud Boys skipped Trump’s speech and kicked off their attack to coincide with the Joint Session, not Trump’s speech; the Proud Boys first attacked at the site where the mob soon to be led by Alex Jones would arrive. I’ve laid out some of these dynamics in this post, and the Sedition Hunters have developed two detailed timelines that show how this worked, one describing the phases of the attack, and another capturing key communications of those implicated in it.

I’ve likewise noted what Cheney has: The Proud Boys — and virtually everyone else who organized in advance — responded to Trump’s tweet as if it was an order. I’ve also described — in a post called, “Back Was Stood, And By Was Stood: The Passive Voice Behind the Top Down Structure of the Charles Donohoe Statement of Offense” — how in cooperating witness Charles Donohoe’s Statement of Offense, DOJ for the first time used the passive voice to describe how the riot was announced.

[T]he foundation of that hierarchy that is so remarkable.

On December 19, 2020, plans were announced for a protest event in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, which protest would coincide with Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote.

On or before December 20, 2020, Tarrio approached Donohoe and solicited his interest in joining the leadership of a new chapter of the Proud Boys, called the Ministry of Self Defense (“MOSD”). Donohoe understood from Tarrio that the new chapter would be focused on the planning and execution of national rallies and would consist of hand-selected “rally” boys. Donohoe felt privileged to be included and agreed to participate.

Close to every other filing in the January 6 case that mentions the announcement of these plans actually cites what was taken as the formal announcement: Trump’s tweet, in response to which hundreds if not thousands of rioters began to make plans to come to DC.

Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud ‘more than sufficient’ to swing victory to Trump . A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!

The import of that December 19 tweet was clear even in real time; the NYT and WaPo recently returned to the central role it plays in a great number of January 6 cases.

But this statement of offense instead presents what was viewed as an order from Trump in the passive voice: “Plans were announced.” Trump announced those plans, as every other charging document makes clear.

And the next day, in response to that announcement, Tarrio started building that top-down hierarchical structure that would go on to intentionally assault the Capitol and cops.

There are many things this statement of offense does with that masterful use of the passive voice. It implicates, without mentioning, people like Peter Navarro and Ali Alexander, the former because he was mentioned in the tweet and the latter because he was organizing it. The statement of offense makes clear that Tarrio told Donohoe and other Ministry of Self Defense leaders about what their plan was, but doesn’t reveal what he has shared, particularly what he shared about direct planning with people close to Trump. Indeed, the language of the statement of offense leaves open the possibility that Tarrio was moving on this even before the public launch of the riot by Trump.

But most importantly, without naming him, this structure puts Trump at the head of that hierarchy that bears top-down responsibility for the intentional violence and damage in the service of obstructing the vote certification.

The implication from the Statement of Offense is that Donohoe learned certain things starting on December 20 that he has shared with prosecutors. One reason I’m pretty sure that prosecutors haven’t shared it with the Committee, yet, is because Donohoe’s cooperation does not show up in the discovery index provided to the defendants themselves on May 12, over a month after Donohoe flipped, which prosecutors filed publicly last week. Similarly, prosecutors have not yet explicitly told defense attorneys the person who shared a plan with Tarrio talking about occupying the Capitol, though they have the returns for Tarrio’s phone that should help defense attorneys learn that person’s identity.

(I do wonder whether a challenge to a very recent call records subpoena from the Committee by Russian-American Kristina Malimon, discovered by Kyle Cheney, not to mention the high profile former Trump impeachment lawyers representing her, means the Committee thinks they’ve figured out the person’s identity, though.)

The schedule of upcoming January 6 hearings explains one reason why Cheney referenced the ongoing investigation when citing DOJ’s cooperating witnesses:

  • June 13: The Big Lie
  • June 15: Decapitate DOJ
  • June 16: Pressuring Pence
  • June 21: Pressuring the States
  • Hearing 6: Trump Assembles a Mob and Sics it on Congress
  • Hearing 7: Trump Does Nothing as Capitol Is Attacked

The dates for the last two hearings, hearings that will include details about how the Proud Boys paused their attack to await reinforcements brought by Alex Jones, opened a second front in seeming coordination with the Oath Keepers and Jones, and considered a second assault until learning the National Guard had finally been deployed, are not known yet. Whenever they are, though, they’ll come after June 21, and therefore after the June 17 discovery deadline in the Proud Boy Leaders case. DOJ has said they won’t supersede the Leaders indictment beyond what it currently is (meaning no more co-conspirators will be added to it). But the fates of Persons-1 (Bertino), -2, and -3 are up in the air right now, as well as a number of charged Proud Boys (like Ron Loehrke), who played key roles in the tactical success of the attack but who have not yet been indicted. Similarly, the fates of those known to coordinate most closely with the militias — Roger Stone, Alex Jones, and Ali Alexander — remain uncertain.

Who knows? Their fates may be less uncertain between now and the last Committee hearing!

To be clear: as Chairman Thompson told Jake Tapper this week, the Committee does know of some of the coordination. I’ve heard of a communication implicating Stone that I believe the Committee has. Alex Jones complained about how many communications the Committee — specifically those of Cindy Chafian and Caroline Wren — had obtained, and one or both of them also communicated with Tarrio. A key focus of the testimony of Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lawrence — and surely, Katrina Pierson, whom Stone and his associates have tried to blame for the attack — described their panic after Trump told his mob to walk to the Capitol. That testimony must explain why Pierson fought so hard to keep Wren’s chosen speakers, including Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, Brandon Straka, and others, off the stage. This fight also shows up in Mark Meadows’ texts. And Ali Alexander testified for eight hours; we’ll see how successfully the Committee debunked his already-debunked cover story, but Alexander lost his shit during the hearing on Thursday. The role of the Stop the Steal effort in delivering bodies to the right places at the Capitol is the most important known coordination from the day of the attack.

Rudy Giuliani also had communications with Proud Boy associate James Sullivan, Mike Flynn had some ties to militias (especially the First Amendment Praetorians), and Sidney Powell was paying for the defense of a number of militia members.

The Committee knows a great deal about how Trump’s mob got directed to the Capitol. But I suspect they’re still waiting to learn all the details that cooperating witnesses have provided.

Known cooperating witnesses

Oath Keepers

Jon Schaffer: The substance of Schaffer’s cooperation against the Oath Keepers is still not clear (and could well extend beyond them).

Graydon Young: Young interacted with Roger Stone in the weeks leading up to the attack, may know details of the alliance struck between Proud Boys and Florida Oath Keepers, and was part of the First Stack to bust into the Capitol; he also implicated his sister.

Mark Grods: Grods was the first Oath Keeper who was present at the Willard the day of the attack to flip, and likely provided details of the QRF and implicated Joshua James.

Caleb Berry: Berry would provide more details of Oath Keeper activities, potentially implicating Stone, in Florida, and also was witness to the attempt to hunt down Nancy Pelosi.

Jason Dolan: Dolan would explain why he and Kenneth Harrelson were waiting at the top of the East Stairs when the First Stack, Joe Biggs and his co-travelers, and Alex Jones and Ali Alexander converged there before the door was opened from the inside.

Joshua James: James called in reports from someone who is almost certainly Stone the day of the attack, participated in key discussions with Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, and Mike Simpson during the attack, and was closely involved in Rhodes’ continued efforts after January 6.

Brian Ulrich: Ulrich would provide details of planning specific to Georgia Oath Keepers and the advance planning in December.

Todd Wilson:  Wilson would explain the mobilization of the North Carolina Oath Keepers; he also witnessed a call Rhodes made to someone close to Trump after the riot.

Proud Boys

Matthew Greene: Greene will explain details of the communications involved the day of the attack and the specific goal to pressure Mike Pence.

Charles Donohoe: Donohoe will provide prosecutors an inside understanding of how the leadership of the Proud Boys worked, including with whom Tarrio may have been working starting in December and details about Tarrio’s arrest, which led Donohoe to try to fill in.

Louis Colon: A Kansas City Proud Boy who received perhaps the most favorable deal will undoubtedly implicate his co-conspirators and describe how the cell structure of the Proud Boys worked on January 6; he may also provide important debunking of someone who had been an FBI informant the day of the attac.


Gina Bisignano: Bisignano cooperated against her fellow SoCal anti-maskers, but in the light of Carl Nichols’ rejection of DOJ’s application of obstruction, is attempting to withdraw her guilty plea. A hearing on her attempt to withdraw her plea will be held on June 22. She has not withdrawn her stated intent, one directly influenced by Trump’s speech, to pressure Mike Pence.

Josiah Colt: Colt cooperated against his co-conspirators, Ronnie Sandlin and Nate DeGrave, describing how they armed themselves and helped open both the East Door and the Senate Gallery.

Klete Keller: The substance of Keller’s cooperation is not known.

Jacob Fracker: Fracker testified against fellow VA cop Thomas Robertson.

Robert Lyon: Lyon testified against his co-defendant, Dustin Thompson.

Misdemeanor cooperators

Virtually all plea deals require the defendant to share their social media and sit for an interview with the FBI. A handful of defendants are known to have convinced prosecutors to drop or hold off felony charges by providing limited cooperation (including sharing encrypted communications) in advance. They are believed to include:

Jeff Finley: Finley was a co-traveler of Proud Boy Zach Rehl on January 6.

Brandon Straka: Straka who was among those excluded from speaking on January 6,  was on Ali Alexander’s Stop the Steal listserv, and spent time with Mike Flynn before heading to the Capitol.

Anthime “Baked Alaska” Gionet: Baked Alaska could share communications involving white nationalists like Nick Fuentes. But Gionet fucked up his plea colloquy, so prosecutors can charge him with a felony incorporating his cooperation if he doesn’t plead by July 10 (not like I’m counting days but that’s less than a month away).

Jacob Hiles: Hiles cooperated against Capitol Police Officer Michael Riley and his buddy James Horning.

Father and son Proud Boy pair Jeffrey and Jeremy Grace likely also avoided felony exposure by cooperating (though Jeffrey’s plea just got pushed back two weeks); they spent much of January 6 with Ron Loehrke.

62 replies
  1. Badger Robert says:

    Good morning here and good afternoon there. Outstanding summary of important assets in the DofJ investigation.

  2. harpie says:

    Alex Jones complained about how many communications the Committee — specifically those of Cindy Chafian and Caroline Wren — had obtained, and one or both of them also communicated with Tarrio.

    When we talk about Cindy, we also need to remember her husband Scott:
    [See this thread, scroll up and down]
    8:33 PM · Aug 28, 2021

    Replying to @capitolhunters #SeditionHunters – On Jan 6, rally organizer Cindy Chafian & husband Scott rushed to the Capitol in golf carts. […]

    Scrolling up, there’s this:

    Husband Scott Chafian, USN Surface Warfare & Anti-Terrorism Officer, held commands providing combat readiness training to foreign countries. Ret. at Lt. Cmdr. 2012 & launched a private firm (ETC Intl) offering similar “training engagements in support of security assistance.’’ [screenshots] 3/

    • Eichhörnchen says:

      Cindy Chafian & husband Scott rushed to the Capitol in golf carts. […]

      The sequel to “Caddyshack” the producers never dreamed of.

    • Ewan says:

      Maybe Ali Alexander became agitated when the focus was put on the orange hats, since he was wearing one in one of the videos of the headhunter link you gave.

  3. Al Ostello says:

    Excellent comprehensive post Dr. Wheeler. Thank you!

    I hope DOJ gave the committee at least one of the cooperating witnesses to interview.

    • bmaz says:

      The DOJ does not “give” anything. Any witness can cooperate with the committee or be subpoenaed by it.

      • Phil A says:

        It wouldn’t look good for someone who is “cooperating” to ignore a Congressional subpoena. They are talking to both (IMO).

        • emptywheel says:

          If DOJ wants to protect they’re investigation they’re not going to let that happen. In 2018, for example, SSCI got testimony from neither Rick Gates nor Sam Patten, even though both were cooperating with Mueller.

  4. Dizz says:

    Thanks, as always, for keeping track and documenting so much of this. I really appreciate your work.

    I am more impressed with Liz Cheney over the last year – really since her Leslie Stahl interview (Sept.’21) where she said she’d been wrong to oppose Gay Marriage. But I need to keep reminding myself who ‘Liz Cheney’ is.

    ‘Liz Cheney’ is the current headliner for an older group of Republican power-brokers: Dick Cheney, the Bushes, her sister Mary ( – the reason Liz changed her stance on GM), Bill Kristol, the Koch brothers, Halliburton, and many, many more. Here is an article listing some of the players opposing Obama from 2014: Dick Cheney Goes Dark: A Family Network of (c)(4) Groups :

    As has been the case since Trump was elected, this is all fallout from a power-struggle within the Republican party. Both sides control huge resources, have been maneuvering for years, are cut-throat, don’t appear to care how much damage they cause our country, and have so far been held together by principles of mutually assured destruction.

    I need to keep reminding myself that their attempt to paint ‘Liz Cheney’ as a heroic defender of American Democracy, i.e. George Washington and/or Abraham Lincoln, is as farcical as it sounds.

    • obsessed says:

      This is a case of the old “the enemy of my enemy …” adage. But you have to admire her skills. She hasn’t stumbled or misspoken through this whole process; no hyperbole; just cold facts delivered with the long forgotten gravitas of the old school statesmen. Trumpism and Foxism, farcical as they are, have proven utterly impervious to the reasoning of everyone from AOC to Bill Kristol. Nothing gets through to these people and they’re spread out across our grotesquely unfair electoral map in a way that makes them a constant massive threat. If Liz Cheney can burst the bubble, I’m willing to deal with the completely different type of dangers that her type of GOP would subject us to. I’ve had more than enough of the Fox News army of violent imbeciles.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      I think about how Liz Cheney came to be more inclusive, during discussions she had with her sister and her parents. We may never know the details of those talks, but we do know she took them deeply to heart. I think this may also be related to how she thinks about the Constitution. And it seems to me a reflection of her regard for her family and the future of the nation.

      The Constitution doesn’t seem to play any part in the Trump family dialogue. Yet, Ivanka did seem to have some awareness and concern that specific actions of her father were very wrong, despite any admiration she may have for him or once had for him. So for that, I think we may be fortunate and might owe her attorney and the J6 committee (and maybe even Liz, who knows) a debt of gratitude.

      My own appreciation of democracy came solely from personal observation and education (some learned through TV), not from anything my parents taught me. I chose my career because I thought it promoted democracy. When white supremacist militia members violated that in the library I managed, I spoke up in defense of democracy.

      I truly felt it was a serious threat to the community for government officials to enable and promote disruptive intimidation in a public institution. (After I was demoted because of this, a concerned citizen anonymously mailed me a videotape from Primetime Live in which Sam Donaldson exposed the militia connections of this group.)

      Liz Cheney, Ivanka Trump, and me: we are remarkably different people. But we are all alike in knowing that Donald Trump and fascism are wrong. I can imagine a scenario in which some Democrats might temporarily switch party affiliation to vote for Liz in a primary. This may not help in WY, but it might help in a national election. I understand and appreciate her focus and dedication, although our politics will probably always remain at odds.

      • Greg Hunter says:

        Her mother Lynne’s book on Madison helped me down the path especially where the separation of church and state idea got accepted and revered. A Queens conman did not care what the Constitution said and he certainly did talk to his family about it.

        Liz never used religion overtly to get to where she was going, but I would say the whole family knew how to read the tea leaves so I would take any family dust up as over blown?

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        Liz Cheney is not her father, but I would be shocked if her politics differ from his in any meaningful way. By the facts available to us, Dick Cheney is not a fan of democracy nor the sacred constitution, Liz Cheney’s motivations arise from selfish considerations. My guess is that she would like to keep the looting of our country an inside job rather than sharing with Russian mobsters. Perhaps she understands that once they have power, they’ll want a healthy cut of all the action. Less money for her father to dig caves under his home.

      • LaMissy says:

        Try this thought experiment:

        Imagine the attack on the Capitol occurred in the absence of Donald Trump (ridiculous, I know). Would the GOP be so eager to dismiss the crowd of wanna be militia, white supremacists, RWNJ’s and normies as peaceful tourists? Yeah, no.

        Cheney sees her role as central to post-Trumpism, in a Republican-led restoration of “normal”.

        • Rayne says:

          Or she sees herself as the heir and legacy of Dick Cheney along with that faction of politics — the Wall Street/neoconservative Republicans, not the faction white Christianist extremists find acceptable because of their desire for an authoritarian theocracy.

          She may see that legacy as giving her protection none of the other chickenshits within her faction possess, because we’ve heard too many remarks from GOP congressional caucus members who don’t approve of Trumpism but won’t break omertà. Ex. Kevin McCarthy’s remark about Putin paying Trump which was shushed up, followed by swings back and forth between supporting Trump and not.

          ADDER: meant to include Cheney may realize her role isn’t just to speak truth to the GOP’s base but to encourage a necessary fragmentation she can’t otherwise pull off on her own outside these hearings. GOP in its current Trumpy form needs to die and may only do so if adequately weakened. There may be no return to normal after this in this vision, only some wandering in the desert until conservatives rethink what it is they’re conserving.

  5. TimB says:

    Based on my experience watching, working for, and overseeing (mostly in different time periods) DOJ attorneys, I would expect zero nonpublic information flowed to the Committee from the DOJ investigations. The DOJ has a persistently low opinion of the level of discretion to be found on the Hill, and an equally persistent desire to control carefully what information about its matters becomes public, when, and how. So the Committee has its own investigations — better for some kinds of witnesses, like journalists, and probably better for other specific people because of luck/respondent foolishness and the like, but mostly weaker than the DOJ’s investigations.

    Plus, there is tons of information in the public Court documents, and even if the Committee lacks a staffer with the amazing skills of emptywheel, they could just read this site to decode all those indictments and motions and c.

    • bmaz says:

      Yes. And on the flip side, I find it hard to believe that DOJ will be particularly affected by the 1/6 Committee work. A lot of people think DOJ is the target of the Committee, but that is dubious. Maybe it will give DOJ a little public cover; not even sure about that.

      • TimB says:

        Yes. The Committee may turn up some things the DOJ didn’t find, and thus be incrementally helpful. Or, probably a bigger deal, Trump and various Trumpists may respond to the Committee by saying revealing things in public, squabbling with one another, etc.

        Public cover is a good question! It seems likely it is irrelevant because of triage, i.e., DOJ don’t need any cover to go after almost all the possible respondents, and no amount of cover will help if they go after Trump, especially not cover Trump fans see as “politically” motivated.

      • BROUX says:

        A question for you, Mr Bmaz (with some trepidation).

        We are constantly told that DOJ works its investigation of such conspiracy from the bottom up, flipping smaller people to testify against bigger fishes along the way. I suppose that warrants for documents and communications follow the up-the-trail path of such investigation. In that sense, DOJ does not seem to “touch” the upper echelon of a conspiracy until it is ready.

        On the other hand, the January 6 House select committee is not a criminal investigation. They do start asking questions from the perceived upper echelon of the conspiracy, interviewing White House staff and aides to Mike Pence.

        In a sense, the January 6 House select committee is assembling a view of the “forest” (top down) whereas DOJ is building its case up from the “threes” (bottom up). The work from DOJ is essential and unavoidable, but it is also important to see the forest. In an ideal world, would you say that this is also filling up an important part of the work to be done (if done well)?

        • bmaz says:

          That is pretty much right. Make no mistake, what the 1/6 Committee is doing is incredible important. I do have qualms about their “hearing” structure, at least the initial one, but their work is incredibly valuable. They, and the DOJ, are just different things by nature, and that is okay.

  6. Cosmo Le Cat says:

    As described by the many superb comments from those with great experience with the judicial system, the objectives of the DOJ are at odds with those of the House committee. The DOJ wants to prosecute, while the House wants the facts revealed. Sunshine is anathema to the DOJ, but it is the only possible cure for the disease destroying our country. The DOJ had Trump dead to rights as Individual 1 as well as some of the 10 instances of obstruction of justice described in the Mueller report, but the DOJ failed to act. Plus Flynn, Manafort and Stone were guilty but suffered little if any consequences.

    Speaking for most Americans, we don’t care if underlings serve short jail sentences until the next Republican president pardons them. Give immunity to Meadows and others if they are willing to tell the American people what Trump was doing and expose the evil scheme.

    Preserving our democratic system and perhaps saving the planet is more important than revenge. The next Republican president might Putinize us if the American people are not made aware of how close we came to that. Meadows on TV will break through to the Fox audience. We can’t depend on the DOJ institutionalists to reveal the truth.

    • BrokenPromises says:

      DOJ and the Legislative committee are not at odds. DOJ is an investigative and prosecutorial law enforcement agency. A dept of the Executive branch and the Legislature is a co-equal branch with the Executive.

      DOJ wants as much sunshine as the Committee but not now. Police and prosecutors do not share their findings and evidence other than in a limited way until they complete investigating or present a case in court. They do not want those they are investigating to know how much they know. Picture how in interview videos after a suspect lies the detectives then present evidence the suspect hid or denied. It leads to confessions and convictions.

      DOJ does not share all evidence with Committees because their aims are different. The legislative branch’s role is to write laws and thus protect the American people as well as the ethical functioning of our government. While DOJ may share that goal sharing would or at least could interfere with their ability to achieve justice. Plus doing so could be a way of putting a thumb on the scale of what the legislature chooses to do in proposing and passing laws. This could be or be viewed as political action in the way Comey’s disclosure about Clinton investigation was/is viewed in the 2016 election.

      I see both of these roles as critical to achieving your stated goal of “Preserving our democratic system…” They both have to happen and right to the top of the criminals here or I fear it will fail.

  7. ApacheTrout says:

    I’d cooperate with the folks who can put my ass in jail for a long while. Not sure what the reward would be to cooperate with the J6 Committee.

    Also, don’t early cooperators tend to get better deals?

    • Eichhörnchen says:

      “Not sure what the reward would be to cooperate with the J6 Committee.”

      I suspect most of those voluntarily cooperating with the J6 committee aren’t asking what’s in it for them.

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      I expect for those making selfish calculations, the choice to cooperate with either entity would hinge on one’s assessment of who was going to win—the legal battle in one case and the public perception battle in the other. Even Barr and Devos seem to have calculated that, for people interested in having public credibility, in the end it will be better to appear to have been against the coup.

  8. Cosmo Le Cat says:

    Col. Oliver North turned limited immunity into the basis for overturning his felony convictions. Meadows is in a heap of trouble if he doesn’t either get immunized or become an early cooperator with the DOJ, as bmaz would urge him to do. If the DOJ decides to charge a conspiracy, Meadows is as close to the center as anyone not named Trump and he can almost certainly nail the mob boss if he cooperates, and if the Committee immunized him, any case against him would be tainted like Ollie’s was, so the DOJ would be wise to give Meadows a super sweet plea deal or risk getting nothing if the J6 Committee gives him immunity. The Committee doesn’t want to settle for an eventual conviction of the number 2 guy, ala Scooter Libby – it wants the #1 guy to be nailed.

    Before I get crucified, allow to admit I’m not repeating something I read from a respected journalist or lawyer, rather it’s my own fanciful idea, and I deliberately evaded the Fulton County grand jury issue.

  9. Lona says:

    This information and its construction is priceless. Thank you for helping to bring a very complicated picture into focus!

  10. Zinsky says:

    Again, Marcy, an invaluable update on the J6 investigation and court proceedings – thank you! I believe Ali Alexander’s role in the planning and coordination of J6 is going to be seen as increasingly critical. The guy is a shameless liar and endless provacateur, much like his idol. Donald Trump. Trump apparently loves the creep and shamelessly refers to him as “Sammy”, a not-so-oblique reference to his resemblance to entertainer Sammy Davis Jr. I hope DOJ really nails down the links between Alexander, Stone, the militias and Trump and buttons up the conspiracy evidence I think it is there to be discovered.

Comments are closed.