Jeremy Liggett: A Little Bitty Fly that Jim Jordan Wants to Propagandize

Close to the end of a May 17, 2022 interview with the January 6 Committee, alleged Three Percenter Jeremy Liggett claimed that Joe Biden’s DOJ was weaponizing DOJ, “to include the CIA.”

I believe that we should have the First Amendment right. I believe that we should be able to protest at the Capitol. Okay? I don’t believe that you should hit law enforcement officers. Okay? I don’t believe that you should, you know, go into the building unless you’re invited. From some of the stuff that I’ve seen that’s fact, people were invited in. Okay? So let’s put that on the Capitol Police. Right? I think that the Capitol Police could have done a better job securing the building beforehand. I believe that the individuals that struck law enforcement officers or went in the Capitol inside should be charged, you know, for what they did. Okay?

But with saying that, okay, I believe that this administration, the Joe Biden administration, has weaponized the Department of Justice, okay, to include the CIA. Right? And I believe that you guys are — you guys, them, are swinging a big bat at little bitty flies. And it disheartens me, okay, that I am a citizen of a country right now, okay, that is locking people up on misdemeanor charges and keeping them in jail with no bonds, okay, for now months and possibly years. Okay?

The claim that Biden has weaponized DOJ (to include the CIA) is a common myth among the far right, just like the myth — which Liggett also espoused in the interview — that the election was stolen from Donald Trump.

In general, the claim that DOJ “is locking people up on misdemeanor charges and keeping them in jail with no bonds … for [] months and possibly years” is also false (though a defendant named Michael Gareth Adams, who was originally arrested in April 2021, just turned himself in Thursday after being on the lam from his January 6 trespassing charge and a Virginia hit-and-run warrant for over a year and he is at least temporarily being jailed pre-trial).

But Liggett’s case will likely be at the center of such false claims if a committee Kevin McCarthy gave the insurrectionist members of Congress to end their opposition to his election as Speaker is passed as part of the Rules package on Monday. (On George Stephanopoulos’ show this morning, Scott Perry, whose phone was seized last summer as part of the investigation, said he’d be a totally appropriate member to sit on the committee.) That’s because the arrests of five of Liggett’s associates as well as a related search of Liggett’s home are almost certainly at issue in events that led to the suspension of an FBI Agent, Stephen Friend, who will be a star witness of the committee.

As Friend described in a declaration shared with Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, he refused to participate in FBI arrests of a group of January 6 suspects charged the week of August 15 and arrested on August 24.

During the week of August 15, 2022, I became aware of imminent arrests of J6 subjects and searches of their respective residences within the FBI’s Jacksonville and Tampa Field Office areas of responsibility. Simultaneous takedowns were scheduled to occur on August 24, 2022. Due to perceived threat levels, an FBI SWAT team was enlisted to arrest one of the arrests.


I responded that it was inappropriate to use an FBI SWAT team to arrest a subject for misdemeanor offenses and opined that the subject would likely face extended detainment and biased jury pools in Washington D.C. I suggested alternatives such as the issuance of a court summons or utilizing surveillance groups to determine an optimal, safe time for a local sheriff deputy to contact the subjects and advise them about the existence of the arrest warrant.


I told them that I would not participate in any of these operations.

Though Friend has never said it, his complaints amount to a complaint that some January 6 defendants — including those associated with militias — are treated as a domestic terror investigation. In November, a whistleblower complaint Friend submitted was rejected by DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel.

Based on timing, it is virtually certain that the arrest Friend refused to participate in was that of Liggett’s associates in the “B Squad” or “Guardians of Freedom.” They were charged on August 16 and arrested on August 24, three of them in Florida. The only one not charged with felony civil disorder, Tyler Bensch, allegedly posted a picture of himself on January 6 with an assault rifle, which is the kind of thing that would lead the FBI to involve SWAT in an arrest.

There’s no public sign that Liggett has been arrested, though he claimed his house was searched the day that FBI made the other arrests. The case against his associates has been continued twice, once in October and again at the end of December, to allow for plea negotiations and the sharing of grand jury information (which sometimes suggests cooperation), with the next status due on February 14. Contrary to the claims of Friend and Liggett, all the men, even those accused of felonies, were released on personal recognizance.

Any investigation against Liggett, however, may be a different issue. Not only does the complaint against his associates claim he made the travel arrangements for forty men for January 6, not only did he conduct a training in advance on how to come armed to DC, but he’s a key pivot between the militias and the January 6 organizers.

On May 17, in his interview, the committee focused on the ties between Liggett and two people associated with the MAGA Bus Tour, Dustin Stockton and Charles Bowman.

Stockton, you’ll recall, was the organizer who made great PR for himself by telling Rolling Stone that he had objected to the violent rhetoric leading up to January 6.

But on December 30, 2020, the Committee showed in both Liggett’s and Amy Kremer’s depositions, Stockton was made a member of Liggett’s group.

Q Okay. And just if you focus on the first and third name that Bowman sends, Jeremy Liggett and Tarra Nicolle Hernandez. Just remember those. And if we look at exhibit 21, it is not an email you would have seen. I just want to ask whether he talked about it. You see that on December 30th of 2020, this person Tarra Hernandez, she was the name three on thatlist, sends to Mr. Stockton an email that says: ~ Welcome to Three Percenters, guardians of freedom. So, just a week before the event of January 6th, it is telling Mr. Stockton: Welcome to Three Percenters, guardians of freedom. It is an honor to have you on our team patriots. And then, if you look down there, there is a paragraph towards the bottom that says: Please be advised, per the founder, Jeremy Liggett, you have been moved and assigned as a full active member and not a prospect member. ~ Please disregard the mandatory meeting attendance mentioned in the attached documents. Again, just asking, do you recall him, Dustin, bringing up the notion that he joined the Three Percenters just a week before the event on January 6th?

A No. No. Yeah, no.

Stockton may have gotten involved via Charles Bowman, who did security for the Kremers at several of their events.

Q Do you remember who you used for security in December in D.C.

A Yeah. We used RMS Protective Services. And we also hired the — that first security company that we used for November 14th, we hired them again to be security at the Supreme Court.

Q There is a name we have seen, Charles Bowman, does he work with the security? Do you know that gentleman?

A I know, I do know Bowman. He — mean, he worked – I don’t know that he technically works with them, but — like as an employee, but I know he, you know, works with those guys.

Q Okay. So the folks that you used for November and it sounds like December or at least some of them, Bowman somehow worked with them?

A Yeah. I mean Bowman was I don’t how to describe Bowman. He’s like a big brother that’s always you know, it was lie he was always looking out for us and making sure, you know, that we were safe and whatnot.

Stockton was with both Bowman and Liggett at their December event.

Q Okay. I’m going to pull up page 8 of this exhibit. This is an email blast that Dustin Stockton sent out to some people on December 16th. And then he’s talking about being in an elevator with Charles Bowman, with the 3 percent team in D.C.

A I don’t know why they kept using that term.

Q Well, this is on Saturday December 12th and if you remember back from that welcome email, Dustin Stockton is the one who joined your group, but he’s in the back right here giving a thumbs up.

A Yeah. I know Dustin.

Q Oh, you do? Okay. How do you know Dustin Stockton?

A I’ve met him at rallies and things like that. He’s done speaking engagements. He seems like a nice guy.

Q Did he ever invite you to do speaking engagements?

A Yeah, uh-huh.

Q Did you meet up with him on December 12th?

A I’m trying to remember if — I’m sure there’s a possibility I did. Is that picture from December 12th?

Q This picture is from December 12th.

A Oh, yeah. Then I met with him on December 12th

According to Liggett, Bowman had been on the Guardians of Freedom Telegram chat for years.

Q Okay. So Mr. Bowman was on the Guardians of Freedom Telegram chats?

A Yeah, at one point.

Q Was there anybody else from the Women for America First organization that 11 were on those chats?

A No. No.

Q And was Mr. Bowman a member of Guardians of Freedom?

A No. No.

Q Okay. Why was he on the Telegram chats?

A I sent him an invite.

Q And why did you send him an invite if he wasn’t a member?

A Because he wanted to make sure that there was no one in our group that were saying anything bad about anything, because like I told you guys prior to or earlier, that there’s a lot of people — when you have — when you have organizations that try to get into the organization — they’re bad people. Like, from my knowledge, you know, the few times that I — that I spoke with him, I mean, they don’t want to be affiliated with any kind of extremists or anything like that. mean, that’s —

In addition to inviting Liggett to speak on January 5, Bowman also set Liggett up as a “marshal” for the Ellipse event on January 6. This is how Justin Caporale, one of the main organizers, described Liggett’s inclusion.

Do you remember having conversations with Women for America First organizers about having volunteers for the event?

A I don’t remember the specific conversation, but, yes, we would’ve had that conversation.

Q And what’s the job for volunteers at an event like this?

A To act as an extension of kind of the guest management team, you know, provide way finding, be greeters, you know, make sure if someone needs to find a rest room or food or water, that we can help them get to where they need to go.

Q Was there ever an instance where you thought these volunteers might be used for security purposes at the Ellipse event?

Q No, sir.

A Do you know who Charles Bowman is?

Q I do not.

A Do you remember having any conversations with a Charles Bowman?

A It’s very likely that I did, but I don’t — I don’t know or I don’t remember those conversations. His name does not ring a bell to me. I couldn’t pick him out of a line-up.

Q Okay. And, if we go up here, we see that Mr. Bowman ultimately sends a list of, you know, several names, including a Jeremy Liggett, L-i-g-g-e-t-t, and others: Robinson, Hernandez, Clark. For volunteers, do you know if there’s any vetting done for who’s selected to be a volunteer for these kinds of events?

A Most of the time, there’s not vetting done unless that volunteer is required to be in a secure location.

Q And so there would not have been a way for you to know, as the person requesting volunteers, whether any of these individuals were associated with a militia organization or paramilitary group like the Three Percenters or Oath Keepers or that kind of thing?

Q No, sir.

Liggett did serve as a “marshal.” Per his testimony, he in fact did show people where the bathroom was (in addition to escorting VIPs). He complained that he was not fed lunch as part of the deal.

Q Just a quick followup on that, Mr. Liggett. You said you were disappointed a little in your role on January 6th. Could you explain why you were disappointed?

A Yeah. It was boring. First of all, they put me in a pink vest. Okay? And no offense, I know you’re wearing a pink tie, all right, but I’m not the pink kind of guy. So I was in a bright orange and a bright pink vest. It was fricking cold as hell, okay, and they didn’t feed us lunch. And it was boring, completely boring.

Q The speeches or the activity that you were doing?

A Oh, I don’t know. I didn’t get to see the speeches. I was too busy walking people here and there and passing out signs and stuff. So I was disappointed.


You guys should put that in your report, that it was cruel and unusual punishment by these rally people by not feeding us all day. So anyway — and you know they had the budget, because they ask for your money all the time, right.

But that’s not the most damning part of his testimony (for which he had no attorney). When specifically asked if he was the Three Percenter group with which fellow Floridian Kelly Meggs had formed an alliance, he denied it, 100% (he also denied that the B Squad was a Three Percenter group or a militia at all, in spite of integrating the Three Percenter logo into their bling).

So Kelly Meggs is also —

A Who’s Kelly Meggs?

Q He is an Oath Keeper from Florida. And so he says: Well, we are ready for the rioters. This week I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida Three Percenters, and Proud Boys. We have decided to work together and shut this shit down. He posted it on December 19th, after President Trump’s “will be wild” tweet. Do you have —

A I don’t know.

Q Do you know who this Florida Three Percenter group would be?

A No. No. I can 100 percent, without a doubt, tell you that that is not in reference to anything that we were doing before or — well, I can’t say anything after, but before January 6th, there’s no way, no way.

Q Do you have any guess or hint about which Three Percenter group in Florida Mr. Meggs was talking about?

A I mean, my guess would be — if I were an investigator and I was investigating this, I would probably look into the Three Percenter-Originals. That’s probably who I would look at.

But as the J6C report itself explained, Liggett was the guy on the chats with Meggs.

Meggs bragged on Facebook that following President Trump’s December 19th tweet he had formed an alliance between the Oath Keepers, the Florida Three Percenters, and the Proud Boys “to work together to shut this shit down.”359 On December 19th, Meggs called Enrique Tarrio and they spoke for more than three minutes.360 Three days later, Meggs messaged Liggett, echoing his excitement about the December 19th tweet and specifically referencing the seat of Congress: “He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!!”361 Liggett said “I will have a ton of men with me” and Meggs replied that “we have made Contact [sic] with PB [Proud Boys] and they always have a big group. Force multiplier. . . . I figure we could splinter off the main group of PB and come up behind them. Fucking crush them for good.”362 Aside from Meggs, Stewart Rhodes brought in at least one local militia leader363 and Three Percenters into the Oath Keepers January 6th planning chats that came about following President Trump’s tweet.364

Liggett denied being the guy involved with Meggs, but he did not deny knowing Enrique Tarrio. Which is interesting for a stray reference in the deposition of Samuel Armes, the head of the Florida crypto currency association who, in the interest of war gaming possible threats, wrote the first draft of a document that came to be known as the Winter Palace document. After receiving the document from Armes, Tarrio’s girlfriend shared it with the head of the Proud Boys. Tarrio seems to have referenced in the context of the successful occupation of the Capitol.

J6C asked Armes if he knew Liggett, who they suggested had some association with the document.

I think then — actually, do you know someone named Jeremy Liggett in Florida?

A L-i-g

Q Yeah, L-i-g-g-e-t-t

A Jeremy Liggett. To the best of my recollection, I have never heard that name in my life. Jeremy Liggett? Is he into cryptocurrency?

Q I’m not sure. But it was just a question based on this document, so–

No, I’ve never heard of him in my life.

A Okay.

The document was shared around as a Google doc, so the people who accessed it would be accessible to investigators. But Liggett, even more than the Proud Boys, appears to be a fan of the 1776 invocation, which the document used.

Liggett says that the people who are being prosecuted — like five of his associates (four of whom are accused of pressuring cops in the Tunnel, the worst of the fighting) — are just “little bitty flies” who shouldn’t be prosecuted. He claims to believe false claims about the election, about the treatment of Jan 6 defendants, and about FBI more generally.

And that is the point of this committee. It is the reason why, under the Mueller investigation precedent, DOJ’s inability to share grand jury information with Congress won’t stop this committee from being a problem.

Jim Jordan and Scott Perry want to use their committee to claim that men like Liggett, someone who ties the Ellipse event organizers directly to the worst of the violence, should not be investigated. They want to magnify the complaints of people like Friend, who call a DC-led investigation those who attacked the Capitol an abuse of FBI authority.

The reason why is clear — because the existence of someone like Liggett, who was escorting VIPs even as he was paying for travel of men involved in the tunnel fight — makes their own role in the insurrection more problematic. This committee is not about overseeing the FBI. It’s about trying to spin their own attack on the Constitution as something else than it was.

Update: Added the chat between Liggett and Meggs.

73 replies
  1. Big Mango says:

    If the dems ask the right questions and the doj provides the documents this should blow up in their faces. Jordan, Perry et al are used to soft foxnews interviews and one sided questions….
    let the games begin…

    • emptywheel says:

      I believed that about the Durham investigation — and was right that it blew up. But virtually all of the mainstream press slept through it, so Durham didn’t pay a price.

      This, though, will be intentionally constituted to keep Dems out as payback for Jan6.

  2. Rugger_9 says:

    One wonders what was found on Perry’s phone by the FBI (and the other seized communications with Congresscritters like RoJo, Tuberville and Mike Lee) which if revealed in committee would be extremely problematic. Like Benghazi’s investigations relentlessly buried the GOP role in defunding security and intel for the State Department (then run by HRC as their motive) Jordan’s committee will do the same here. Jordan’s probably involved as well. The Speaker probably is not given how much of an idiot he is and the risk he’d blurt out plans like he did about the real reason for Benghazi.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Rugger, I’m not aware of any senator’s phone being seized, including Lee, Tuberville and Johnson. Do you know something the rest of us don’t?

      • timbozone says:

        All of the Senators named have had their texts to other folks who submitted information voluntarily or involuntarily to the Committee and DOJ publicized however, including texts and phone call times, etc from Jan 6, 2021 riot period. And, yep, whether all the information about those Senators phones are actually known is not known publicly afaik.

        • Rayne says:

          Ease up, Rugger. You muddied things by referring to both phones and communications in the first sentence of your 10:55 comment.

          Be more precise yourself and knock off the ad hominem remarks.

          • Rugger_9 says:

            It’s a second recent offense by Ginevra putting words in my posts that aren’t there, and I don’t tolerate that for long.

            [Clearly you did not heed my instruction. You can sit in the bin for a while until you knock off attacking other commenters after publishing a muddy comment. /~Rayne]

  3. EricofMariposa says:

    The misuse of militarized SWAT teams to serve routine warrants long predates this administration.

    Recall Waco or Ruby Ridge, not to mention the Palmer Raids of the 1920s.

    • P J Evans says:

      It’s usually local cops and sheriffs, not the feds. And if the feds are doing it, it’s generally with the presumption that the targets will shoot back.

      • Fancy Chicken says:

        If you remember, shortly before these warrants were served 2 FBI agents were killed in the Tampa area serving a warrant to a pedo they deemed non-dangerous.

        Florida FBI offices were pretty shaken up about that and were being much more cautious in their warrant service. Ole Agent Friend knew that, he was just letting his personal views of sympathy for J6 defendants show a little.

      • bmaz says:

        Exactly. Or willing to blow shit up with children in the lurch. They are usually, even if not always, known and dangerous longer term volatile hostage situations.

    • bmaz says:

      Ruby Ridge and Waco? Palmer raids?? This is absolute bullshit and close to gaslighting. The ever more popularized use of SWAT squads effectively was started by Darryl Gates in the LAPD, and not the FBI. And state and local militarization is FAR more the problem than the FBI.

      And, before you pitch this again, go read Warrior Cop by our friend Radley Balko. This is not some AOL Messinger chat forum, we usually have a pretty good, and long term, knowledge of things. If you think overuse of SWAT teams is really a FBI issue, as you attempted to argue, then you do not have that perspective.

      • John B. says:

        This is exactly right. The militarization of the local police force by special funding for these forces to acquire military grade hardware. New toys, new swat aggression. Think Ferguson, MO.

      • EricofMariposa says:

        Dear bmaz:

        Here is my post:

        “ The misuse of militarized SWAT teams to serve routine warrants long predates this administration. Recall Waco or Ruby Ridge, not to mention the Palmer Raids of the 1920s.”

        I do not mention the FBI.

        Waco started with the ATF, and the FBI did not exist during Palmer’s time.

        So, my point—to make it obvious—is that these Warrior Cop tactics are both unacceptable and long predate Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Wray.

        • emptywheel says:

          Know what? As of now Rayne has a full green light to remove you from the site.

          The FBI’s decisions on how to arrest domestic terrorists is not a Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff thing. There’s one guy involved, and he was picked by Trump.

          Don’t come here to waggle your right wing bullshit.

    • Rayne says:

      Slapping up “The misuse of militarized SWAT teams” and citing three past examples from decades back can be seen as anti-government propaganda, a redirect with misinfo. Can you cite how many times the FBI has appropriately used SWAT teams, before or during this administration? Since you didn’t pointedly specify the FBI versus any other federal agency let alone state or local law enforcement, can you cite how many times SWAT teams have been used appropriately since SWAT teams were first implemented? Let me guess you can’t without research.

      And why on earth would the FBI not deploy a SWAT team to address a perp with known anti-government sentiments — you completely ignored that, along with the timing.

      The FBI’s Cincinnati office had been attacked on August 11, 2022 after the perp had called for attacks on FBI offices everywhere, in response to Trump’s bullshit whining about a search warrant served on Mar-a-Lago. The B Squad members were charged on August 16, 2022, while the aftermath of the August 11 attack was still being sorted.

      SWAT team usage would have been wholly appropriate. Dragging your redirect crap in here is not.

      Look, buddy, you remain on thin ice here after your multiple attempts at sockpuppeting. With only 28 comments under your belt under the same name, you do not have a long history of consistent commenting here yet.

      This bullshit isn’t going to fly here. Get a better comment game or find the exit.

      • EricofMariposa says:

        Dear Rayne:

        As I recall, at least one of the ATF agents shot himself at Waco:

        Here is my above post:

        “The misuse of militarized SWAT teams to serve routine warrants long predates this administration. Recall Waco or Ruby Ridge, not to mention the Palmer Raids of the 1920s.”

        So, my point—to make it obvious—is that these government Warrior Cop tactics are both unacceptable and long predate Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Wray.

        We do not have space here to discuss the actual definition and etymology of the term “propaganda,” but it traces back to Pope Gregory XV at the Vatican in 1622—if anyone is interested.

        As for the growing government abuse of SWAT teams: here is a good place to start:


        • bmaz says:

          Hey there “Eric”: The next time you call anybody here “Dear”, you are are done. You may be anyway. I hope that is clear enough for you, dear. Love bmaz.

        • Rayne says:

          Buh-bye, Eric/EricofBosch/EricofMariposa. We’re not going to continue to allow DDoSing comment threads with your policing what’s written here, ex. “We do not have space here to discuss” when it’s not your space. You were told to stop and you refused to do so.

          Nor are we going to entertain further insurrectionist and seditionist talk when we’re trying to rein in a movement which is and has been attacking legitimate law enforcement while obstructing government operations. Further, we’re not going to permit trashing of members of Congress who were attacked on January 6, 2021, because you believe you personally have all the facts necessary to decide federal law enforcement acted inappropriately though you personally do not have access to domestic intelligence.

          Lastly, I’m personally pissed off you managed to produce information about law enforcement abuses against BIPOC persons to claim white perps should not be subject to reasonable anticipatory force. Fuck all the way off, and stuff your love bullshit where the sun doesn’t shine on the way.

    • DrFunguy says:

      I do recall Waco. The ATF was ambushed and several agents killed while serving an arrest warrant. That the FBI responded with SWAT is hardly misuse.
      You are gaslighting.

      • Silly but True says:

        Neither Waco nor Ruby Ridge are perfect examples for “any side.”

        t Waco, the lynchpin was ATF lying about the use of incendiary devices, which likely ignited the fire; Congress blasted them for this misconduct.

        In Ruby Ridge, it was the shoot-on-sight orders for the FBI snipers. Again, the FBI itself recognized the FBI’s own bad acts.

        So “gaslighting” is probably an unhelpful accusation in both of these complex cases.

        There was plenty of wrongdoing to pass around.

        A moral of the story is if you’ve led the US federal government to lay siege to you, there’s probably something you maybe could have done different.

      • jsrtheta says:

        I knew an ATF agent who still had shrapnel his head thanks to the Branch Davidians, when I met him months later.

        They had an abundance of probable cause for that operation. The Davidians had zero justification for their actions.

        • DrFunguy says:

          I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that once you have ambushed and killed law enforcement, whatever happens after that is pretty much on you.
          I am not an avid supporter of federal law-enforcement in all circumstances and I have been on the receiving end of some sketchy enforcement While engaging in lawful protest. But my sympathy for anti-government types who kill cops is zero.

        • David F. Snyder says:

          Hi Eric,

          Mass-suicide is a horrible thing. “Allegations that the government started the fire were largely based on an FBI agent’s having fired three “pyrotechnic” tear gas rounds, which are delivered with a charge that burns. The Special Counsel concluded that the rounds did not start or contribute to the spread of the fire, based on the finding that the FBI fired the rounds nearly four hours before the fire started, at a concrete construction pit partially filled with water, 75 feet (23 m) away and downwind from the main living quarters of the complex. The Special Counsel noted, by contrast, that recorded interceptions of Branch Davidian conversations included such statements as “David said we have to get the fuel on” and “So we light it first when they come in with the tank right … right as they’re coming in.” Some Branch Davidians who survived the fire acknowledged that other Branch Davidians started the fire. FBI agents witnessed Branch Davidians pouring fuel and igniting a fire, and noted these observations contemporaneously. Lab analysis found accelerants on the clothing of Branch Davidians, and investigators found deliberately punctured fuel cans and a homemade torch at the site. Based on this evidence and testimony, the Special Counsel concluded that the fire was started by the Branch Davidians.“

          The SWAT team was necessary.

  4. Fancy Chicken says:

    So what are they going to do with the J6 committee report out? Act like they did with the Muller report hoping that no one read it to debunk their lies? Have hearings with “witnesses” that contradict what was told to the J6 committee? And wouldn’t that be some pretty big legal jeopardy if say they interviewed Jeffery Clark who we know is being investigated by the FBI, and he goes up and makes sworn testimony that goes against evidence that the FBI may have from emails or such.

    It seems to me that there is very big risk in being a witness to Jordan’s new committee because of how much documentation and evidence the J6 committee and the FBI are sitting on, much of which we don’t even know about.

    I think it’s going to go as well for them as Durham’s criminal trials and I believe the results of the midterms show that voting or interested Americans are just kinda over fascist GOP noise. The only thing it might do is harden that 20% of far right Americans and harden rather than soften the line they are trying to create to delineate “good” America from “bad” America.

    Plus when you add in how angry the average American is going to be with all the fiscal mayhem and budget shutdowns these clowns are just dying to make happen a wide swath of this country is going to tune them out completely on anything they have to say.

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s worth remembering that when George Papadopoulos testified before Mark Meadows’ OGR, he was not asked to provide documentation. He made several outrageous claims.

      I expect a similar approach here.

      • Silly but True says:

        Have there been times when they’ve invited witness testimony not under oath? That is, bring someone in and then free them up to grandstand and dissemble until their heart’s content with no penalty?

        If not, we might see a first with Gates’s Cmte.

    • Troutwaxer says:

      I tend to agree with Fancy Chicken. At best maybe 30 percent of the country gives a fuck about Hunter Biden’s laptop or Dr. Fauci’s possible guilt on some trumped up charge, (or anything else those nutcases have to say.) The best case scenario for the Republicans is that holding these hearing doesn’t hurt them, but since their version of reality essentially comes down to “I believe in lizard people” my guess is that everyone but Fox News will tune them out.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      The odds of that outcome occurring depends on whether the courtier MSM press covers it bothsides as they usually do (like an 8th grade gossip column) or keeps the bigger picture in the story that the ones investigating are likely involved to their crew cuts. While I hope this gambit gets stomped, it will sell too many papers to nerve the conservative editors to do the right thing instead of the lucrative easy thing.

      • David F. Snyder says:

        While I hope this gambit gets stomped, it will sell too many papers to nerve the conservative editors to do the right thing instead of the lucrative easy thing.

        So, I can expect WaPo to dutifully echo every bit of misinformation the committee spits out. Swell.

        • FL Resister says:

          The House Circus will include Gaetz cracking the whip, McCarthy having his ass bitten off, and Jim Jordan running shambolic hearings (again), yes.
          At least this time a larger share of the public is aware that something is seriously wrong with the Republican Party.
          Jim Jordan, refusing to appear after Jan 6 Committee subpoena, is saying to Justice Department hand over what? Shocking nonsense.
          Is General Flynn going to order the Pentagon to do something too?
          Let’s hope the press doesn’t fall for their gambits again and is able to pierce through to their true intentions and effects.

  5. LiteralE25 says:

    There’s a stunning amount of information available from the January 6th Committees depositions and hearings, so I may have missed this. FBI Agent Stephen Friend– was he present at January 6th? Is he likely to be connected to FBI ‘sources’ that send conservative media about Hunter Biden? Is he connected to James Kallstrom, and was it ever determined whether Kallstrom was the source for Rudy/Trump in the 2016 Election?

    • person1597 says:

      Maga myiasis in the body politic…
      “Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects… don’t have politics. They’re very… brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can’t trust the insect. I’d like to become the first… insect politician. Y’see, I’d like to, but… I’m afraid, uh…”

  6. LaMissy! says:

    OT, or perhaps not.
    The Bolsonaristas are doing a January 6 re-enactment in Brasilia right now.
    I smell Steve Bannon.


  7. oldtulsadude says:

    My question is how did agent Friend become radicalized? And if he held radical views prior to joining the FBI why was he hired?

    • Raven Eye says:

      Hard to say how and when his downward spiral started. But it really frosts me is that he has decided that he should be making decisions regarding his performance of duty based on what he “thinks” the charges that go to trial will be, the composition of the jury, etc.

      This is just another flavor of the Oath Keeper rationale. He took an oath, but he has decided that the elements of that oath are subject to his personal review and modification — essentially the Oath Keeper’s 10 orders that they will not obey.

    • PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

      He’s not a rarity in the FBI. It has always been a conservative, reactionary institution.

  8. gmoke says:

    I read that Jordan’s committee will have permission to investigate ongoing DOJ cases. Therefore, it seems to me that some of the Representatives who probably participated in the insurrection will be investigating the people who are probably investigating them.

    Not good.

    I understand how the wheels of justice turn slowly to grind fine but I suspect if the politician insurrectionists had been quickly disqualified from running for office again as per the 14th Amendment we wouldn’t be looking forward to a Congressional term which will do nothing but kick up dust to blind the eyes of the interested and obstruct everything that isn’t a tax cut for the wealthy.

    But I could be wrong.

    • bmaz says:

      What you have heard is that they will claim that authority. That is not synonymous with being able to use such claimed authority. And should they be able to do so, what does that say about the Dems who have not done jack in that regard?

      • Silly but True says:

        Certainly grand jury information (that has not been made public) will not be turned over, and if forced, courts are unlikely to disseminate beyond the grand jury.

        But there’s a lot of information collected that may be agency information that an enterprising Congress can compose overwrite-associated facades to attempt to claw at.

    • Matt___B says:

      From what I understand that was one of McCarthy’s concessions to Jordan but whether it makes it through a version of the House Rules package, that will not be voted on until tomorrow remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether the vote of the House Rules package will be almost as contentious as the vote for McCarthy was. And if even if Jordan’s wish for this makes it into the final rules package, what they wind up doing to try and implement it is going to be…interesting…to say the least. Jordan is just furthering his interest in trying to “legally” avoid consequences for his past, current and future actions in furthering the insurrectionist cause.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Indeed, or what might be worse, the agents will discuss the things they found out about the Sedition Caucus. After all, they have to tell the truth and usually everyone gets five minutes of question time in the committees.

        We’ll see.

        • Marinela says:

          Each democrat should yield their 5 minutes to the counsel, and/or coordinate follow up’s.
          Be sharp, to the point, and very organized.
          Five minutes is an eternity, you just need a white board and homework. Just ask Katie P.
          It is not like they will be busy with anything legislative, they should have plenty of time doing their homework.

          • Rayne says:

            Definitely want to see a more focused approach to Dems’ participation on committees. I think of standouts over the years and they’re the ones who are spare and succinct in their questioning — Porter being one, AOC another within the House. Harris was super on Senate Judiciary, which is another reason the GOP dislikes her so much.

            • gmoke says:

              Rep Lucy McBath is another one to pay attention to. Not so much for her questions but for the way she listens closely and makes sure people get heard.

              At one hearing she turned over her time to question Bezos to a constituent who had some pointed remarks as to how Amazon treated her and her business, a second-hand textbook enterprise run as an affiliate through Amazon that, suddenly, Amazon was competing with.

              I repeat, she gave up her TIME to a constituent. Never seen it before or since.

  9. Savage Librarian says:

    The current Special Agent in Charge of the Jacksonville Field Office in Florida was assigned to that position by the FBI Director one year ago. She was in DC on 1/6/21. I don’t think Stephen Friend is any match for her. He seems to have first become vocal during the Whitmer kidnapping plot.

    When the transcripts came out, I first read Armes’ and then Liggett’s. Liggett twisted himself into a pretzel in trying to dissociate from any 3% group. He claimed it was a logo that everybody was using because it was cool. It was a way to connect with 1776 as a concept. That may be true, but it also doesn’t serve him well in connection to the Winter Palace/1776 Returns document. He also claimed he didn’t know Kelly Meggs. By the end of his interview his shady nature came more into focus.

    It would be right in character for Jordan and Perry to use these two numbskulls to promote more of their fascist propaganda. Sure hope that possibility is shut down before it begins.

  10. Anathema Device says:

    With the imminent display of idiocy from the far right congress people and their ‘investigations’, would this not be an opportune moment for President Biden to release the full, unredacted Muller Report? If the other side are going to try to flood the endzone with crap, flooding it with some unadorned factual findings about Trump and the other criminals might be useful.

    Or is the American media more likely to just shrug and call it ‘old news’?

  11. Marinela says:

    Heard the GOP wants to investigate Fauci who retired. Can they investigate officials that are no longer serving?
    I am thinking the house oversite means oversite of the current officials.
    Overwise where this ends?

    If Fauci is forced to testify, who is going to pay for his lawyer, representation? Tax payers, the house GOP, or himself?

  12. Spencer Dawkins says:

    I’m asking this with some trepidation, because of the exchanges elsewhere in this thread, so please feel free to tell me “not helpful”, and I’ll believe you the first time.

    That said … I do have a question about a detail from Liggett’s interview, where he said

    I don’t believe that you should, you know, go into the building unless you’re invited. From some of the stuff that I’ve seen that’s fact, people were invited in. Okay? So let’s put that on the Capitol Police. Right?

    I know how someone gets “invited” into my house – either I invited them in, or my wife did.

    But since there must be thousands of people who work in the Capitol and surrounding congressional buildings, is Liggett asserting that anyone who works in the Capitol can invite a crowd of people in, past barricades?

    (Perhaps I should be asking, “Is he gaslighting here, or honestly stupid?“)

    • Rayne says:

      *insert why-not-both-gif*

      Some of these guys are stupid enough to think that POTUS can invite them into the Capitol. Stupid enough to think the Capitol is the people’s house and therefore open to the people, though the people already occupy it through their representatives.

      And/or stupid enough to think we’d ignore the barriers, the Capitol police, and other indications the Capitol was restricted space. This part is the gaslighting.
      (Photo by Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)
      Nothing about this says, “Come on in!”

      • Spencer Dawkins says:


        Thanks for your reply – that helps me levelset with other folks on this site.

        And on this point,

        Some of these guys are stupid enough to think that POTUS can invite them into the Capitol.

        Yeah, I’d forgotten about that whole part of January 6 (at least, I’d forgotten this morning, although I usually remember it). And it WAS stupid, in 2021 and now.

  13. Tom R. says:

    1) Yeah, Jeremy Liggett is a flagrant gaslighter.

    2) He is just the tippiest tip of the iceberg. It is an article of faith in their world that January 6th was a frame-up job and the defendants are political prisoners. Genius lawyer Christina Bobb went completely off the rails near the end of her deposition. Here is a small snippet of a much longer rant on pages 153 and 154:

    1 And the vast majority of people that I saw there, the Trump supporters that I saw
    2 there were trying to make it stop. I personally do not believe the Trump supporters
    3 instigated January 6. And, I mean, it was just really disappointing that it looked like
    4 President Trump supporters were getting framed.
    5 I do believe they are being held as political prisoners.

    You can read the rest yourself. There’s a bundle of 272 searchable PDFs here:

    Also, each PDF is accompanied by an HTML file that you can search, or easily convert to plain text and then attack with well-known tools.

Comments are closed.