Ali Alexander Asked for 5-Minute Updates on Trump’s Actions on January 6

Amid the release of the January 6 Committee transcripts, I’ve been vacating a bit. But I wanted to do a post on what I have been reading.

Let’s start with the fact that at 12:19PM on January 6, Ali Alexander texted Caroline Wren with a request that she update him every five minutes on POTUS’ plan to walk to the Capitol.

At 12:19 p.m. you ask Ms. Wren — so I’m assuming this is after you’ve left The Ellipse — if POTUS is walking and for her to give you an update every 5 minutes. So at 12:19 pm. on January 6th, was it your understanding that President Trump was going to come to the Capitol?

This reference is not mentioned in the final report.

Caroline Wren is the fundraiser (she reported to Kim Guilfoyle during the campaign) who arranged for Publix heir Julie Fancelli to provide $3 million in support of the rally. She provided J6C a good deal of records regarding her involvement and provided testimony that — while it shaded her knowledge of threats of violence and pitched some dodgy fundraising as a normal approach to finance — more closely resembled the truth than a lot of other witnesses. She is one of five women, along with the Kremers, Katrina Pierson, and Cindy Chafian, whose in-fighting has dominated the coverage of the planning for January 6, undoubtedly distracting from some other key players. Pierson described her as aligned with Alex Jones and the others, though in her testimony, Wren provided not unreasonable explanations for her ties to Alex Jones and Roger Stone, not least that Fancelli had donated money believing that crazies like Jones and Stone would have a big role.

It wasn’t that she was close to Jones and Stone, it’s that she was trying to meet the expectations of the donor who had paid for the whole thing.

As you no doubt know, Ali Alexander is the Roger Stone protégé who ran Stop the Steal. His December 9 testimony, at which he was represented by the lawyer who helped a Roger Stone protégé stall the Mueller investigation for a year, Paul Kamenar, is epic, hilarious, and not very honest. At times he shaded or lied to protect Roger Stone, various members of Congress, and Alex Jones. He explicitly said that he distanced himself from the White House during the post-election period so no one could blame Trump for any threats (described as political pressure, not violence) Alexander made against them.

So whenever I’m talking to a State legislator or someone, and saying this is the political fallout, I don’t want anyone to think President Trump told this kid to come up and threaten me.

He seems to suggest in his testimony that they funded buses through Turning Point to hide Stop the Steal’s involvement. His explanations for why he got the permit for his own rally under a cover name are epic.

He invented a bullshit line in response to a question about his Signal texts relating to January 6.

Q don’t recall in your production. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Did we get any Signal chats you from?

A I provided one with Charlie Kirk. ~ They auto-disappeared. That’s like a data retention policy. So don’t -in response to the committee’s investigation on the Capitol attack, and then as you guys widened it, in my opinion, to cover legally permissible events that I wanted to cooperate with this committee about like January 6th, I don’t recall having any in my possession from Signal. Most of what I did was verbal. Some of what did is in text message.

Perhaps a result, while J6C had an extended discussion about a Signal chat with Oath Keepers Alexander was privy to (one that referenced 13 people who had already been indicted by that point), they did not raise the Friends of Stone Signal chat at all during that interview.

In short, Alexander’s testimony was not all that helpful for understanding his central role in January 6.

But both Alexander and Wren provided some telephony texts to the committee, and as a result, this text was available to ask Alexander about.

At 12:19 PM on January 6, Alexander asked Wren to give him updates every five minutes on Trump’s progress. In response to the question about the text, Alexander bullshitted a bit until he explained, simply, that Wren was at the Ellipse.

A One, really appreciate you pointing out this text. This is helpful. I’s also helpful that | use the word “walking,” and you characterized it as marching before you read out the quote. And my understanding is informed by a lot of things, you know, my race, my faith, my profession. And professionally, I’m sorry to bore you guys, but professionally, in my interactions with observing Secret Service over the years, observing Democrat nominees and Republican nominees and Presidents is, something like thats just not allowed to happen  But I do know that we live in interesting times. ~ And if it were to happen, I would like an advance notice. And, again, I’m sorry. I saw the faces, but I’m sorry if my answer is weird. Trying to be helpful.

Q So based upon this text, you were asking Ms. Wren, because you presume she would know if President Trump was going to walk to the Capitol?

A She was physically at The Ellipse, and I wasn’t.

Q All right.

This seemed to satisfy investigators, and they moved into where Alexander headed from there (Alexander seems to have obscured his actions during the Ellipse speech with conflicting claims, first, that he was able to move in and out of the VIP section, but also that Secret Service was limiting the number of people who were permitted to leave with him and Alex Jones via what he described as a special exit).

This text is, in my opinion, really significant. The J6C Report does not provide a very satisfying answer about the genesis of the request, which Alex Jones said came from the White House, for him to lead the march from the Ellipse to the Capitol. In significant part, it concludes that when Alexander and Jones told others they were in contact with the White House — including the request to lead the march to the Capitol — they were using shorthand for Wren, in spite of wild obfuscation from Alexander about it, his obvious ties to Stone, and his bullshit answer about how he knew what “POTUS wants.”

Q May just ask, Mr. Alexander, was there anyone other than Caroline Wren a who you were talking to at the time who claimed to be speaking on behalf of the White House that you can remember whether about this or any other aspect of that event?

A Oh man, that.

Q On behalf of the White House.

A Well, you said White House, and I haven’t said White House at all.

Q On behalf – replaying what the President’s plans were.

A There was a lot of chatter and in these situations, sometimes you’ll hear something third party and it is credible and sometimes not. ~ And, you know, as a professional in this space, somebody — what I will say is unique about Donald J. Trump to politics is everyone thinks they are his adviser, that everyone thinks they know exactly what he’s saying. It has been very widely reported that that, you know, the last thing said in his ear is the thing he’ll do. And, so, if I gave you a specific answer, it wouldn’t be doing you justice or me justice. My main point of contact with what I’m calling Trump world was Caroline Wren regarding what I consider the scope of the committee, and that’s January 6th.

To be sure, Alexander did attribute the request to Wren (though could not date it).

Q And the plan — we talked about right when we started the deposition about how you walked, marched, whatever you want to call it, from the Ellipse to the Capital, and that when it actually happened you were with Alex Jones and Owen Shroyer. Am I right?

A [Nonverbal response]

Q When did you come to know that you were going to make that movement, walk with them, those two particular men? Was it just the morning of January 6th, or had that always been the plan, that the three of you together would walk up there?

A There was no plan for Owen to walk with us.

Q okay.

A I don’t know when there was a plan. I wouldn’t even call it a plan. The idea that Roger Stone, myself, and Alex Jones would go at the end of Trump’s speech and position ourselves at the front of the overflow crowd and figuring out how logistically that worked so we didn’t have to go out the same exit as everybody was something that Caroline Wren first proposed to me — don’t know when — and I thought, okay, cool idea.

Q But before the morning of the 6th?

A Certainly we talked about the idea, yeah.

Q Okay. And did you ever talk with Mr. Jones about this before the morning of the 6th, this plan to march or walk, whatever you call it?

A I’m not sure

Q Is it possible you did and you just don’t remember?

A It’s possible.

Q Is Mr. Jones someone you would speak to on the phone, only in person, or what was the nature of the relationship?

A Yeah, would speak on the phone. I appeared on his show a few times. I could call a security guard if couldn’t get ahold of his head of security. I could call if didn’t get ahold of Alex.

Q Is that Tim Enlow?

A I know his name is Tim.

Q Okay. And for the record, E-n-l-o-w. And what do you remember before January 6th about Mr. Jones telling you, if you do remember anything, about walking from the Ellipse to the Capitol? Do you remember him saying anything about that event?

A No

Q All right. So you’ve never heard it from his lips to you that he spoke with someone in the White House or Trump about him walking from the Ellipse to the Capitol?

A don’t recall anything like that.

Q Okay. Now, are you aware that he said publicly that that happened, that he had that he was told by Trump to walk from the Capitol from the Ellipse to the Capitol?

A I’m not aware of that. Alex is prone to exaggeration and/or could have been referencing Caroline Wren.

Q Understood. When it comes to Mr. Stone, do you know — he has said publicly that he was told, whether by Trump or the White House, that he was going to lead or be a part of leading the walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Are you aware that he said that publicly?

A I believe so.

Q All right. Did he ever talk to you about that before January 6th, what his thoughts or what his beliefs were about what was going to happen in terms of that march?

A Not to the best of my recollection.

Q So whether anybody –whether Trump or the White House told him that he was going to be part of that march?

A Again, I think this was an idea, as best that I understood it, that originated with Caroline, pinged off me, I said okay, and then was given to Alex and Roger, if it was given to them at all. I could have given –I could have talked to them about it.

Q That’s why we’re asking.

A Okay. Yeah, l don’t know.

Q We’re trying to understand.

A Yeah. And don’t know what the play byplay of all of that was.

The Report doesn’t rely on any of this blather from Alexander for its conclusion that Wren is probably the one who requested that Jones et al lead the mob to the Capitol. They rely primarily on Wren, and an Alex Jones broadcast that should be treated with the same reliability as his claims that Sandy Hook victims were crisis actors.

It is likely that both got that idea from Caroline Wren, a Republican fundraiser who helped organize the Ellipse event.111 Jones texted Wren at 12:27 p.m., asking when he should leave the Ellipse and begin the march.112 While Wren originally expected Jones, Roger Stone, and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to march to the Capitol, Stone did not attend the Ellipse rally and so he was not present to accompany Jones on the march as planned.113 Additionally, while President Trump was delivering his speech, Wren askedFlynn if he was going to march with Jones. Flynn responded, “Hell, no. It’s freezing.”114

While Stone and Flynn did not march, Jones and Alexander led others to the Capitol, though it is not clear how many people followed them.115

112. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Deposition of Alexander Jones, (Jan. 24, 2022), Ex. 13 at 0:29 (Excerpt from The Alex Jones Show on Jan. 7, 2022); Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Caroline Wren Production), REVU_000475 (Jan. 6, 2021, Alex Jones text message to Caroline Wren); Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Caroline Wren Production), REVU_000484 (Jan. 5, 2021, Tim Enlow text message to Caroline Wren).

113. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Deposition of Caroline Wren, (Dec. 17, 2021), p. 244.

114. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Deposition of Caroline Wren, (Dec. 17, 2021), p. 244.

Perhaps they found Wren more credible than Alexander, which she is. Except according to her version, it would be impossible for Alexander to have floated the idea to Stone and Jones, because in her telling, he was added on at the last minute, and not because he was a key part of Jones’ retinue, but because he had a rally to run.

Q But, at some point, you have conversations with Alex Jones or All Alexander, right, about how are you going to get them out of the VIP area so they can get to the Capitol?

A Right

Q And what do those discussions include?

A Alex wanted to go with Roger Stone. Ali wasn’t really a part of that Ali — so now — I didn’t really get the sense that Ali and Alex like knew each other very well or — like, it was never a group text. Like, the conversations were kind of isolated. So I  just never — they may be very good friends, they might not know each other. So — but Alex Jones’ expectation was that he and Roger Stone would lead a march from the Ellipse to their rally at the Capitol. That also was Ali’s rally or something. And — but ~ and they’d asked about like directions or things to do. And those were things I never could get or did get answers to. [my emphasis]

I won’t get into all the ways that this testimony is inconsistent with the relationship that Wren described that she had with Alexander, or the reasons why.

Just understand, for the moment, that the J6C conclusion that the White House requested this probably came from her is not consistent with the documentary or testimonial record and comes in the face of Jones and Stone refusing to cooperate and the fact that everyone was lying about Signal text communications, including known “group texts” of the sort that Wren disavows possibility of.

More importantly, because J6C was so determined to come up with some conclusion about who directed Jones to lead the mob to the Capitol, it ignored several things.

First, even ignoring Roger Stone’s likely role in all this, Alexander told J6C he had another White House source: Garrett Ziegler. In fact, his attribution of stuff to Wren came specifically with a disavowal of Ziegler’s role in all this.

The person that talked to was Caroline Wren, and to make a duplicative effort to me would seem a waste of resources or my time. I talk to hundreds of people probably a day. I mean, I was like the busiest person in America. I know some people don’t like that, but a lot of other people love it. And another gentleman I talked to at the White House was — and we did talk about election integrity, but I don’t recall talking about the 6th – Garrett Ziegler, who worked for Mr. Navarro. And I know we talked about election integrity. I don’t recall talking to him about the 6th or the 5th. And I don’t see how he would be in any authority to kind of do anything like that.

Alexander did attribute his understanding of events about January 6 in December to Ziegler, however.

Q So, on December 19th, what people from the White House were you in contact with?

A I don’t know who I was referencing. Mary [sic] — maybe it was Garrett Ziegler.

Q I don’t see Garrett Ziegler in any of your productions. Was it a phone call –

A We

Q I was going to say was it a phone call, was it a text message, or was it an email?

A I believe having the phone call with him. I don’t remember receiving any emails from him.

Ziegler, recall, was the guy who let Mike Flynn and Sidney Powell into the White House on December 18, hours before Trump first tweeted about the January 6 event that Alexander was (per his own testimony) already planning.

In spite of the possibility that Ziegler was another White House contact with Alexander during this period, in his own deposition — scheduled in July, at a time when J6C would have had a much clearer idea of the problems with Alexander’s testimony, especially — no one asked him about Alexander (or Jones or Stone), at all. To be sure, Ziegler invoked the Fifth about everything. He wouldn’t have answered any questions in any case. But neither in Alexander’s deposition nor in Ziegler’s do they pursue the possibility that he might have had a more central role in this than they let on (though there are a few others that’s true of as well).

What I’m interested in is the more alarming possibility: that Alexander’s request for five minute updates on Trump played a part in execution that day.

As noted above, the report does not mention that Alexander asked Wren for five minute updates on the movements of the President.

It also does not mention that at 12:59, Wren texted Alexander and told him “POTUS not walking.”

Q Thats fine. We saw a text message earlier you saw where Caroline Wren told you

A What time was it at?

Q 12:59, POTUS not walking. Do you remember that?

J6C uses this to establish that when Alex Jones used the promise that Trump would speak on the East side of the building to lure people to form a second front, Alexander, at least, had the expectation Trump would not come (though that overstates things — this text would have been before the confrontation in the limo and this text could have meant only that Trump was not walking but might ride to the Capitol).

But they ignore another possibility: that Alexander and Jones and Owen Shroyer (the latter of whom now shares an attorney with Joe Biggs) were relaying updates to people at the Capitol.

The report does lay out, for example, how much traffic was passing between the Jones group and the Proud Boys based on the limited telephony call records they managed to obtain (though it rather infuriatingly doesn’t provide the times of these communications).

Proud Boys were among the crowd Jones gathered during his march. Matthew Walter, president of a Tennessee chapter of the organization,122 was near the National Mall with two other Proud Boys from Tennessee and decided to join Jones.123 Other, more prominent members of the Proud Boys appear to have been in contact with Jones and Shroyer about the events of January 6th and on that day. Records for Enrique Tarrio’s phone show that while the attack on the Capitol was ongoing, he texted with Jones three times and Shroyer five times.124 Ethan Nordean’s phone records reflect that he exchanged 23 text messages with Shroyer between January 4th and 5th, and that he had one call with him on each of those days.125 Records of Joseph Biggs’s communications show that he texted with Shroyer eight times on January 4th and called him at approximately 11:15 a.m. on January 6th, while Biggs and his fellow Proud Boys were marching at and around the Capitol.126

122. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Deposition of Matthew Walter, (Mar. 9, 2022), p. 78.

123. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Deposition of Matthew Walter, (Mar. 9, 2022), p. 75.

124. Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Google Voice Production, Feb. 25, 2022).

125. Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Verizon Production, Nov. 19, 2021).

126. Documents on file with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (AT&T Production, Nov. 24, 2021).

And this summary of communications does not include comms using other than telephony (like Signal texts or radios).

At the very least, the information Wren passed to Alexander may have influenced Jones’ decision to hold up at Freedom Plaza for a period, before continuing on to the Capitol. But given the solid evidence that former Infowars employee Biggs was coordinating with this group, it seems likely that Alexander’s information got shared with those modulating the attack on the Capitol.

In other words, it’s not just that someone asked Alex Jones to lead the mob to the Capitol. It’s not just that, when he arrived, Alex Jones moved them to the East side where hundreds played a role in the second major front of the attack. But it’s that Jones and Alexander easily could have relayed information from those handling Trump to those handling the mob at the Capitol.

For a year, I’ve been describing how the relationship between the Proud Boys and Alex Jones’ crew was a pivot between the mob and the President, one through which DOJ could charge a conspiracy with those who attacked cops and stormed the Capitol. That’s all pending the outcome of the Proud Boy Leader trial, opening arguments for which start this week. It’s a complex trial and I have no idea what to expect.

As J6C releases transcripts, we’ve learned that Jones’ role was even more central than I imagined. While J6C doesn’t focus enough on the role of the Stop the Steal events in posing a real threat to legislators who ignored Trump, the transcripts do reveal more details about how Alexander deployed that threat. Jones was central to Julie Fancelli’s decision to fund the event. According to Alexander, about a third of the mob were Jones’ fans. In spite of months of effort, J6C was never able to explain how or who gave the order to Jones to lead the mob to the Capitol (and the Ziegler silence and the Stone disinterest are not the only gaps in their efforts to explain it so far).

J6C’s failure to answer that question was largely attributable to the efforts, by virtually all those personally involved, to obstruct the investigation. DOJ has some, but not unlimited, tools to overcome such obstruction (including several cooperating witnesses from both primary militia conspiracies and full exploitation of several phones involved, including those of Enrique Tarrio and Owen Shroyer).

Jones’ (and Alexander’s and Stone’s) roles look just as important to understanding the plan on January 6 as they did a year ago. But there’s even more reason to believe that Jones was not just a dumb guy with a megaphone leading sheep to slaughter. Jones and Alexander were in a position to help those kicking off the attack account for the involvement — or not — of the President.

Back-up material

Ali Alexander: Live tweet; December 9, 2021 transcript

Julie Fancelli: Live tweet; February 18, 2022 transcript

Alex Jones: January 24, 2022 transcript

Charlie Kirk: May 24, 2022 transcript

Roger Stone: December 17, 2021 transcript

Caroline Wren: Live tweet; December 17, 2021 transcript

Garret Ziegler: Post; July 19, 2022 transcript

104 replies
  1. BROUX says:

    Thanks for returning to the narrow window of time where so much was happening. The purpose of J6C was not a criminal investigation, so I am inclined to cut them so slack. Their silence on this may not mean that they are blind to this aspect of the problem. Also, as you say their failure to answer many of these kind of questions is largely attributable to the efforts, by virtually all those personally involved, to obstruct the investigation. What is need, and is hopefully happening, is a serious DOJ investigation, with an extensive tracking of all electronic communications between these people, something the FBI and other federal agency should be able to pull off if they are serious about it (hello Chris Ray…). Having a few cooperating witnesses will help. I for one would like to collect all the cell phone connections of a few key spots between 11 AM to 6 PM, in particular at the Willard Hotel and the White House (how many burner phones were active there?). Now you just alerted us to pay attention to Garrett Ziegler.

    • bmaz says:

      OMG, the J6 Committee is NOT a criminal prosecutorial enterprise? Good to know! By the way, there is a “serious DOJ investigation”.

      • BROUX says:

        (sorry for all the previous typos)

        Thanks BMAZ. Yes, there is a serious investigation at DOJ. But like any human affairs, it is limited by the subjectivity of the people doing it. Given the utter failure of law enforcement’s to react to intelligence reports prior to J6 that violence was likely to occur (“we just couldn’t imagine that such nice white folks were going to do that…”), how confident are you that they are leaving no stone unturned? Personally, I am hopeful (no other choice), but apprehensive that they will not go to the bottom of this because they are so inherently blind.

        • bmaz says:

          Eh, don’t worry about typos, I make one about every three words. I don’t know that law enforcement has failed so much as it is never perfect, and sometimes blind is simply not being out of control on the wrong side of things. Which is good, even if certainly not perfect. None of this is easy, and it shouldn’t be.

        • nedu says:

          Going off on a semi-related tangent about typos…

          In the J6C Deposition of Keith Kellog, Jr. (Dec 14, 2021), on p.57 ln.1, there’s a reference to “Tony Ornado, former head of the Secret Service detail”. Orna-d-o with a ‘D’.

          Is that a typo in the transcript? Supposed to be “Tony Ornato”, Orna-t-o with a ‘T’?.

          (Ornato with a ‘T’ was interviewed by J6C on Nov 29, 29, 2022. Ornato with a ‘T’ also gets mentioned a fair amount in some of the other J6C transcripts.)

        • harpie says:

          I’m almost 100% sure that that’s a typo.

          12/7/19 Anthony ORNATO is moved from TRUMP’s Secret Service detail to the White House as Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations

        • nedu says:


          The major reason I mentioned it — is that an index into the transcripts should account for mis-spelled names. If someone wants a list of files/page nums for everywhere Ornato gets mentioned… presumably the human intent is to find refs to the person, and not just to the spelling.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          The J6C transcripts are riddled with typos, dropped words, and frustrating gaps. Knowing what we do about how the committee has rushed to make them public, I assume the transcriptions were done by AI. They read like the transcripts of my voicemail messages, except more messy. It seems committee staff ran out of time to edit them for even the most glaring issues.

          I can only wonder if this might result in legal consequences; I also wonder what happens to custody of audio- and/or videotapes of these interviews once committee disbands. Do they go into permanent, secure storage?

        • emptywheel says:

          I will write a piece in coming days what J6C’s blind spots tells us about the challenges DOJ faces. Those are real: Many of the culprits are lawyers or members of Congress, which are protected by expansive privileges. But there’s also some leverage that I assume DOJ has already found — though if DOJ didn’t get a peak at Alexander’s transcript until the other day, it would have the effect of withholding a key tool for DOJ until just before Jim Jordan starts to cause trouble.

        • David F. Snyder says:

          “ … if DOJ didn’t get a peak at Alexander’s transcript until the other day …”. What’s the chance that this delay was due to misdirection or interference being run from within J6C members or staff? I have a hard time imagining that the potential significance of Alexander’s testimony escaped attention from all of their lawyers. Or is it that subtle?

  2. Njrun says:

    Depressing that these pieces of garbage feel so free to blatantly lie under oath, knowing there’s little to no chance they will ever face consequences. You can tell his tone in these interviews is mocking the investigators. Using Signal seems to have worked, very little of communications seems to have been recovered.

  3. brian c gister says:

    “… J6C was never able to explain how or who gave the order to Jones to lead the mob to the White House…”

    I believe this phrase from the concluding sentence of the third paragraph before the end needs a correction: ‘White House’ does not seem to be an intelligible choice in terms of the events recounted.

  4. Savage Librarian says:

    I wonder if the J6C is going to wait for the PB trial to end (6 weeks, or so) before they release the Eryka Gemma Flores transcript. If so, the Republican House may have disappeared the J6C website by then. How would release of transcripts work then?

    • says:

      As usual, Just Security has created a REPOSITORY of J6 material, like it has for other law- or legal-related stories of high public interest. This National Security data repository & “legal news” site (reallly, mostly opinion, I feel) has committed to making their document and news story repository exhaustive and the site compilers take suggestions of materials to get and ways to organize the material. They are creating Perma Links in case the Congresstional site is killed. It’s a work in progress,so for the next few days, the links Marcy and commenters provide are likely to be more reliable. These are handy, though, because they tell you who the people are by job title and affiliation (and role in J6, if relevant). At the J6 Committee site, all you have are names.

      The longer the site curators work on a repository, the more flexible and nimble the document repositories get. So, if anything appears missing or be-labors you, communicate with the site. Their topic-specific email address is at the top of each repository. If you have not yet read the “Prosecution Mem” that former DOJ federal prosecutors wrote, it’s 127 pages of sheer bliss. (There’s a MAL docs one up on the site too, if you really want to dig in deep!0

      Last, if you recall from bound versions of the Watergate Hearings, there was alist of major players, so if you could not recall a name that was mentioned infrequently, you could just jump to the “Whose-who” page. I know the bound version of the NY Times J6 report will have such an index, and likely others too, but Just Security may make such a compilation too. But for sure, if there is one out there and they know about it, they will link to it. (I haven’t looked very hard at what they have up now, so for all I know there already is one!)

  5. Rapier says:

    When it’s all said and done the plan failed because Trump pussied out. Well who knows what would have happened if the president went rouge. Trump blaming Pence just deflects from his failure act. The whole Pence gambit was make believe anyway. Tortured legalisms are wet tinder for a revolution. You know that in Munich 1923 the police fought back against the Nazis. That wasn’t going to be a problem here. Everybody stood aside and kept standing aside for hours, except for the Capital police on hand, set up as sacrificial lambs. Nobody else was going to fight against a Trump lead takeover, but he pussied out.

    But then when you think about it, of course he did. He wasn’t going to get out of that car or walk out of the White House to lead a crowd. No way. Only in his little boy dreams. Him with the pumped up body and adoring crowds.

    • Cheez Whiz says:

      Say what you will about the tenets of Donald Trump, at least he’s got one hell of a self-preservation instinct. The one thing, the one time, he couldn’t delegate to a minion or henchman, he chose to sit and watch TV. Like the 1 good thing about Hitler (he killed Hitler) Donald Trump saved democracy by being Donald Trump.

      • bcgister says:

        My recollection is the Secret Service refused to drive him down, and that was never straightened out with the trip to the Capitol winding up cancelled.
        I can not for the life of me imagine DJT walking the distance.

    • rip no longer says:

      Liking your “Tortured legalisms are wet tinder for a revolution.” Seems to fit in with flagging libidos, etc.

      And watching trump go rouge would be fun. All those shades of orange into blood-red.

    • Charles Wolf says:

      He’s orange, or maybe tangerine but definitely not “rouge”, although he is known to power his puff.

  6. Marinela says:

    I’ve being reading about how the J6C public testimonies could help the defendants align their stories, and make the DOJ job harder.
    On the other hand, with the house flipping to GOP, the new house starting Jan 3, would cherry pick what to release publicly, while the defendants may get the info that is not made public.

    So it is better that J6C releases all they have themselves. Looks like they can operate on two fronts, one public front, and one the DOJ gets everything they have.
    Looks like they are running out of time for the public front, just few days literally.

    Anybody knows if DOJ has all the testimony that J6C has? I am ok not knowing publicly for a while if that makes DOJ more efficient.

    • bmaz says:

      “So it is better that J6C releases all they have themselves.”

      Yet, again, they have not done that in the least. It is now New Year’s Eve. No, DOJ does NOT have all J6 gathered and delivered to DOJ. At least not by any information I can find. Just to be clear, it is not just the transcripts, it is a ton of documentary evidence as well.

      Does the DOJ have that on their own? Probably most of it. But, the thing is, they don’t just want to know what a different set of evidence may show, they NEED to know that. It affects grand jury presentations, it affects trial disclosure, it affects Brady and Jencks material.

      Lastly, just to be clear, putative defendants are ENTITLED to know that information, irrespective of whether it helps them “coordinate”. That is how the criminal justice system should be. It is okay.

      • bmaz says:

        Yes, that is fucking swell. You understand, do you not, that there are more than 1,000? And that is without even discussing the enormity of documentary evidence? You understand that, right?

        Yeah, there are three days left, none of which they are particularly working. But, sure, keep plugging this “Committee” of showboating jackasses. “3 days to go”. Lol, how pathetic can they be.

      • nedu says:

        Those are NOT the numbers I have… (Nor, fwiw, do I agree with the count Kyle Cheney just tweeted.)

        Let me just dump the counts in the format I’ve got ’em in. Bear with me — this format is ad hoc, merely what I’m using locally — I’m copy-pasting it to avoid typos.

        $ wc -l *-urls
        35 20221221-urls
        6 20221222a-urls
        2 20221222b-urls
        47 20221223-urls
        18 20221227-urls
        19 20221229-urls
        23 20221230a-urls
        20 20221230b-urls
        170 total

        Decoding this, it’s saying that the Dec 21, 2022 release has urls for 35 transcript pdfs.

        This is also saying that there were two releases on Dec 22 (ad hoc ‘a’ and ‘b’). Your post above didn’t include the -0 release, (my ‘b’) which contains 2 Hutchinson transcripts.

        (Additionally, in those 170 unique urls for PDFs, I believe two of the interview/depos each got two non-identical PDFs, so that 170 only corresponds to 168 unique interview/depos.)

        • theartistvvv says:

          “The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Friday released more than 40 additional transcripts of its interviews, bringing the total number of transcripts published to more than 160.

          The committee is rushing to publish more interviews before Jan. 3, when Republicans will take control of the House. Although the committee conducted more than 1,000 interviews, many of them were informal; only a few hundred were transcribed sessions.”

        • nedu says:

          So another 16 transcripts were released this morning, and now while the ocr is chugging away at them, let me ask a trendy question…

          What’s the latest, kewl tech for scraping a list of pdfs off a web page?

          I’m almost embarrassed to admit the way I’m doing it… See, back a few years ago, when we thought the web was converging on an xhtml standard, my goto tool for this class of tasks became xslt. But then html5 came out. And while xslt is still great for xml docs, html5 isn’t xml… and the upshot consensus recommendation now seems to be, “Don’t use xslt for html5, if you can avoid it”.

          Ok, great, I be happy not to — except, what should I use instead of xslt for html5?

          All I’m trying to do is just — point a tool at the web page, find the <a> tags, get href values, and if they’re .pdf urls put ’em into a plain text file, one per line. (So I can hack off the final report pdf url, and feed the rest of the .pdf urls into wget -i.)

          What’s the latest, kewl, fashionable tech?

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, another 18. Swell. Where are the other 800+ transcripts? Where is all the documentary evidence the J6 Committee is recklessly sitting on? Where is that beef?

          I know it is easy to be transfixed on what “is” being dribbled out by this “Committee”, but where is everything else? Where is it?

        • Rayne says:

          Please don’t give nedu a hard time about this. He’s been crunching away on this by himself, gratis.

          It’s a good question why the committee hasn’t released their content in a searchable format, but that’s not nedu’s fault.

        • nedu says:

          Although, as it turns out… The Jan 2nd, 2023 Message from Chairman Thompson & Vice Chair Cheney links to the U.S. GPO Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection.

          And from that GPO collection, expanding the “Supporting Materials – Transcribed Interviews and Depositions” section yields links for another set of PDFs.

          Curiously, the first two PDFs there in that section, (CTRL0000000076 and CTRL0000001766.0001) seem to be mislabeled / misfiled, as those first two just don’t seem to match their descriptions (purporting to be Hutchinson (Mar. 7, 2022) and Farnam (Dec. 15, 2021)).

          But the the third PDF in that section (CTRL0000034599 Bannon, (October 14, 2021)), does indeed seem to be what it sez on the label. And guess what… the GPO TEXT IS COPYABLE.

          (The PDFs also appear to have good digital sigs, too. Yay!)

          Just started looking at this collection, after I emailed off that last batch of 87 new ocr’d texts. Not totally sure what all’s there yet.

        • Rayne says:

          Thank goodness something in this mound of material is copyable! Thanks for all your hard work, it may take me a week to catch up.

          harpie, I’ll be sure to send a link as soon as I have uploaded searchable text. :-)

        • nedu says:

          Thanks for that reply. You’re most probably right that just using wget’s options and its internal html parser may’ve been a better approach for that job.

          But today I’ve got another task: Look at the GPO Collection – Transcribed Interviews and Depositions. First find the <div> tag for the interviews/depos, then find it’s immediate parent <div> to get a nodeset — then for each of the <span class=”results-line1-title”> tags in that nodeset, output the tagged text and a newline.

          Yesterday, when I was just trying to this just once in a hurry, I simply screen-scraped into sed. But today, I want to repeat this task. And I contemplate doing it again tomorrow, because the results from that dynamically-generated page have been changing as GPO has corrected some, but not yet all of the errors in the metadata associated with the PDFs they’ve got there.

          So I just hacked together some xslt that does that, and it works, ignoring that html5 isn’t xml.

          But my question is — what’s the modern, hot tool for that?

        • Termagant says:

          I’m not familiar with xslt. I found this discussion:

          Some lean towards “xslt is for transforming, not for parsing”, but others say “xslt can parse as long as the HTML is well formed” (for some unknown metric of “well formed”). Unless you have reason to believe your page is not well-formed, your existing code is probably as good as any other tool.

          If the underlying page data changes, adjusting your code might be the only reasonable choice.

          I’m not really up on the latest and greatest – I tend to use old standards that are less likely to change a year or two after I learn them. The only hard rule is: don’t try to parse HTML with regular expressions – that way lies madness!

          When I need to parse (or manipulate) HTML, I like javascript plus jQuery (which can handle that GPO Collection parsing quite handily). You could use something like ViolentMonkey to write a userscript for the particular page you want to parse. Let me know if you’d like more info about that.

  7. HorsewomaninPA says:

    As always, for the past year, this blog has stood head and shoulders above any reporting that I’ve read in any of the major publications. It is an awesome deep-dive that I love.
    A little off the immediate topic – I just finished reading Kash Patel’s “testimony” (yes, it is in quotes). I am not a lawyer, but I have a question for all the lawyers who read this blog after reading whatever it is you call what Kash Patel said that was transcribed…How do you restrain yourself from standing up and slapping the face of the person you are questioning when they act like Patel did? Whoever was doing the questioning should be given some medal for patience and perseverance in the face of unwavering avoidance. No regrets ignoring my father when he told me I should be a lawyer – I could not have tolerated that nonsense.
    Happy New Year to all!

    • Savage Librarian says:

      “Whoever was doing the questioning should be given some medal for patience and perseverance in the face of unwavering avoidance. No regrets ignoring my father when he told me I should be a lawyer – I could not have tolerated that nonsense.”

      My sentiments, too, although I’m reading Cleta Mitchell’s transcript and have not got around to Patel, yet. My father wanted me to be a lawyer, too, and I did go to law school for a few months. But my head was not in the right place at that time. My temperament is much more suited for research than for interacting with the challenges of trials. But I think there may be a place like that for some lawyers behind the scenes. Not sure. In any event, my father did concede that he had library cards for 3 distinct library systems.

      • Savage Librarian says:

        Excellent thread. Happy New Year to everyone who makes this blog such a wonderful place. I think it mended my broken spirit, and that’s no exaggeration. I greatly appreciate all the time and effort that go into maintaining this site. And all the helpful information and comments.

  8. phred says:

    “Vacating”, really EW? Doesn’t look like it ; )

    To echo HorsewomaninPA your work stands head and shoulders above everyone else. I hope your readers include people at DOJ…

    Thanks for your amazing and delightfully relentless work! Happy New Year to you and yours and the merry denizens here : ) May 2023 bring us closer to justice…

  9. harpie says:

    I’m still slowly working on the Ginni [SCOTUS SPOUSE] THOMAS deposition,
    so want to bring the conversation over here, before that post times out:

    Continuing, THOMAS adds Paul TELLER to her list of Administration people she was in touch with post-election, with MEADOWS, and MCENTEE:

    [pdf24/136] A I’ve thought about that. The only one I can think of maybe is Johnny McEntee, who I had been working with for second term personnel matters, to improve personnel. That’s the only one I can think of. But none of the rest.

    I mean Paul Teller was on various listserves with me, and I don’t think I wrote to him specifically about this. But that’s all I can remember.

    • harpie says:

      [Continuing directly]

      Q Did you have any communications with Vice President Pence in the post-election timeframe regarding questions or concerns or words of encouragement regarding the 2020 election?

      A Not that I can recall.

      Q And you mentioned Mr. Teller. Did you understand Mr. Teller to have a role in the administration?

      A Paul Teller would – was a friend and ally and came to a lot of our meetings. He’s a part of our Groundswell meeting. And so I would see Paul at all the meetings that I typically go to. So I get emails from him based on the listserves.

      Ms Paoletta. But you knew he worked for the Vice President.

      Mrs. Thomas. Yeah. I knew he worked for the Vice President. Yeah. He set up meetings sometimes for conservatives to come in.

      Mr.[redacted]. What do you recall discussing or communicating with Mr. Teller about regarding the election in the post-election timeframe?

      Mrs. Thomas. I don’t remember any conversations I had. I assumed – you know, I assumed he was interested in reporting back to the Vice President on how various people felt. // And I felt like there might have been a division happening between President Trump and Vice President Pence. And I think I was being quiet and watching what was happening by email at that time, because I was a little disappointed with the Vice President at that time.

      • harpie says:

        Q Did you talk to Mr. Teller about your concerns [that the Vice President might concede before President Trump was ready to concede] about the Vice President’s role and his position?
        A No, I didn’t. [pdf26/136]

    • harpie says:

      The word listserv caught my attention because:

      ew: Ginni Thomas famously remains close with a network of Clarence’s former clerks, so much so she apologized to a listserv of former Justice Thomas clerks for her antics after the insurrection.

      Read Marcy’s post at this link for the bigger picture, but this is my comment listing quotes of what THOMAS wrote to the listserv:

      John EASTMAN is a THOMAS clerk. Maybe he is included in the group of “various people” who [SCOTUS Spouse] THOMAS “assumed [TELLER] was interested in reporting back to the Vice President on how various people felt.”

    • harpie says:

      Paul TELLER []

      Besides Groundswell, he is affiliated with:
      – Republican Study Committee
      – National Federation of Republican Assemblies
      – Council for National Policy [CNP]

      2014 CRUZ Chief of Staff
      2017 Special Assistant to TRUMP for Legislative Affairs, with a focus on Senate and House conservatives
      2/XX/20 PENCE appoints TELLER for the role of handling and maintaining key relationships with conservative groups and lawmakers. > “Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Vice President”

      During the post-election period, the Republican Study Committee was not RABID enough for Ginni:

      • harpie says:

        Some other things that were happening in FEBRUARY 2020

        Mid February TRUMP to Acting CoS Mulvaney re: MCENTEE: “I want to put Johnny in charge of personnel [] “You people never fucking listen to me!” [] “You’re going to fucking do what I tell you to do.” [Karl, Betrayal]

        2/18/20 TRUMP pardons KERIK

        2/24/20 Among Those Pressing Trump to Weed Out Disloyalty: Clarence Thomas’s Wife
        Haberman Published Feb. 24, 2020 Updated May 3, 2021 [<!??]

        1] Council for National Policy sponsors a three day CONFERENCE of election strategy discussions at the Ritz-Carlton in Orange County, California
        2] GRENELL starts as Acting DNI; GRENELL and PATEL cancel high level meetings on election security [per KREBS]
        3] Leonard LEO’s Judicial Education Project REBRANDS itself as the HONEST ELECTIONS PROJECT [It will subsequently file briefs at the Supreme Court, and in numerous states, opposing mail-in ballots and other reforms that have made it easier for people to vote.]
        4] PENCE appoints TELLER for the role of handling and maintaining key relationships with conservative groups and lawmakers. > “Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Vice President”

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          harpie, thanks as ever for connecting the dots. Also worth remembering that by February 2020, as Bob Woodward reported, Trump knew full well about the true danger posed by Covid. He was still in public denial mode, of course, but certainly by March the pandemic would have presented such a massive overall concern that these people (Paul Teller, Ginni Thomas, et. al.) could proceed with their election-refutation plans unmolested.

        • harpie says:

          Yes, that too. It’s taking me a long time to get through just this one transcript…oy! One thing I’ve noticed is that Groundswell meetings seem to have been a hub. THOMAS has already mentioned MEADOWS, Connie HAIR, TELLER, [THOMAS CLERK] EASTMAN and Chuck DEVORE, with their “79-day project” attending/presenting.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          I cannot thank you enough for slogging through this muck. Every time I pick up a strand to pursue, it’s like being sucked down a vortex leading straight to hell. Garrett Ziegler and the John Jay preppers club had me reaching for the family bottle of Jameson’s. I have to remind myself: small doses only!

          That applies to whiskey as well as right-wing incubation groups. You are doing God’s work, harpie.

        • harpie says:


          [pdf28/136] [Communications with DOJ? // does NOT know Jeffrey CLARK]
          Q Do you know Ken Klukowski? // A I do.
          Q How do you know Mr. Klukowski?
          A He’s in a lot of my meetings. He’s in CAP meetings. He’s in Groundswell sometimes. And I like him.
          Q Did you have any conversations with Mr. Klukowski in the post-election timeframe regarding the 2020 election?
          A Not that I remember, not that I can recall. No.

        • harpie says:

          Connie HAIR [who works for GOHMERT]

          Q Did you talk with Ms. Hair about the post – about the 2020 election in the post-election timeframe? […]
          A I talk to her a lot. She comes to my Thanksgiving. She’s a friend. So it’s likely. I don’t know exactly – I don’t have any memory of what I would have talked to her about. But it’s likely.

          That year Thanksgiving was on 11/26/20.

        • harpie says:

          12/15/20 Ken KLUKOWSKI begins at DOJ. [From OMB / VOUGHT]
          [CHENEY: He was specifically assigned to work under Jeff Clark.]

          12/28/20 EMAIL Ken BLACKWELL to Edward CORRIGAN

          “As stated last week [12/20/20-12/27/20 ??], I believe the VP and his staff [PENCE / TELLER?] would benefit greatly from a briefing by John [EASTMAN] and Ken [KLUKOWSKI]. As I also mentioned, make sure we don’t overexpose Ken given his new position. The reason I suggested Connie [HAIR] discuss this with you, Ed [CORRIGAN] is that I know you are sensitive to this situation.”

          Brandi Buchman:

          4:21 PM · Jun 23, 2022

          Another key detail today was revealed by Cheney:
          Clark sought the help of DOJ atty Ken Klukowski to advance Trump’s agenda. And who did Klukowski work with? John Eastman. And all are friends with: Ginni Thomas. [screenshot]

        • harpie says:

          KLUKOWSKI is “together an awful lot of places” [] “the same Christmas parties” [] “the same cocktail hours” with BLACKWELL, CORRIGAN, and “at events of that nature, upcoming big events are frequent topics of conversation.”

          And KLUKOWSKI “end[s] up at a lot of the same Christmas parties and whatnot” with THOMAS and could have “exchanged pleasantries at some sort of social event like a Christmas party”

        • harpie says:

          RE: [CHENEY: [KLUKOWSKI] was specifically assigned to work under Jeff Clark.]

          He says that CLARK assigned him to help write a letter…most likely the “Proof of Concept” letter, and that’s why he didn’t want to talk to Connie HAIR, even though he heard from her twice on 12/28/20.

          [pdf47/59] A […] Mr. Clark having tasked me with helping in the drafting of a letter to write out points on that subject matter that he dictated be written. But that that was nothing that I volunteered for or that I was voluntarily engaging in.

    • harpie says:


      [pdf14/136] A [In 2011] I was an instigator of the group [Groundswell], but I did it with a group of other national leaders who saw a gap and the need for an action-oriented, collaborative, conservative meeting.
      Q And is it a mix of officials and activists? Or how would you describe the makeup of it?
      [defining “official” as “legislators or officials in government”]
      [pdf15/136] A There’s a few congressional staff, but it’s mainly (c)(3)s and (c)(4)s […]
      A No, we don’t have any Members of Congress.

    • harpie says:


      [pdf27/136] […] Mrs. Thomas. Yeah. It must have been right after, sometime between 2016 and probably 2018.
      So I did interview [JUNIOR DON] for a Daily Caller leader series for my program, but other than that, no, I don’t have a relationship with him.

    • harpie says:



      Signer’s include people mentioned in these comments:

      Conservative organizations and the millions of grassroots conservatives we represent are united in our support of the 20 courageous members of Congress seeking to change the status quo in Washington. […]

      These members represents the millions of voters across the country who are disgusted with the business-as-usual, self-interested governance in Washington. We stand behind them and beside them in their courageous efforts to find a Speaker of the House who will represent the interests of conservatives. We encourage more conservative members to join their ranks.

  10. klynn says:

    Thank you for this post.

    “Jones’ (and Alexander’s and Stone’s) roles look just as important to understanding the plan on January 6 as they did a year ago. But there’s even more reason to believe that Jones was not just a dumb guy with a megaphone leading sheep to slaughter. Jones and Alexander were in a position to help those kicking off the attack account for the involvement — or not — of the President.”

    Your “-or not-“ jumps out to me after viewing Andrew Callaghan’s documentary.

    Again, thank you for piecing these elements together and making a clearer picture of 1/6.

  11. pdaly says:

    I’m trying to recall which Jan6 rally speaker took the DC Metro and supposedly overshot the Capitol to the east and had to walk back to the Capitol on foot. He missed his moment to speak, supposedly, or missed the update that the Capital had been attacked?

    I thought it might have been Alexander, but after a fruitless google search just now I cannot locate any information about the incident. Does anyone else recall the details and identity of the wold be speaker?

  12. AliSnarkBar says:

    I think something has been left on the cutting room floor when queried about Akbar’s involvement with the FBI, he suddenly went from answering questions to the “i need to discuss with counsel to answer” and that is very telling when it comes to Akbar. Many believe, suspect or assume, that Akbar saved his own skin and ratted anyone he knew out. It’s also strange that Akbar is the only one after J6 to continue to call for Civil War, and other things that were very suspicious over that period of time without fear of arrest over it. Meddling in foreign affairs, calling for a military overthrow in Brazil, etc. etc. etc, leaves one to question why Akbar, a twice convicted felon, could get away so many times for inciting/saying such things after J6.

    It was also very odd that not one week after J6 he claimed he would never be prosecuted for anything related to J6. How on earth would anyone know they would never be prosecuted for J6, when those arrests were just starting to happen, and DOJ was in very early stages of the investigation?

    Yes it’s very clear that Akbar makes wild statements and name drops and assumes he is bigger than he is. But here is the thing: the guy has two different felonies against him. He committed one felony, was on bail for that, and then committed another felony. Any new felonies after that could fall under the habitual offender status, and in Texas that could be a life sentence.

    He had every reason to want to save his own skin, and many believe he did. It’s not a stretch to say he’s under the gun. But if that is true, then everything he says in public is approved of by his handlers before it goes out, and in a large way that sure does seem odd that his federal handlers would be allowing him to meddle in the affairs of foreign governments, calling for military coups, as well as calling for civil war in the United States etc just to maintain a “presentation” cover. I just find those things odd. Sure, he has to maintain a rep and have a good presentation to maintain his cover, but that seems to be going way too far.

    Few have covered how he gets paid. Akbar has been a long term grifter. He will grift on any issue, and always is in need of money. Last two years, not one call to grift or donate or support him. His Dallas house costs around 2800 a month, not including utilities, electric, water, internet etc. Where does that money come from? Not from anyone in his orbit. His landlord is a guy out of New York, and this guy has no presence or contact info whatsoever. Odd for sure. How does an Ali Akbar, twice convicted felon, obtain housing in Texas from some hidden guy in New York? It’s not easy to get housing for convicted felons in Texas. Background checks would reveal his issues, and what, the landlord just suddenly said yeah, I’ll rent to a leader of J6 while he’s supposedly in hiding/running in the heat of the moment with no problem at all?

    Small notes, J6 committee just left off inquiring about money, where it came from, how it was spent, raised, amounts etc? It was answered numerous times that they would not be pursuing any financials. Wow, I thought they were following the money? I guess DOJ has that?

    Summing up: The DOJ could have easily made a case against Akbar. Twice convicted felons are pretty easy peasy to take out. They decided not to, while taking out people next to Akbar, but not Akbar himself. No, the “presentation” is that the DOJ just couldn’t find anything to get him for.

    1. Money Laundering through crypto? Nope.
    2. Fundraising Fraud (That LLC and PAC just disappeared real quick with no accountability on where that donated money went) Nope.
    3. Tax Evasion (Akbar has never filed taxes on any Non Profit he’s had, nor has he ever filed taxes, personal or business, in the last 10 years, despite the very large amounts of money he has raised over that time which most went into personal accounts of his) Nope.
    4. Inciting a Riot? Nope.

    And the list could go on. The DOJ had Akbar from day one, but the “presentation” has been he can’t be gotten to, 1st Amendment etc etc. What bullshit. Until you take out leadership for J6, the next one will probably be a no turning back thing. This is why accountability for all of them is so important. If we don’t or can’t hold them accountable, the next wave of them will be the worst….

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Maybe the DOJ is not rushing to “take out” Alexander because he is in some way cooperating outside our view. He potentially provides powerful linkage to Roger Stone, whose absence in the J6 report overall many have noted, as well as others. As you say, he makes a convenient target. From a prosecutorial standpoint, taking him out may not be the best first move.

      • bmaz says:

        Or maybe they just cannot prove the necessary elements to do it yet. It is usually not 11 dimensional chess so much as actual guidelines and procedure.

        • AliSnarkBar says:

          I go by what appears to be mountains of evidence on him. Years of petty crimes, tax evasions, raising funds as a non profit without filing any documentation on money raised, which then went directly into his pockets before he closed up shop and started the next one. Many have ended up prosecuted for just those reasons, yet not Akbar. They had a lot of this activity going on from 2012 onward that they could have used. Wesley Snipes gets nailed for tax evasion, even Red Foxx back in the day, and I’m sure many others have had liens and other issues that they have had placed on them, but not Akbar. Akbar skates all the time. It’s odd,

          I bring it up because that one page where he’s answering questions as they are pumped out, then when it comes to the FBI questions, he suddenly has to break to get counsel to answer it.

          Here is a guy who flaunts his notoriety in a “come and get me coppers” attitude. Those individuals are not smart, they are cowboy criminals, they crime until caught, and then crime again until caught again. Here, upon looking at the documentation, he acts as if he’s some executive handling some CEO type questioning, and so he’s acting smart, prepared etc. But his profile online, in vlogs, podcasts and texts, are all about burning things down, civil war, dying for the cause (pre J6) and so on. He acts as if he has muscle behind him, as if no one can do a damn thing to him over what he says or does.

          Most smart criminals under any LE cloud, be it state or federal, keep their shit on the down side if they are under a cloud. They act only when needed, they don’t go out with the come and get me copper attitude. Attorneys for these people tell them one thing, if you want to be safe, shut the F up, go farm mong beans, leave, get out of the limelight etc, and most would act accordingly if they were smart criminals. Akbar, he’ll have none of that, despite having highly placed attorneys representing him.

          Too many odd things with him to not see it for what it is. A presentation cover. My feeling is wow, why would government use this as a bait tactic? I mean we’ve all been studying this for a long time. Wray, no, he never had any advance warnings for J6. We now know that was bullshit. Not saying that they don’t have reasons for what they do. A lot of times not many know what is going on, and often this leads to speculation as to why things are the way they are. Sammy The Bull, killed a lot of people, but it was all gang related so the government was willing to work with him despite all of that. So it’s a given they work with the worst of society for bigger fish. And in the case of Akbar, I guess he’s used for those purposes. All in all though it’s strange.

          The committee could have done so much more, but seemed like weak sauce in its approach. No money followed, so no funders held accountable. If no funders accountable, then I guess no planners either. Kind of a weird way to show the people that justice will prevail the way we think it should prevail.

        • bmaz says:

          I go by what can be proved with admissible evidence in court. And said so in 550 less words than you.

        • AliSnarkBar says:

          What court and where? What court do you actually believe in? One court says one thing and another court overrules it. Scattered justice. Like doctors, one says you’re dying, the other says you’re fine. But I’ll give you your touche at any rate.

        • bmaz says:

          I practice in a number of courts, state, local and federal. I go to them regularly. I believe in all of them, and they mostly do a decent job, but not always. That’s okay.

    • harpie says:

      1/2/21 Conference call on Zoom [2 hours] with state legislators, hosted by Amistad Project [Phill KLEIN]. [TRUMP joins [for 14min] after talking to RAFFENSPERGER]

      [Amistad Project] hosted the 2-hour-long January 2, 2021 Zoom conference with state legislators which Trump joined, right after he got off the phone [link] with Georgia’s secretary of state Brad Raffensberger.

      TRUMP: You are the real power…The most important people are you. You’re more important than the courts. You’re more important than anything because the courts keep referring to you, and you’re the ones that are going to make the decision.

      [ATTENDING: Several #StopTheSteal movement leaders, Giuliani, Eastman, Navarro, John R. Lott Jr., a Justice Department official who also separately authored a report suggesting some 300,000 “excess” ballots were counted, giving Biden his win.]

      See William Ockham’s Guest Post:


      In fact, Mark MEADOWS missed the January 2 Zoom meeting with [GA] state legislators because he was coordinating the Congressional end of the insurrection with Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan, and about 50 Republican U.S. House members. This eventually led to the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

      1/3/21 TRUMP retweets a BREITBART article about the State Legislator’s Zoom meeting the next day: Jan 3rd 2021 – 12:08:03 PM

      Trump Speaks to State Legislators on Call About Decertifying Election [link] via @BreitbartNews

      BANNON and BREITBART always ooze together in my brain.

        • harpie says:

          What I could glean from this little part of the transcript:

          BANNON: We must turn up the heat..
          PREATE: [Trump’s in town and when he’s leaving.] No way, maybe he does, maybe he don’t.
          BANNON: He’s not staying in the White House after the 20th. But who says, we don’t have one million people the next day? […] Well, I’d surround the Capitol in total silence.

  13. harpie says:

    Via Laura Rozen:
    [Julia Carro]
    12:17 AM · Jan 2, 2023

    Replying to @lrozen Wtf does this mean? “POTUS informed operator that Senator Douglas Mastriano will be calling in for the Vice President.” [screenshot]
    Jan 5 Whitehouse Switchboard logs.

    Outgoing // 10:18 PM // 10:19 PM
    White House Switchboard Office: Washington, D.C. 202-456-1414
    POTUS informed operator that Senator Douglas Mastriano will be calling in for the Vice President; POTUS instructed operator to call back with Senator David Perdue 10:18 PM (RES)]

    1/5/21 10:18 PM TRUMP informs WH operator that MASTRIANO “will be calling in for” PENCE

    • harpie says:

      [??] HANNITY to MEADOWS text: “Pence pressure. WH counsel will leave.”

      [??] Scott PERRY [R-PA] to MEADOWS text: “Please check your signal”

      9:29 PM EASTMAN emails PENCE counsel JACOB:

      Good talk earlier tonight.
      Major new development attached. This is huge, as it now looks like PA Legislature will vote to recertify its electors if Vice President Pence implements the plan we discussed.

      NEW: J6C:

      [This letter from the PA Legislature was dated 1/4/21]
      but the letter asked only for a “delay” in certification to “allow for due process.”255 The Select Committee learned from the most senior Pennsylvania Senate Republican [Jake CORMAN] that he […] only agreed to sign a letter directed to Congressional leaders – not [PENCE] […]


      10:00 PM [approx]TRUMP says in a [FALSE] statement:

      […] The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act. [Pence can] decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification or send them to the House. […]

      10:18 PM TRUMP informs WH operator that MASTRIANO “will be calling in for” PENCE

    • harpie says:

      And speaking of PERRY [once my comment gets out of the pokey]:
      8:20 AM · Jan 3, 2023

      McCarthy’s speakership bid may be undone by the lawmaker who suggested the Italians, Brits and Gina Haspel stole the election. Perry also nearly engineered a DOJ leadership change to subvert the election. [THREAD] [Link]

      Links to:
      8:10 AM · Jan 3, 2023

      HFC Chair Scott Perry: “Kevin McCarthy had an opportunity to be Speaker of the House. He rejected it.” [screenshots] [THREAD]

Comments are closed.