Trump Worked with People Who Allegedly Worked with the Proud Boys to Obstruct the Peaceful Transfer of Power

By my count, at least 14 people are known to have pled guilty to some kind of conspiracy on January 6, with four more cooperating against them. Another four were found guilty of one or more conspiracy in November’s Oath Keeper verdict. Eighteen people, in one way or another have been convicted of conspiring to prevent the peaceful transfer of power on January 6, most by obstructing the vote certification.

Trump played a key part in all those conspiracies.

Ronnie Sandlin, for example, first started planning to go, armed, to DC in response to Trump’s December 19 tweet, posting on December 23 that he planned to “stop the steal and stand behind Trump when he decides to cross the rubicon.” After he watched Trump’s speech on January 6, Sandlin did a live stream where he said, “I think it is time to take the Capitol.” Once he arrived at the Capitol, Sandlin and co-conspirator Nate DeGrave participated in tactically critical assaults on cops in two places, the East door and the door to the Senate gallery. After Sandlin helped him get into the gallery, Josiah Colt then rappelled from the gallery to the Senate floor.

Like Sandlin, Brad Smith started arming himself and planning to come to DC in response to Trump’s December 19 tweet.

The call to action was put out to be in DC on January 6th from the Don himself. The reason is that’s the day pence counts them up and if the entire city is full of trump supporters it will stop the for sure riots from burning down the city at least for awhile.

By December 31, Smith predicted, “Militias will be there and if there’s enough people they may fucking storm the buildings and take out the trash right there.” Smith and his co-conspirator, Marshall Neefe, participated in an assault on cops using an 8′ by 10′ Trump sign. And after the attack he boasted that the mission was successful because “we literally chased them out into hiding. No certification lol.”

Trump played a slightly different role in the Oath Keepers conspiracy. The Oath Keepers — Stewart Rhodes above all — viewed Trump as a means to prevent Biden’s election, because as President he could invoke the Insurrection Act and with it (the Oath Keepers believed) make the militias a legal arm of the state, defending Trump. Rhodes repeatedly called on Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act — on November 9, December 12, December 23, and January 6.

He dictated a note to Trump after January 6 asking him to call on the militias as his army to stop Biden from taking power.

For the most part, none of the channels via which Rhodes tried to speak directly to Trump (including Kellye SoRelle’s attempt to work through Rudy Giuliani’s son) are known to have reached Trump.

One of his attempted interlocutors, though, undoubtedly had access to Trump: Roger Stone, on whose Friends of Stone list Rhodes was sharing his plans for insurrection shortly after the election.

DOJ has exploited at least four phones owned by members of the Friends of Stone list: Rhodes and SoRelle, Owen Shroyer, and Enrique Tarrio. Probably DOJ asked for content from Ali Alexander as well (though he disclaimed having any Signal texts to the January 6 Committee).

While a jury found all the Oath Keepers guilty of obstructing the vote certification, with the key exception of Kelly Meggs (who was also in contact separately with the Proud Boys, Roger Stone, Ali Alexander, and alleged 3 Percenter Jeremy Liggett, who in turn had ties to the MAGA Bus Tour) as well as Jessica Watkins, it found the greater part of their conspiracy either overthrowing the government or interfering with with official duties: not obstructing the vote count. Their larger plan to keep Trump in power used different means than Trump used.

That’s not true of the Proud Boy Leaders, who are three days into their trial.

Not only did the Proud Boys allegedly pursue the same plan that Trump was pursuing — obstructing the vote certification on January 6 — but they were in communication with people who were in communication, and central to, Trump’s plan: most notably, Alex Jones, Ali Alexander, and Roger Stone. They were in communication with people who were in communication with people close to Trump during the attack.

Even their telephony records show that Enrique Tarrio, Joe Biggs, and Ethan Nordean were in contact with Alex Jones and Owen Shroyer during the period.

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

Given the known communication habits of the men, it’s possible there are Signal or Telegram communications that were unavailable to the J6C as well.

Alex Jones and Ali Alexander knew in advance they would lead the mob to the Capitol (the January 6 Report offers an unpersuasive explanation that the request came exclusively from Caroline Wren). Roger Stone had planned to join them, probably until he got cranky about being denied a speaking role on the morning of January 6. Mike Flynn wanted to latch on, as well, until the General got too cold and had to go back to his posh hotel room. “Hell no,” he said, according to Caroline Wren. “It’s freezing.”

Meanwhile, even as Shroyer was in touch with Biggs, Alexander was in touch with Caroline Wren, who remained at the Ellipse, and asked for 5-minute updates on the Trump’s progress to the Capitol (the text in question appears to have come from Wren, but may not have been provided in Alexander’s production).

The communication between Proud Boys and Jones in real time is critical because once the riot police showed up and slowed the attack, the Proud Boy leaders pulled up, effectively waiting until Jones appeared. And after Jones did appear, he told the mob following him that Trump was coming to give another speech — something Alexander, and so almost certainly Jones — knew to be false because Wren had told Alexander. Nevertheless, Jones led his mob to the East steps, riled them up with a 1776 chant, and left them there, where they were soon joined by the Oath Keepers (led by Kelly Meggs, who also was in touch with Alexander) and Joe Biggs and some other Proud Boys (including one who had been directing traffic). That collective mob breached the East door of the Capitol, opening a second major front on the Capitol and adding to the invasion of the Senate chamber.

There are rioters who were sentenced to two months in jail because they followed Alex Jones credulously to the top of those steps and joined the mob storming the Capitol.

And it wasn’t just Jones and Alexander who were in touch with Trump’s handlers.

Mark Meadows was, per Cassidy Hutchinson, in communication with Stone about his plans for January 6, at a time when Stone still planned to march to the Capitol with Jones and Alexander.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we turn to what Ms. Hutchinson saw and heard in the White House during the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6th, let’s discuss certain communications White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows had on January 5th. President Trump’s associate, Roger Stone, attended rallies during the afternoon and the evening of January 5th in Washington, DC On January 5th and 6th, Mr. Stone was photographed with multiple members of the Oath Keepers who were allegedly serving as his security detail.

As we now know, multiple members of that organization have been charged with or pled guilty to crimes associated with January 6th. Mr. Stone has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination before this committee. General Michael Flynn has also taken the Fifth before this committee. Mr. Stone previously had been convicted of other federal crimes unrelated to January 6th.

General Flynn had pleaded guilty to a felony charge, also predating and unrelated to January 6th. President Trump pardoned General Flynn just weeks after the Presidential election, and in July of 2020, he commuted the sentence Roger Stone was to serve.

The night before January 6th, President Trump instructed his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to contact both Roger Stone and Michael Flynn regarding what would play out the next day. Ms. Hutchinson, Is it your understanding that President Trump asked Mark Meadows to speak with Roger Stone and General Flynn on January 5th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct. That is my understanding.

LIZ CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that Mr. Meadows called Mr. Stone on the 5th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I’m under the impression that Mr. Meadows did complete both a call to Mr. Stone and General Flynn the evening of the 5th.

In an earlier interview, when she was still represented by Stefan Passantino, she had attributed the idea for this call to Peter Navarro or a Navarro staffer; the Navarro staffer who had let Mike Flynn into the White House on December 18, Garrett Ziegler, was another White House contact of Ali Alexander’s, in addition to Wren.

All this matters because of the way conspiracy law works, as laid out in the bullet points from Elizabeth de la Vega that I always rely on.


One: Co-conspirators don’t have to explicitly agree to conspire & there doesn’t need to be a written agreement; in fact, they almost never explicitly agree to conspire & it would be nuts to have a written agreement!

Two: Conspiracies can have more than one object- i.e. conspiracy to defraud U.S. and to obstruct justice. The object is the goal. Members could have completely different reasons (motives) for wanting to achieve that goal.

Three: All co-conspirators have to agree on at least one object of the conspiracy.

Four: Co-conspirators can use multiple means to carry out the conspiracy, i.e., releasing stolen emails, collaborating on fraudulent social media ops, laundering campaign contributions.

Five: Co-conspirators don’t have to know precisely what the others are doing, and, in large conspiracies, they rarely do.

Six: Once someone is found to have knowingly joined a conspiracy, he/she is responsible for all acts of other co-conspirators.

Seven: Statements of any co-conspirator made to further the conspiracy may be introduced into evidence against any other co-conspirator.

Eight: Overt Acts taken in furtherance of a conspiracy need not be illegal. A POTUS’ public statement that “Russia is a hoax,” e.g., might not be illegal (or even make any sense), but it could be an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Co-conspirators don’t all have to meet in a room together and agree to enter a conspiracy. That can happen (and did, in the Oath Keepers’ case) via a series of communications which networks everyone.

The demonstrative exhibit prosecutors used in the Oath Keeper trials showed how the various communications channels included everyone, even if some members of the conspiracy only interacted with a limited group of other co-conspirators.

I circled Rhodes and SoRelle in pink to show that even in the Oath Keeper trial, prosecutors treated the Friends of Stone list part of the communications infrastructure of the conspiracy.

Here’s what the larger conspiracy looks like, reflecting  the known communications between Rhodes, Meggs, Tarrio, Biggs, and Nordean and Jones and Stone, and the known communications between Jones and Stone and Alexander with Trump or his handlers, like Meadows, Wren, and Ziegler by way of Navarro.

The numbers and letters in parentheses come from one or another of the indictments charging conspiracy. As you can see, Trump’s known actions map onto the known, charged overt acts of various conspiracies to obstruct the vote count like a mirror.

Obviously, the pink part of this table has not been charged (yet). And it may not be unless prosecutors win guilty verdicts in the Proud Boys case. It also may not be if the obstruction charge gets narrowed on appeal.

For reasons I laid out here, the Proud Boys trial is far more complex than the Oath Keepers trial. And in the Proud Boys trial, like the Oath Keepers trial, prosecutors don’t have a clear map showing that the plan was to occupy the Capitol; instead they have testimony that Biggs and Nordean kept consulting, and everyone took orders from them, and those orders had the effect of sending cells of Proud Boys off to breach parts of the building. So it is not at all certain that prosecutors will win convictions of the men — Tarrio, Biggs, and Nordean — who were working with people who were working with Trump and his handlers.

But this is one of the means via which DOJ has been working to hold Trump accountable since just months after the attack (I first laid this out in July 2021, long before most commentators understood how DOJ was using obstruction).

Even with the disorganized conspiracy (Sandlin and friends), prosecutors have carefully shown how the men took Trump’s December 19 tweet as an explicit instruction, took instructions from a WildProtest flyer put out by Ali Alexander, believed Trump had ordered them to march to the Capitol. There are hundreds more rioters who took Trump’s December 19 tweet as an instruction, though in the case of Sandlin and his co-conspirators, they took steps that were critical to the occupation of the Capitol and the Senate chamber in response.

But with the Proud Boys, to an extent thus far only seen with Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs, the communication ties, via a two step network, to Trump’s own actions and directions. And with the Proud Boys, that coordination builds off years-long relationships, particularly between Biggs and Jones and Stone, and through them, to Trump.

Everyone was working towards the same goal: to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory. There were, in various places, explicit agreements made. There were, as with Trump’s Stand Back and Stand By comment that prosecutors used to kick off this trial, more implicit agreements as well.

And DOJ is now at the point where it is beginning to show how those agreements, explicit and implicit, all worked together to make the assault on the Capitol successful.

Conspiracy guilty verdicts

Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson, Kelly Meggs, Mark Grods, Caleb Berry, James Dolan, Joshua James, Brian Ulrich, Todd Wilson (11 conspiracy verdicts)

Proud Boys Matthew Greene, Charles Donohoe, Jeremy Bertino, with Isaiah Giddings, Louis Colon, and James Stewart cooperating (3 known conspiracy verdicts)

Disorganized Militia Ronnie Sandlin, Nate DeGrave, with Josiah Colt cooperating (2 conspiracy verdicts)

“Patriots” Marshall Neefe and Charles Smith (2 conspiracy verdicts)

59 replies
  1. RonDiPronio says:

    Thanks! your communications graphic was concise and highly informative and really illustrates the building block process that DOJ seems to be following!

  2. Jonathan Fuller says:

    I can not imagine either Stone or Jones singing (or at least in any reliable way.) The only hope to find Trump ‘in agreement with at least one act’ seems to be Meadows. Who seems to be quiet.

    • emptywheel says:

      Right but in some cases that’s not necessary. We know what Caroline Wren has said, for example. Hutchinson testified to some of this. They’ve already gotten through Owen Shroyer’s phone.

      • bmaz says:

        Yeah not necessary to have Stone, Jones or Meadows direct testimony; there are a lot of collateral ways to get to overt act “agreement”.

      • emptywheel says:

        Adding: when last we heard, Shroyer was contemplating pleading at the end of the month.

        That may get roiled by Norm Pattis’ uncertain legal status. And I think it’s a bullshit plea anyway. But he must know that if he holds out too long he’ll be charged in a conspiracy himself.

    • Joeff53 says:

      I would assume Meadows and/or Stone has been immunized and therefore must testify. So the big question is whether they can be made to testify truthfully. Stone is so ballsy he’s likely to lie. Meadows unclear.

      • Peterr says:

        Your last statement about Stone is the best reason to believe that he has not been immunized. The last person a prosecutor is willing to immunize is someone they do not believe will tell the truth once he is free and clear.

    • Tech Support says:

      Jones comes off as a pushy bottom, goading punishment because his true joy comes from the sound of his own howling.

  3. FrankM78 says:

    Thank you Dr. Wheeler for giving me hope. Your chart is something not seen anywhere else. It’s not much but I am sending a small contribution today. Thanks to everyone who has been keeping this educational site going. Frank

  4. pdaly says:

    These charts are great.

    Is Joshua James, after pleading guilty to the conspiracy, a cooperating witness? Would he be able to discuss with DOJ his interactions with Stone as captured by text messages with Oath Keeper Michael Greene on Jan 6? I would think this could be an extra arrow connecting the pink zone and the Oath Keepers in the chart above.

    Elizabeth de la Vega’s 8th bullet point (“Overt Acts taken in furtherance of a conspiracy need not be illegal”) had me thinking of this excerpt from the J6C report (section 8.3 The Initial Attack):

    “The Peace Circle’s geographical location is crucially important for understanding how the January 6th, attack unfolded. It sits at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue, just in front of the U.S. Capitol. At the conclusion of his speech at the Ellipse, President Trump directed rally attendees to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the U.S. Capitol. Their shortest natural path would lead them right to the Peace Circle and to the northwest side of the Capitol grounds, also known as the West Plaza. By the time rally-goers arrived, the Proud Boys and their allies had already removed the fencing that stood in the crowd’s way. As a result, thousands of people streamed into the restricted Capitol grounds with relative ease.”

      • pdaly says:

        Even better if the illegal march that occurred can be pinned on Trump’s free speech (and behind the scenes scheming).

        The group of Proud Boys who were already at the Capitol begin attacking the perimeter fencing 10 minutes or so before Trump ends his speech at the Ellipse and (by coincidence or pre-planning) were at the location at the end of Pennsylvania Ave where Trump, very specifically, would send his riled up crowd. Looking for timestamps and video.

        • bmaz says:

          “Even better if the illegal march that occurred can be pinned on Trump’s free speech.”

          That is the problem though, it is not clear whatsoever that Trump’s speech that day could, nor should, be pinned on what really is protected political speech. This has been a glaring problem from the jump, and still remains so.

        • emptywheel says:

          The way the speech gets tied in is via a shared goal to threaten Pence, including threats before and after, and a goal of the Proud Boys.

        • bmaz says:

          Still not comfortable at all with it. If this is how the Govt goes, they are going to have a clusterfuck on their hands, and rightly so.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest Pence?”

          It was enough to get a king publicly whipped. Not sure how this kind of thing applies under U.S. law, but I’m not sure the DOJ needs to address Trump’s speech if there are other reasons to believe he was encouraging criminality. But if that’s all they’ve got I’d have to agree with you.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          My understanding of the reason administrators demoted me is because one of them accused me of inciting staff by pointing at a bulletin board during a staff meeting. This meeting was being held in response to staff’s concerns about the aggressive and inappropriate behavior of white supremacists and the administration’s failure to address those valid concerns. The administrator was essentially telling staff that they had no rights.

          I took exception to that and pointed to HR and labor relations documents on the bulletin board that said otherwise. I said that staff could sue if their rights were violated. That was viewed by the administration as inciting staff, and consequently, insubordinate.

          Yet during the trial, administrators admitted that I had never done anything I was asked not to do. And I had never not done something I was asked to do. So, essentially, it was an admission that I was never insubordinate. I was exercising my Constitutional 1A rights.

          That made quite a few administrators angry. They retaliated against me. They truly believed I was inciting staff. And I was forbidden to speak with colleagues in other branches about my concerns. To this day, the whole series of events has been collectively erased from the local institutional memory. But, of course, there are people who do remember.

          Since my 1A rights in this relatively simple case eventually held, it makes me inclined to side with bmaz. I think that in the extremely complicated case involving a President, there may be unforeseen pitfalls, regardless of the persuasive arguments to the contrary.

        • Rayne says:

          Except in exercising your 1A rights you encouraged others to exercise their 1A rights — but not through an unpermitted march, not encouraging others you knew to be armed to participate in that march, and not a march through a restricted area in violation of federal regulation, let alone with the intent to obstruct government proceedings.

          — No march permit? check, need to clarify who knew and who should have known;
          — Trump knew marchers might be armed? check, Trump wanted them cleared anyhow;
          — Trump knew the area was restricted? likely, needs to be clarified;
          — Trump knew the march was going to obstruct government proceedings? check – he knew the electoral vote would be counted, he and his minion Rudy called senator(s).

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Yes, all of them persuasive points with which I agree. And, I concede that, in fact, I had a hung jury which, when polled, ruled against me. So, I lost in court. A settlement only happened when I said that I would appeal and also file a 2nd related suit based on retaliation. No doubt Trump would do likewise.

          I’m just saying that the complications make it a very messy case. And 1A rights are a part of that.

          Interestingly, administrators did think that I obstructed a government proceeding. That proceeding was the meeting the administrator held in the branch when she thought I would not be there.

        • bmaz says:

          None of that particularly detracts from the argument that what Trump said in his January 6 speech was protected political speech under 1A. Arguing that said speech is, in and of itself, violative is a dangerous argument, and a good defense lawyer is going to carve it up. If that is what prosecutors are going to argue, they need remedial legal education because they are going to get blown up with that to an extent that may damage every other viable portion of their case.

        • Rayne says:

          Uh-huh, and the guys who met to train and discuss how to kidnap and murder Whitmer were just engaging in free speech, too.

          Trump’s speech for the most part is protected, right up until he encouraged unlawful behavior AND the encouragement was furtherance of the rest of the conspiracy to obstruct.

        • bmaz says:

          If I were defending Trump in a criminal jury trial, I would pray to every putative god in the universe the prosecution took this tack. And then I would use it to beat them about the head as to every charge, not just the one they used to get that in front of the jury. Michigan is likely completely irrelevant under Rule 403. I have been trying tp prep people for the difference between media reports, the one sided J6 Committee and a real criminal trial.

          I’m telling you folks, it’s harder than it looks.

        • timbozone says:

          What evidence would weaken such a tact by Trump’s lawyers if this was at trial. 1A isn’t an out card in all cases. What would make it not an out card for Trump here?

        • Troutwaxer says:

          What if prosecutors don’t address Trump’s speech, but do address all his other acts? Do they have a decent change of securing a conviction?

        • Savage Librarian says:

          In my civil case, administrators insisted it had nothing to do with anything I said (i.e. free speech.) They said it was because I was insubordinate. Yet in the trial they had nothing to support that.

          And, in the hung jury, two members subsequently told my lawyers that the other juries were biased against me because I refused to pledge to the Confederate battle flag at a meeting the white supremacists held.

          So, in the short term, the defendants won when they said it had nothing to do with free speech. But in the long term they lost. Plus they were forced to rescind their idiotic policy about the group’s rifle bag after I contacted the U. S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

          This is all to say that 1A issues present some very difficult challenges, even when they are not overtly addressed by one side. Still, as we know from reading emptywheel, there are exceptions that diminish or override what we think of as free speech. But like bmaz says, and as both the City and I experienced, it can become a complete clusterfuck. So, it’s about the pros and cons. And the cons that led to the pros.

        • harpie says:

          Yes, that’s at 12:50 PM when BIGGS yells into the megaphone:

          [5:20] 12:50 PM BIGGS, NORDEAN, REHL and CROWD nearing CAPITOL
          [5:36] BIGGS [megaphone] Everybody right now!

          I broke down that Joe BIGGS Movie here:

          But I’m pretty sure the movie can now be accessed here
          [via CapitolHunters]

        • pdaly says:

          Thanks, harpie. That timeline was perfect!. So sometime between 12:52pm and 12:55pm the temporary perimeter was breached at the Peace Circle (statue).

          bmaz, but doesn’t that tie back to de la Vega’s bullet point #8, that the overt act does not have to be illegal?
          I understand that merely positing this protected speech as a possible overt act is not that same as PROVING it so in a court of law. Will just wait to hear what comes out of the investigation.

        • bmaz says:

          It may not have to be technically illegal, but I have been saying all along it was a real problem. Still is.

        • emptywheel says:

          Do read the post I linked. Several parts of the fact that it are illegal tie to Trump’s prior goal of going to the Capitol himself, but it being nixed in a variety of ways by people trying to prevent a coup. Which also gets into the request for 10K Guards.

        • pdaly says:

          Thanks. Yes, I did. The texts among the organizers documenting the direct involvement by Trump premeditating an unpermitted “spontaneous” march from the Ellipse to the Capitol, after being told repeatedly he could not march to the Capitol, seem pretty damning to me.

        • Peterr says:

          That attempt to get an armed escort for the non-permitted march certainly ties Trump into the move to the Capitol, and undermines any free speech argument by Trump. Whether it *fatally* undermines that argument, I don’t know, but it certainly serves to make a reasonable person say “now wait a minute . . .”

  5. Rayne says:

    “…Roger Stone had planned to join them, probably until he got cranky about being denied a speaking role on the morning of January 6. Mike Flynn wanted to latch on, as well, until the General got too cold and had to go back to his posh hotel room. “Hell no,” he said, according to Caroline Wren. “It’s freezing.””

    LOL the revolution hinged on a cranky old man’s tantrum and another old man’s inability to tough out a grey 43F degree day. How utterly pathetic.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Those two are repulsive narcissists. Like so many Trump attracted and did not jettison, their “loyalty” was just the disguise for pursuing their own aggrandizement. Like Trump, they did not care who got hurt. Ashli Babbitt? Rosanne Boylan? Brian Sicknick? These weren’t human beings to them; they were fungible collateral damage.

      I remain patient with Garland and Smith in the hope that such inhumanity gets exposed for what it truly is.

      • Tech Support says:

        The perverse blessing here is that their narcissism is mitigated by their insincere grifting. If any of these misanthropes had been as willing to put themselves into the thick of it (the way Trump was apparently willing to do) I think the outcome of what happened in the Capital could have been far worse.

        But if you’re just in it for the swag, then why stick your neck out?

    • FL Resister says:

      To me, Stone and Flynn’s old geezer act of declining to go to the Capitol was more like, “no go ahead, you guys have at it.” After setting everything up to go off, they stayed offsite to protect themselves. Several of the masterminds of this operation did that.
      Virginia Thomas got cold too.

        • Rayne says:

          Who knew when Trump told Billy Bush, “Grab ’em by the p*ssy. You can do anything,” the p*ssy in question was a retired general who couldn’t hack a pleasant spring day in the upper Midwest.

          No wonder Putin wanted him — Flynn was no threat at all.

  6. harpie says:

    According to Hutchinson, at TRUMP’s direction, MEADOWS spoke to both STONE and FLYNN, on the evening of 1/5/21 [CHENEY:] “regarding what would play out the next day.”

    On 1/5/21 FLYNN did an interview with JONES at the WILLARD Hotel.

    Also, at some point on 1/5/21 STONE posted [on Parler?…Telegram?] a PHOTO of himself with FLYNN also at the WILLARD, saying:

    Roger Stone 15 hours ago [1/5/21] [Parler logo?] 143k
    What a great honor to meet @genflynn – one of the greatest living American of the Century. Our shared experience makes us both appreciate the Freedom we enjoy as Americans #usa [PHOTO]

    [LOL! re: “shared experience.”]

    Capitol Hunters did a THREAD about STONE’s claim here:
    4:16 PM · Jul 1, 2022
    [PS: Is that SHROYER in the background of the photo?]

  7. JamesJoyce says:

    Awesome EW..

    Trump sought to maintain power, when he simply lost.

    Assaulting the presidential vote’s results when there was no basis to assault the “integrity” of the vote is the overt act.

    A slow moving coup and a Voting Question?

    Sounds quite familiar…

    Assaulting a Capitol is no different than Burning the Reichstag, in 1933.

    Fraud 101

    Just make it up..

    Obstruction of Justice 101

    Deny deny deny…

    Obstruction of Transfer of Power, all to maintain power, illegally is an assault on the structure of our society as those who assaulted Weimar assaulted their society, then blame everyone else, but themselves. Ditto…


  8. e.a.foster says:

    Thank you for the chart. With all the characters involved in this, its very, very useful.
    Following what happened during this time period just boggles my mind.
    At some level its, Flynn must have been crazy to be involved in all of this. But then perhaps he thought he might make money on the whole deal. As to his going off to a cozy warm spot, not surprising. There are Generals and then there are Generals. Flynn is what I’ve always referred to as paper generals. They shuffle paper and really don’t go out onto a battle field or deal with that sort of thing.
    Stone, going off to some where warm and safe, makes sense. The man wouldn’t want to accept responsibility for anything if he can avoid it. He’s always struck me as some one who is in it for the “fun”, like how far can I push this and of course the greater glorification of himself. He likes to hang out with what he thinks are “tough” guys, but he himself I’d suggest is a physical coward.

  9. harpie says:

    Today in the Proud Boys Trial:
    9:05 AM · Jan 19, 2023

    Judge Kelly back on bench.

    [next tweet] 9:09 AM · Jan 19, 2023

    Judge Kelly’s explaining that there’s been problems with decorum in courtroom. “People have made absurd threats to withdraw if I didn’t grant their motions” [Carmen Hernandez] & other things. He wants defs to agree upon a set order to question witnesses & stick to it. … /13

    What IS it with these adult-size-toddler WHINY-ASS CRY BABIES all over the place?
    / end rant

  10. harpie says:

    Proud Boys trial continued: I missed this bit of TARRIO / STONE connection at the time:
    8:53 AM · Jan 19, 2023

    Per [documentarian Nick] Quested’s testimony to the Jan. 6 committee, when he called Tarrio’s phone for the first time, the voicemail greeting was from none other than Roger Stone:
    “This is Enrique Tarrio’s phone. If he’s not here, he’s out there kicking ass and doing something good for America.”

    Quested met Tarrio for the first time on 12/11/20…
    I wonder when he heard that message on TARRIO’s phone.

Comments are closed.