You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE.
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work, complete through Fall of 2020 (through FTR #1156).
Please consider supporting THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.
Note: This website is licensed for Fair Use under Creative Commons. No money whatsoever is, has been, or will be made from this website by Mr. Emory.
FTR #1174 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
Introduction: The title refers to the U.S. and its citizens harvesting the crops risen from deadly seeds sown for decades. The Capitol Riot was one of those.
It is to the U.S. as the Beerhall Putsch of 1923 was to Germany–a harbinger of things to come.
The program begins with discussion of Richard Hofstadter, whose theories have been bruited about in the wake of the Capitol Riot. An icon of the mainstream media and the so-called progressive sector, Hofstadter’s work was underwritten by the CIA.
In the context of Hofstadter’s work being underwritten by CIA, one of the factors allowing the seeds of evil to grow has been the government financing of much of U.S. political life.
Intellectual curiosity has been dampened by financial gain.
The armed confrontation in the Capitol reminded us of a confrontation that took place in Parkland Hospital on 11/22/1963.
A contingent of Secret Service agents and Kennedy aide Kenneth O’Donnell confronted and threatened Parkland physicians who were going to autopsy President Kennedy’s body in accordance with law.
(Author Joseph McBride presents convincing evidence that O’Donnell faced probable indictment for corruption. He helped arrange the Kennedy motorcade route through Dealey Plaza, setting JFK up for assassination. O’Donnell succumbed to alcoholism, dying in 1977.)
McBride—drawing on scholarship by numerous authors and researchers—concludes that the Federal agents were intent on preventing an autopsy in Dallas, so that JFK’s body could be surgically altered to obscure the fact that Kennedy was killed in a crossfire.
The “official version” of the murder—an institutionalized historical fiction–maintains that Oswald—the lone assassin—slew Kennedy by firing from the rear.
Analysis of the Capitol Riot highlights a “Before” and an “After.”
Even relatively staid political and national security insiders, as well as media outlets openly expressed fear after a series of post-election shuffling by Trump at the Pentagon.
” . . . . there is speculation that more defense officials may be on their way out and that this is just the beginning — even with only 70 days until the Biden administration takes over. . . . The flurry of departures apparently sent shockwaves through the Department of Defense. A defense official told CNN that the situation was ‘unsettling,’ adding that ‘these are dictator moves.’ The Associated Press wrote that ‘unease was palpable inside’ the Pentagon Tuesday. . . . ‘I’ve been shot at a lot. I’ve been nearly killed a bunch of times. I’m not an alarmist. I try to stay cool under pressure. Mark me down as alarmed,’ retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey said on MSNBC Wednesday. . . .”
Unnamed officials in NATO countries have opined that the events of 1/6/2021 were a coup attempt by Trump’s forces.
In addition, there is an ongoing investigation of an active duty PSYOP officer who operated under the Special Forces command structure for leading a contingent of 100 strong to the “rally” on 1/6/2021.
As veteran listeners/readers will no doubt realize, these events are to be seen against the background of numerous programs and posts highlighting Specialized Knowledge and Abilities and Serpent’s Walk.
Notable among the crocodiles shedding tears over the Capitol Riot was former President George W. Bush. Condemning the riot in one breath, he intoned that he would be attending the inauguration and that “ . . . . witnessing the peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of our democracy that never gets old,’ he added. . . .”
The program concludes with discussion of some of the Nazi connections to the 9/11 attacks, as well as to the business relationship between Dubya and the Bin Laden family.
1a. The program begins with discussion of Richard Hofstadter, whose theories have been bruited about in the wake of the Capitol Riot. An icon of the mainstream media and the so-called progressive sector, Hofstadter’s work was underwritten by the CIA.
. . . . But in a strange coincidence, Hofstadter first delivered a version of the title essay in a talk as the Herbert Sender Lecture at Oxford University in November 1963. . . .
. . . . It may be coincidental, but Hofstadter’s biographer David S. Brown notes instances in the fifties and sixties when some of the historian’s work was funded, albeit indirectly, by the CIA. Copies of his influential 1954 essay “The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt,” on the dangers of rightwing extremism and its “widespread latest hostility toward American institutions,” and his book The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (with Walter P. Metzger, 1955) were distributed by a CIA front organization, the Fund for the Republic. Hofstadter worked for the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, “a society of liberal cold warriors opposed to international communism” whose parent organization, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, was heavily funded by the CIA. In the sixties, Hofstadter also wrote for Daedalus and Encounter, two publications partially backed by the CIA.
1b. In the context of Hofstadter’s work being underwritten by CIA, one of the factors allowing the seeds of evil to grow has been the government financing of much of U.S. political life.
Intellectual curiosity has been dampened by financial gain.
. . . . One of the many prescient observations in President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech warning about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex” was that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. . . The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.” . . . .
2. Before highlighting the Capitol Riot, we present a different, earlier confrontation between federal officials and American civilians.
. . . . [Parkland physician Dr. Charles] Crenshaw recalled, “A man in a suit, leading the [federal] group, holding a submachine gun, left little doubt in my mind who was in charge. That he wasn’t smiling best describes the look on his face . . . . Kellerman took an erect stance and brought his firearm into a ready position. The other men in suits followed course by draping their coattails behind the butts of their holstered pistols.” When Dr. Rose insisted on holding the body in Dallas for autopsy, explaining, “You can’t lose the chain of evidence,” one of the men in suits screamed, “Goddamit, get your ass out of the way before you get hurt,” and another snapped, “We’re taking the body now.” . . . .
3. Analysis of the Capitol Riot highlights a “Before” and an “After.”
4. Notable among the crocodiles shedding tears over the Capitol Riot was former President George W. Bush. Condemning the riot in one breath, he intoned that he would be attending the inauguration and that “ . . . . witnessing the peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of our democracy that never gets old,’ he added. . . .”
We call attention to a number of things:
- What happened in Washington D.C. on 1/6/2021 was not fundamentally different from the “Brooks Brothers Riot” in Florida that aided the theft of the 2000 election. Organized by Trump flak catcher Roger Stone, that incident and the efforts of current Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett saw to it that Shrub would inherit his father’s Presidential mantle.
- In the wake of the Capitol Riot, the “Opining Heads” raised the subject of the Turner Diaries and its foreshadowing of fascist violence. In 1998, the author of that tome,–William Luther Pierce–explicitly foreshadowed the 9/11 attacks which defined and cemented Dubya’s administration. “ . . . . In one chilling commentary Pierce, (after noting that Bin Laden and the rest of the lost generation of angry Moslem youth had it with their parents’ compromises and were hell bent on revenge against infidel America) issued this stark, prophetic warning in a 1998 radio address titled, ‘Stay Out of Tall Buildings.’ ‘New Yorkers who work in tall office buildings anything close to the size of the World Trade Center might consider wearing hard hats . . .’ Pierce warned.’ . . . The running theme in Pierce’s commentaries is—to paraphrase his hero Hitler—that Osama Bin Laden’s warning to America is ‘I Am Coming.’ And so is bio-terrorism.’ . . .”
- In (among other programs) FTR #186–the last program recorded in 1999–Mr. Emory noted that George W. Bush’s first business venture–Arbusto Energy–was capitalized by the family of Osama Bin Laden.
- Also in FTR #456, we also noted that Francois Genoud was a key financial adviser to the Bin Laden family. One of the most important figures in the Nazi diaspora, Genoud was the heir to the collected works and political last will and testament of: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann. “ . . . . According to [financial expert Ernest] Backes’ information, the trail leads to Switzerland, to the accounts of an organization that was founded by the late lawyer Francois Genoud and evidently still survives. Says Backes, ‘One of the grounds for accusation is that this Swiss attorney had the closest connections with the Bin Laden family, that he was an advisor to the family, one of its investment bankers. It’s known for certain, that he supported terrorism and was the estate executor for Hitler and part of the terror milieu.’ . . .”
- The Bank Al-Taqwa had an account for Al Qaeda’s operations with an unlimited line of credit. Also in FTR#456, we noted that Al Taqwa chief (and former Nazi intelligence agent) Youssef Nada helped the Grand Mufti escape from Europe in the aftermath of World War II. “ . . . . Another valued World War II Nazi collaborator was Youssef Nada, current board chairman of al-Taqwa (Nada Management), the Lugano, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Bahamas-based financial services outfit accused by the US Treasury Department of money laundering for and financing of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. As a young man, he had joined the armed branch of the secret apparatus’ (al-jihaz al-sirri) of the Muslim Brotherhood and then was recruited by German military intelligence. When Grand Mufti el-Husseini had to flee Germany in 1945 as the Nazi defeat loomed, Nada reportedly was instrumental in arranging the escape via Switzerland back to Egypt and eventually Palestine, where el-Husseini resurfaced in 1946.) . . . .”
- The San Francisco Chronicle reported that: “ . . . . Authorities believe Genoud founded Al Taqwa Bank and allocated its resources to support international terrorists such as Vladimir Ilich Ramirez, alias Carlos the Jackal, and Bin Laden. . . . .”
- One of the most important elements in the investigative trail leading to and from the 9/11 attacks is SICO–the Swiss-based holding company that manages the Bin Laden family interests. Here, too, we see the influence of Genoud: “ . . . . This company, established by the bin Ladens in 1980, is the flagship for the group’s activities in Europe. It is headed by Yeslam bin Laden, and the board of directors is made up almost exclusively of members of the family clan, except for a Swiss citizen, Baudoin Dunand. This well-known lawyer from French-speaking Switzerland, who is on the boards of several dozen companies, came to public notice in 1983 when he agreed to represent the Swiss banker Francois Genoud, a controversial figure who had been a disciple of Hitler . . . .”
Fascism and the Dangers of Economic Concentration
Here’s an article the ongoing prosecution of the leading Jan 6 insurrectionists that raises a grimly fascinating question about the scope of what was planned for that day. In particular, questions about the scope of the heavily armed “Quick Reaction Force” (QRF) that the Oath Keepers had ready to go that day. Ready with the expectation that then-President Trump might call them into action:
Prosecutors filed new court documents related to the prosecution of Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell. Recall how Caldwell was working with fellow Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins in coordinating the QRF. The court documents contains a remarkable quote for Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes. The quote was taken from a communication between Rhodes and other Oath Keepers in the run-up to the riot at the Capitol, warning them not to carrying weapons at the Capitol and assuring them of the availability of weapons from the QRF if needed.
Here’s the part that raises questions about the scale or the QRF threat: We already know about the one observed instance of what appeared to be a QRF of around 10 men conspicuously hanging around across the river from the Capitol. But Rhodes told his fellow Oath Keepers that, “We will have several well equipped QRFs [Quick Reaction Forces] outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios.” So there were “several other equipped QRFs outside DC” along with “many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios,” there that day, which sounds like A LOT more than just the one group of 10 guys that we already know about. Perhaps more importantly, Rhodes’s comments make it sound like the Oath Keepers’ plans for having QRFs with heavy weapons laying in wait for the signal wasn’t just an Oath Keeper plan and there may have been numerous QRFs from multiple militias all working in coordination with each other:
““We will have several well equipped QRFs [Quick Reaction Forces] outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios,” he also allegedly texted.”
How many different QRFs were in the DC area that day? And what was the extent of the Oath Keepers’ coordination with other groups in planning these QRFs? We’ll presumably never know the full extent of it.
An notice the role Rhodes played in verbally instigating his Oath Keepers at 1:38 pm, 20 minutes after Trump concluded his inciting speech: Rhodes had previously told his followers that they were waiting for Trump’s personal order before they called in the QRF, suggesting a level of coordination between the Oath Keepers and the Trump Team. And that coordination was already apparent with the reports of the Oath Keepers carrying out personal security roles for figures like Roger Stone and Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins being allowed into the VIP area of the Stop the Steal rally where the Trump Team was located. So when we see Rhodes send out a communication to his followers expressing disappointment that Trump wasn’t about to “do anything” after giving his incitful speech at the rally and calling for the ‘patriots to take things into their own hands’, we have to again ask if this was all coordinated and intended to provide Trump with a degree of plausible deniability. They were planning a coup, after all. Thoughts of what to do if it went awry had to be incorporated into the planning:
Keep in mind that all the reports we’ve heard about Trump’s response to the storming of the Capitol was glee. He was excited it was happening. Also note that it took time for the protestors to walk to the Capitol, so it’s almost as if Rhodes waited for the crowd to reach the Capitol before sending this communication that was effectively an order to storm it.
And whether or not Trump formally gave the order to his followers to storm the Capitol, he pretty clearly intimated to his supporters during the rally that that is exactly what they should do. So when Rhodes sends a communication to his followers expressing frustration that Trump wasn’t giving the orders, we have to ask: was this arranged? Was this the prearranged alibi that was worked out where Trump wouldn’t actually give the orders? After all, it’s difficult to imagine Trump actually directly and openly giving these orders. Why would he? Why not give order like that behind the scenes?
Also note that it would appear that we can conclude that Stewart Rhodes himself did give orders to storm the Capitol, at 1:38 pm, 20 minutes after Trump’s speech. So based on available information at this point, we can say that the leader of the group that was surreptitiously coordinating with the Trump team was the guy who directly gave orders to storm the Capitol. It’s not exactly exculpatory evidence for Trump.
We’re learning details about one of the figures arrested in connection to the January 6 Capitol insurrection: Timothy Hale-Cusanelli. It turns out Hale-Cusanelli worked as a security contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle and held a secret-level security clearance. Oh, and he’s an open neo-Nazi who would crack jokes about Hitler on a daily basis. He was so open with his beliefs, that when 44 of his colleagues were interviewed about him following his arrest, 34 of them told investigators he would openly express neo-Nazi belief. And when investigators searched his home, they found copies of “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries”. Surprise!
It’s the kind of a story that’s disturbing enough on its own, with echos to the story of neo-Nazi Coast Guard officer Christopher Hasson, who was found plotting biological terror campaigns with fellow Nazis. But given the growing number of former and current members of the armed forces who have already been found to have played a role in those events, the case of Hale-Cusanelli raises the question of just how many open neo-Nazis are serving in the US armed forces and what role did this larger contingent of highly trained extremists play in the planning and execution of the insurrection:
“The reservist, Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, who worked as a security contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle and held a secret-level security clearance, was arrested and charged Jan. 15 for allegedly breaching the Capitol. At the time, prosecutors described him as an “avowed white supremacist” and Nazi sympathizer, a determination based in part on evidence provided by a confidential source to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and a YouTube channel in which Hale-Cusanelli expressed those views.”
How many other neo-Nazi with secret-level clearances are working a military weapons stations? It’s a question investigators had better be asking. Don’t forget about the discovery of missing C‑4 from a Marine base in California. It would only take a relative handful of embedded extremists to give access to nightmarishly powerful weapons to the broader far right underground.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this story is how open Hale-Cusanelli felt he could be with his Nazi beliefs while on the. 34 out of 44 colleagues confirmed he held extremist views. In other words, he was barely hiding them if he was hiding them at all:
And note the ironic defense of Hale-Cusanelli by his attorney in light of the discovery of “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries” at his home: “There is no evidence Mr. Hale-Cusanelli is a member of any white supremacist organizations.” And while that may or may not be true, it’s also kind of at the heart of the danger figures like Hale-Cusanelli represent: He doesn’t need to be a member of a white supremacist organizations because he is the member of a leaderless resistance movement. The lack of organization is a feature, not a bug:
Of course, it’s entirely possible Hale-Cusanelli really is the member of a white nationalist organization. In the age of encrypted internet communications he could be the secret member of a dozen different secret groups. Recall how insurrectionist Riley Williams — the person who stole Nancy Pelosi’s laptop out of her office — was later discovered to be a probable member of either Atomwaffen or The Base. She was a known extremist, but her extra-extreme affiliations weren’t previously recognized. What are the odds that Hale-Cusanelli hasn’t also been secretly swearing allegiance to accelerationist neo-Nazi groups? How many other secret accelerationists were in that crowd? More generally, just how much did the Jan 6 Insurrection end up accelerating the growth of “accelerationism”, in particular in the US military? It’s the kind of question that will hopefully be answered with more investigations that lead to prosecutions and expulsions. But, of course, it could also be answered with military-grade weapons being used in a domestic terror attack. Either way, we’ll get our answer.
Here’s one of those stories that reminds of the saying, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.” It’s also the kind of story that raises the question of just how widely will the broader GOP be dragged into the growing number of serious investigations into Trump-related corruption and wrongdoing? In particular, just how extensively will the broader GOP be dragged into covering-up Trump’s numerous crimes:
The Wall Street Journal recently reportedly on a newly discovered recorded phone call between then-President Trump and Francis Watson, Brad Raffensperger’s top elections investigator. Trump was, of course, trying to pressure Watson into overturning Georgia’s election results.
First, recall the now-notorious recorded phone call between Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger and Trump where Trump is basically telling Raffensperger to find enough votes to allow him to win the state. Also recall the phone earlier call Trump made directly to Georgia’s Republican governor Brian Kemp pressuring him to overturn the election results. And now we have the Watson call. So Trump made at least three phone calls to Georgia state officials that were clearly coercive and illegal in nature. At least three phone calls.
But here’s the potentially scandalous new detail that’s emerged: The recording of the phone call between Watson and Trump was only discovered after a public records request and found in the trash bin of Watson’s computer. In other words, Watson tried to delete the recording, but thankfully didn’t actually empty her computer’s trash bin, leaving it available for recovery after the public records.
At least that’s what it looks like: a classic cover-up. Watson, or someone in her office, tried to delete the highly incriminating phone call but made a mistake and now the incriminating evidence is public. Oops.
And that makes this story not just the latest example of the blatant corruption of the Trump administration, but also a test case. A test to see what, if any, consequences that might be for the broader Republican Party’s efforts to engage in cover-ups on Trump’s behalf. Because if Trump made these kinds of phone calls to at least three of different Georgia state officials, how many other recordings of this nature of phone calls to other states’ officials are sitting in PC trash bins somewhere?:
“The Washington Post mentioned that detail when it reported on the tape last week (which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal). State officials initially told the Washington Post and CNN that they didn’t believe that a tape of the call existed. It was reportedly found when they were responding to a public records request.”
Georgia state officials initially claimed they didn’t believe a recording of the call existed. So were they merely mistaken? Because if not, that’s a cover-up. But at this point we don’t know who knew about the existence of the file and who placed it in the trash. Hmm...that seems like something worthy of investigation:
The list of potential culprits of who deleted the recording doesn’t seem like it would be a huge list. Watson or other people working in her office are the obvious suspects. At least in terms of actually deleting the recording.
But that obviously isn’t the full list of possible relevant suspects in the cover-up. After all, this whole situation arose when the Trump administration basically tried to extort Georgia’s state officials into flipping the state in his direction. And, in fairness, Brad Raffensperger’s office has overall demonstrated for more integrity on this matter than we could expect from a lot of other Republican Secretaries of State.
And that’s why the questions over this possible cover-up include the question of what kind of pressure the Trump administration was subsequently applying to the state officials Trump called and harangued to ensure they deleted any recordings of those haranguing phone calls. Along with the question of what kind of illicit pressure might be applied to state officials today, with Trump out of office, to ensure any evidence is destroyed. After all, the guy who acts like an out of control mobster while in office probably isn’t going to break those mobster habits when out of office. Especially while facing multiple investigations. If there’s one thing that could free the broader GOP establishment from Trump’s grip, it’s these numerous state-level criminal investigations. Extorting the broader GOP into silence is probably a critical aspect of Trump’s general defense strategy going forward. Arguably the critical step.
While the shadow of Donald Trump continues to loom large over the future of the Republican Party, it’s sometimes easy to forget that the shadow of Steve Bannon is still out there, lurking over the shadow of Donald Trump’s shoulder, whispering in its shadowy ears, endlessly plotting a darker future. So here’s a reminder that Steve Bannon remains a dark cloud over the future:
Last month, Bannon told a group of Boston Republicans that not only will former President Donald Trump return to the White House in 2024, but Trump might actually first get run for the House of Representatives in 2022. Why run for a House seat when he’s planning on a White House rerun two-years later? Because, according to Bannon, if the Republicans retake control of the House of Representatives in 2022, Donald Trump would replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
Should that happen, the plan is for the Republican-controlled House to immediately impeach Joe Biden. What will Biden be impeached for? For stealing the 2020 election from Trump. Now, as with both of Trump’s impeachments, it would be highly unlikely that the Senate would convict Biden should such a scenario transpire unless the GOP somehow sweep the 2022 Senate races too. But let’s not kid ourselves, the probability of the Republicans retaking control of the House ion 2022 is actually reasonably high. It’s just a built in feature of American democracy: despite scattered state-level reforms that improved regulation over gerrymandering, the Republicans are still going to have the power to gerrymander 128 more House seats than the Democrats during the 2020 redistricting process.
And don’t forget the GOP picked up House seats in 2020. Given the long-standing US political tradition of incumbent presidents’ parties losing seats during mid-terms, it’s not all implausible that the GOP retakes control of the House in 2022, and arguably probable that it happens. So Steve Bannon’s scheme isn’t nearly as hairbrained as many would prefer. In terms of giving Trump a new avenue to inflict daily chaos on the US political establishment, this is a very reasonable bet.
But there’s another dynamic in all of this: from a historical perspective, one of the primary reasons we should expect the GOP to retake control of the House in 2022 is simply because the ‘out of power’ voters tend to be much more animated during mid-terms. Plus, Republican voters tend to be far more reliable mid-term voters than their Democratic counterparts. So if 2022 goes as expected (without a Trump run), the GOP control of the House after the 2022 elections would be a pretty good bet. But that dynamic completely changes if Trump decides to run. All of a sudden, the threat of Trump returning to politics would become very real for millions of people who voted against Trump in 2020 but would otherwise be unlikely to vote at all 2022. In other words, it’s hard to imagine a more effective figure for animating the Democratic vote in 2022 than the threat of Speaker of the House Trump.
So 2022 represents a fascinating puzzle for Bannon and Trump: winning a House seat and becoming Speaker is arguably the fastest and likeliest path of success for Trump returning to politics in a big way. But it’s a very real gamble that really could backfire on the entire GOP during a year the party would otherwise be positioned to do rather well. We don’t know if Trump is actually considering this scheme, but if he is considering it that sets up the question of whose ambitions will take priority here? Trump’s ambitions to reenter politics? Or the House GOP’s ambitions to hold onto their seats and retake control. The answer is obvious. Trump’s ambitions will trump all others. And that’s why this is a story to keep an eye on: if Trump wants to do this, he’ll do it. And Steve Bannon, the Trump-whisperer, really wants Trump to want to do this:
““We totally get rid of Nancy Pelosi, and the first act of President Trump as speaker will be to impeach Joe Biden for his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency,” Bannon said, leading to applause and hollers from the Boston Republicans.”
The idea is out there. And based on the response from those Boston Republicans, it sounds like they were open to the idea:
There is a certain logic to it: Trump is the brand of the GOP at this point. And he really is extremely popular with the Republican base. Why not stick with the brand? Trump did come obscenely close to being reelected, after all. We can see the seeds of a Trump congressional run already taking root.
But, again, while no figure would animate the Republican base to come out in 2022 like Trump, there’s no avoiding the reality that he really would be a dream for getting out the Democratic vote. And then there’s the fact that it’s not actually clear which House seat Trump would run for, in part because the obvious seat — Florida’s 21st district, where Mar-a-Lago resides — is held by Democrat Lois Frankel, who won handily over far right Trump super-fan Laura Loomer in the 2020 election. So if Trump does decide to run for a House seat in the hopes of revenge-impeaching Joe Biden, he’ll probably need to find a more Trump-friendly congressional district to move to first:
“It’s also unclear whether Trump would be able to win a House seat. Although the state of Florida went for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020, the former president would likely run in his current district, represented by Democratic Congresswoman Lois Frankel. During the 2020 election, Frankel was challenged by a pro-Trump Republican candidate but easily won reelection by a double-digit margin. Frankel secured the support of 59 percent of voters in her district compared to the 39.1 percent who backed her opponent.”
Might Trump run for the House and lose? It’s hard to imagine he would run if he thought he might lose. It would just be too embarrassing.
At the same time, becoming Speaker of the House and revenge-impeaching Biden must be in incredibly tempting option. Plus, keep in mind that, at Trump’s age and with his overall state of health, it’s very unclear if he’ll even be alive for the 2o24 elections. The 2022 election, on the other hand, is just around the corner. 4 years is a LONG ways away for someone in Trump’s position. This ‘House Speakership’ avenue back to national relevancy has to be awfully tempting for someone with Trump’s psychology.
Will Trump play it safe and skip the opportunity? Run in his home District 21 district and Frankel and risk losing? Or maybe move to another district and run from there? We’ll see. But Bannon has no doubt made his 2022 pitch directly to Trump so Trump must be thinking about it. So for anyone who owns a garish eyesore on the market that happens to be located in a Trump-friendly Florida congressional district, there might be a notable uptick in demand in coming months.
As we’ve watched the parallel rise of the “accelerationist” strains of neo-Nazism at the same time far right thought has capture the Republican Party in general, one of the dark questions raised by these trends is the extent to which there’s any meaningful distinction between the “accelerationists” and the more traditional far right activism. After all, it’s not like the end goals differ all that much between the “accelerationsts” and their slower moving far right brethren. The differences has long been a matter of tactics and timing, with of the “accelerationists” preferring the path of unrelenting ‘leaderless resistance’ domestic terror attacks intended to destabilize society, while the more traditional neo-Nazis stick to the slow boil approach.
But given the way these two strategies can synergize with each other, there’s really no need to distinguish between the two movement. Aren’t these two sides of the same coin? It’s a question ominous raised by the growing evidence that a good number of those January 6 Capitol insurrectionists were, in fact, operating under an accelerationist mindset. After all, “accelerationism” could merely be one wing of a much broader movement, a domestic terror wing built in a manner to excupate the larger movement from the public blowback over the consequences of the domestic terror attacks. That’s why we have to ask: just how many of the more ‘prominent public intellectuals’ on the far right are secret accelerationists?
Well, based on the following SPLC piece, there’s at least one accelerationist in those circles: Kevin DeAnna. And when someone as central to the contemporary far right circles operating in Washington DC as DeAnna gets outed as an accelerationist, the question starts turning into who isn’t a closet accelerationist in those circles. After all, as we’ve seen, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe was reportedly quite chummy with DeAnna. DeAnna went on to play a major role in the rise of the Alt Right at the same time DeAnna was navigating supposedly respectable conservative circles like the International Leadership Institute that ostensibly generates the next generation of conservative leaders. Then there’s the July 2016 far right dinner party DeAnna attended at Peter Thiel’s house, where attendees reportedly concluded that Thiel was fully on board with the ‘Dark Enlightenment’. And when DHS employee Ian M. Smith was forced to resign in 2018 after he was outed as a white nationalist, we learn that Smith was hanging out in the same social circle as DeAnna. DeAnna really has been operating at the heart of the far right’s operations in DC.
And as we’ll see in the second SPLC excerpt below, DeAnna was actively soliciting resumes from his far right friends on behalf of VDARE for work in the Trump White House after Trump’s victory in 2016. The guy lives in that grey area where overt white nationalism merges with ‘respectable’ Republican politics and real power in DC. And he’s an accelerationist. It raises quite a few urgent questions, especially in the wake of Trump’s ‘stolen election’ loss.
So how many of DeAnna’s fellow travelers are accelerationists too? We have no idea. But with Trump out of power and his based getting increasingly radicalized towards political violence, odds are there’s a lot more fellow accelerationist travelers than there used to be:
“DeAnna’s work under the pseudonym “Gregory Hood” drew upon foundational white nationalist and neo-Nazi texts that have inspired numerous acts of domestic terrorism. As both “Kirkpatrick” and “Hood,” DeAnna frequently refers to a “System” – often with a capital “S,” mirroring “Turner Diaries” author William Pierce’s own orthography. DeAnna, like Pierce, presents “the System” as both a governmental and nongovernmental coalition of minority groups set out to destroy whites.”
Yes, DeAnna’s writings mirror the Turner Diaries. Imagine that. But it’s not just the Turner Diaries where DeAnna finds his inspiration. DeAnna’s ex-girlfriend Katie McHugh confirmed that, yes, DeAnna owned a copy of James Mason’s “SIEGE” — the handbook for accelerationists — before its recent rise in popularity. He even referenced it in some of his pseudonymous writings:
So the guy has effectively been acting as an accelerationist evangelist within far right circles...at the same time he’s snuggled up to the GOP establishment in DC. Which, again, raises the question of how many other closet accelerationists are operating in the shockingly ‘mainstream’ far right circles within the contemporary Republican Party. Along with the question of how many of those closet accelerationists managed to get jobs in the Trump administration:
“McHugh replied to DeAnna’s email seeking resumes for the administration by recommending that he also apply. DeAnna wrote back: “Doing my best. Please put a good word in for [Steve] Bannon for me if you can. Doing resume as we speak and drinking Trump champagne.” Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist at that time, served as the executive chairman of Breitbart News while McHugh wrote for them.”
The exchange between McHugh and DeAnna, where McHugh encourages DeAnna to apply for a White House job himself, really captures the spirit of that moment for the far right. It was like an open invitation to the White House. They just needed to be a little surreptitious about it, which might explain why, in some cases, the 2016 White House recruitment campaign DeAnna was running seemed like it was being done an behalf of Ann Coulter, but was later revealed to be done on behalf of VDARE:
Finally, just to highlight how high up the support goes for figures like DeAnna and groups like VDARE, here’s a quick reminder that the most prominent right-wing mainstream political dark money group, DonorsTrust, gave VDARE $1.5 million in 2019 so it could by a castle near DC in West Virgina. Yes, mainstream big money Republican donors effectively bought VDARE a real castle last year:
So at least one of DonorTrusts super-wealthy donors is a big fan of VDARE’s white nationalists content. You have to wonder how many of DeAnna’s numerous VDARE articles were read and enjoyed by this anonymous donor. But more importantly, we have to wonder if this anonymous VDARE donor happens to share DeAnna’s accelerationist mind-set. Just how popular is James Mason’s SIEGE these days? That remains unclear. But as the story of DeAnna’s accelerationist evangelizing makes clear, accelerationism is probably a lot more popular than many people want to admit...at least admit outside of their secret elite white nationalist dinner party circles.
Here’s a set of articles about the ongoing investigation into the January 6 Capitol insurrection that relates to the questions of the extent to which ‘accelerationist’ thought has overtaken the far right and the broader questions about the risks of a sustained Trump-inspired domestic terror movement for the US going forward. Perhaps a Trump-inspired domestic terror movement designed, in part, to help Trump avoid the legal repercussions over the insurrection:
Michael Sherwin, the former acting US attorney who initially led the investigation into the insurrection, just gave an interview on “60 Minutes” last night about the direction of the investigation. Sherwin confirmed that sedition charges are being examined and that, in Sherwin’s mind, there are facts that support sedition charges against at least some of the rioters.
And that raises the obvious question of potential sedition charges against the chief rioter: the-President Donald Trump. Does Sherwin see possible sedition charges against Trump too? Yes, according to Sherwin, Trump may be culpable. It’s not a guarantee, but the door to sedition charges against Trump appears to be open. And as we’ll see in the third article below, Harvard constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe concurred on Sunday that, yes, Trump should face sedition charges over his actions leading up to the insurrection. And he should probably face extortion charges over his phone calls to Georgia state officials trying to coerce them into overturning the election results.
So while we have yet to see what, if any, charges Trump will face over his multi-faceted efforts to overturn the election results, it’s sounding like a real possibility he could face serious charges. The kind of charges that could result in major jail time. And the closer we get to Trump facing serious criminal charges, the closer we likely get to Trump and others in his movement going down the ‘accelerationist’ path of domestic terror and retributive violence. That’s part of why these stories about the growing legal peril for Trump and his followers are so significant. Because if they start arriving at the conclusion that they have nothing to lose because they are already in legal peril, they might act like people with nothing to lose:
“The Justice Department has already filed cases against 400 suspects involved in the assault, but none have yet been accused of sedition, the crime of opposing the authority of the U.S. government through force.”
No one has been charged with sedition yet. But the available fact do support sedition charges according to the guy who was initially leading this investigation which means we should probably expect at least some sedition charges. Will that include sedition charges against Trump? According to Scherwin, yes, evidence would support a sedition charge. In particular, the volume of evidence provided by the arrested rioters themselves who make it very clear to investigators that they felt they were acting on Trump’s orders when they raided the Capitol. On the other hand, there’s the militia members who claim they raided the Capitol in response to Trump being ‘all talk’, which could act as a defense of Trump against sedition charges. Although it’s not obvious why being accused of being ‘all talk’ is necessarily a defense against charges that your words were deliberatively incitful. So it sounds like sedition charges are a possibility against Trump, but not a slam dunk and dependent in part on the insurrectionists’ claim of how Trump’s words and actions, or lack thereof, influenced their own words and actions.
It’s an interesting situation from a MAGA-land game theory standpoint: the best defense for the insurrectionists — that they were just following Trump’s lead — is the most damning indictment of Trump. While the militia members who claim Trump was all talk and no action, on the other hand, are providing the best legal defense of Trump but the most damning indictment of Trump’s leadership qualities. They’re basically calling him a paper commander in chief. It’s the kind of dynamic that raises the question of of what Trump is personally hoping to hear from the his followers under questioning: that he as leading them in into the insurrection with his fiery rhetoric, or disappointing them into the insurrection with his general weakness:
““What I could tell you is this: Based upon what we see in the public record and what we see in public statements in court, we have plenty of people-we have soccer moms from Ohio that were arrested saying, ‘Well, I did this because my president said I had to take back our house.’ That moves the needle towards that direction,” Sherwin said. “Maybe the president is culpable for those actions.””
Was Trump an effective leader? If so, it’s hard to avoid a guilty ruling. But if he was just this blowhard that was losing his grip on the hearts of minds of his most dedicated followers, well, then maybe he isn’t directly culpable for the riot. That’s one of the key question facing prosecutors:
Recall how, as we’ve seen, the Trump team was working extremely closely with groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, with members of the Oath Keepers being allowed into the VIP area of the Jan 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, ostensibly to provide VIP security. Also recall how the “Quick Reaction Forces” (QRFs) — which were positioned to rapidly deploy large stores of heavy arms to the insurrectionists — were reportedly waiting for orders from Trump himself. But then, at 1:38 pm, about 20 minutes after Trump concluded his speech at the rally, Oath Keeper leader Stewart Rhodes wrote, “All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They’ve had enough.”. And while the QRFs don’t appear to have ever been called in, the full-scale storming of the Capitol clearly happened. So Oath Keeper leader Stewart Rhodes made a statement that ostensibly would clear Trump of some rhetorical culpability, but this is literally the guy leading the organization that was clearly working closely with the Trump team on that very day and providing the private ‘muscle’ to the movement. It’s not like anything Rhodes says should be seen as absolving Trump of culpability over the events of that day. They’re effectively co-conspirators.
So as we can see, the evidence both indicting and defending Trump against sedition charges is a bit messy. At best, the argument that Trump literally left the militias so disappointed that they decided to unilaterally carry out the insurrection (still on his behalf) is a pretty bad sedition defense. But a bad defense might be good enough in a court a law. Although as Constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe points out in the following article, there are different possible sedition-related charges. There’s the charge of actually leading the sedition conspiracy, which could be punishable with up to 20 years in prison. But there’s also the lesson charge that applies to “anyone who gives aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion,” which could be punishable with up to 10 years and prison and would permanently disqualify the person from holding any state or federal office. Yep, impeachment isn’t the only way to keep Trump out of office. Charging him with doing what he blatantly did in public — giving aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion — will do the trick. Oh, and then there’s all the extortion in Georgia:
“If Trump is convicted of “conspiracy to commit sedition — which is a fancy way of talking about trying to prevent the government from functioning,” — Trump could get 20 years in prison, Tribe said. A conviction on another charge, which applies to “anyone who gives aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion,” would be punishable by up to 10 years and permanent disqualification from ever holding any state or federal office.”
Did then-President Trump give aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion? For people with eyes and ears, yes. And that aid and comfort may be enough to permanently disqualify Trump from holding office. Are prosecutors looking into this option?
And then there are the charges with even more blatant evidence: election fraud and extortion in Georgia. As Tribe puts it, “And we saw it happen in real-time and we heard it with our own ears. So, it’s really hard to wiggle out of that.” Again, Trump’s guilt isn’t really in question for people with functioning eyes and ears:
Will Trump find a way to wiggle out of another legal pinch? You can’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from something like this. And if there is no walking away, what are Trump’s other options? The guy isn’t going to allow himself to go to jail. So if he really is facing real possible jail time, what is he going to do? Oh right, foment another insurrection. Although, logistically speaking, another insurrection of that nature isn’t exactly easy to organize. A ‘leaderless resistance’ domestic terror campaign, on the other hand, is exactly the kind strategy that could be deployed in that kind of situation. A domestic terror campaign designed to not only protect the Trump family but extend a protective threat virtually all of the perpetrators of the insurrection and send the message that the price of legally punishment over the insurrection will be too high and not worth the blood and turmoil. Is that something we should expect to emerge from this situational bile? An unofficially-Trump-led domestic terror movement intended to thwart the prosecution of the insurrectionists? Hopefully not, but as the above articles make clear, it’s not like Trump has a lot other great legal defenses available.
Plus, while the idea of Trump fomenting a domestic terror campaign as an indirect legal defense against sedition charges might seem ironic, you can’t argue with the underlying logic there for someone with few other options. It’s awful predatory logic, but it does make sense as a last ditch move by someone with nothing to lose. And thanks to Trump’s ‘leadership’, a whole lot of the most violence-prone people who followed him may have nothing to lose too, legally speaking. It’s ironically one of Trump’s greatest accomplishments, albeit more of an accomplishment on behalf of ‘accelerationist’ groups like Atomwaffen.
Here’s an article that’s notable not so much for its content but for the fact that it’s likely the first in what will be a new genre of horrible Trump-focused articles: It’s the first post-Presidency interview of Donald Trump where he basically calls for a revolution after grousing about how the election was rigged and stolen from him. Or, in the Trumpian way he put it, “What happened to us with the presidential election could never have happened to the Democrats. You would have had a revolution if the tables were turned, you would have literally had a revolution. And guys like Mitch McConnell, they don’t fight.” Yes, Trump is now basically shaming his conservative audience for not succeeding in keeping Trump in office during the Jan 6 insurrection. The Democrats would have successfully fomented a coup. Only weak Republicans allowed this to happen. That’s Trump’s current message to MAGA-land.
It’s arguably surprising that it’s taken Trump this long to give an interview where he makes these kinds of statements. Trump has been oddly quiet over the past couple of months and it wasn’t clear if that silence was due to legal fears or the guy just wanted to take a break from being a loudmouthed fascist 24/7. But he’s now arrived at this seemingly inevitable rhetorical place, essentially telling the audience of Fox News’ Lisa Boothe’s “The Truth” podcast that they didn’t riot for him hard enough. And the 2024 race to the White House has clearly already begun:
“We had a great election and we won and they took it away. It was a rigged election. Cause as you know, we won the first one, but we did much better in the second one. So people always say, Oh, what do you mean you did better? I say, we did much better, almost 75 million votes. And that’s the votes that we know about. And it was a really a terrible thing. I mean, it was really an unfair thing to the people that support us.”
Cries of a rigged election certainly aren’t unprecedented for Trump. But it hasn’t been entirely clear what to expect from Trump after the Jan 6 insurrection, especially since he still has a legal exposure to those events, including possible sedition charges. But we now appear to have gotten our answer. Damn the legal threats, Trump is going to keep shouting at the world about how the election was rigged and stolen from him. And raises another question about this recent Trump interview and the likelihood of more interviews of this nature going forward: Do interviews like this that continue to push the ‘stolen election’ claims while dismissing or mischaracterizing the nature of events of Jan 6 while encouraging a repeat constitute an ongoing form of sedition? How about if there’s a sustained rhetorical campaign by Trump claiming the election was stolen followed by a sustained that pro-Trump domestic terror campaign? Will it be sedition at that point? Or is Trump more or less free to spend the rest of his life giving interviews like this where he laments the lack of courage among conservatives unwilling to fight for his victory? As Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe pointed out over the weekend, in addition to direct charges of sedition, there are also possible charges directed at “anyone who gives aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion.” So did Trump’s interview rise to the level of giving “aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion”? No enough? How about if he delivers the same underlying message in every interview he gives in the next four years? Because that’s probably what’s going to happen, so hopefully some prosecutors are taking a closer look at sedition-related laws. Because while it’s not clear yet if Trump is actively trying to find ways around sedition laws, or if he’s just ‘being Trump’ as usual, it’s pretty clear that Trump is still actively pining for some sedition. Or as Trump would put it, pining for “the Revolution” he’s hoping his supporters will still bring him.
Here’s a pair of updates on the ongoing investigation into the role the Proud Boys played in organization and executing the January 6 Capitol insurrection:
First, the legal defense of Proud Boys leader Joseph Biggs, who was indicted back on March 10 over his role in the insurrection, raised eyebrows after Biggs’s lawyer asserted to the court that Biggs had been a willing FBI informant after FBI agents approached him in July of 2020 wanting to know what he was “seeing on the ground” in relation to Antifa. Biggs apparently answered an agent’s follow-up questions in a series of phone calls over the new few weeks. In addition. Biggs’s attorney claims Biggs received “cautionary” phone calls from FBI agents and routinely spoke with local and federal law enforcement officials in Portland, Oregon, about rallies he was planning there in 2019 and 2020.
Keep in mind that we’ve been getting reports about the Portland police coordinating with far right groups for years now. For example, recall how, back in 2017, the Multnomah County Republican party chairman James Buchal announced he was interested in using groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys as security for party events. Which ended up actually happening. And as this story played out we learned about the extensive contacts and coordination between the Portland police and a number of far right groups and that was just one of the examples in recent years of stories of the Portland police coordinating with these groups. So Joe Biggs’s assertions that he routinely spoke with local and federal law enforcement officials in Portland, Oregon, is just the latest detail in a larger well-established story.
And as we’ll see in the second article excerpt below, about the Capitol insurrection charges against Biggs and three other Proud Boys members, it appears that, while evidence against Biggs’s role in the direct break in of the Capitol building remains unclear, there is evidence that Biggs was playing a leadership role in the Proud Boys’ plans for possible violence in the lead up to the events of that day. In other words, to the extent that the Proud Boys actively had a plan on breaking into the Capitol and potentially seizing lawmakers, Biggs is likely a top designer of that plan. And that’s the guy law enforcement was creating this exceedingly cozy relationship with in recent years. So cozy that the FBI was asking Biggs to act as their eyes and ears against Antifa months before the insurrection:
“Biggs, 37, of Ormond Beach, Florida, wouldn’t be the first Proud Boys informant. The group’s chairman and top leader, Enrique Tarrio, previously worked undercover and cooperated with investigators after he was accused of fraud in 2012, court documents show.”
The Proud Boys are clearly proud to act as FBI informants. At least when it comes to informing on Antifa. And then he waged an insurrection. It’s the kind of story arc that makes the FBI’s encouragement of Hal Turner seem tame in comparison. It’s a reminder that a willingness to cooperate with law enforcement isn’t necessarily an indication some sort of respect for justice or democracy:
And recall that, in 2019, when Portland opened an internal investigation after more than 11,500 text messages between Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson and police Lt. Jeff Niiya, we had already received confirmation back in 2017 from the Portland police that Sgt Niiya had been in extensive contact with Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers. So when that internal Portland police investigation was opened in 2019, it was already kind of old news:
Ok, and now here’s an article from a couple of weeks ago about the nature of the charges against four of Proud Boys who were charged on March 10 over their roles in the insurrection. And as the article describes, while the exact nature of the the planning that went into the Proud Boys’ actions during the insurrection remain somewhat unclear based on the evidence laid out in the different trials already underway, it is extremely clear that the Proud Boys were planning for violence of some sort. With Biggs, but no exclusively Biggs, leading the planning:
“All four defendants are charged with conspiring to impede Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote. Other charges in the indictment include obstruction of an official proceeding, obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder and disorderly conduct.”
Note the charges: conspiring to impede Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote. Not just a charge about rioting or property damage. A conspiracy to stop the Electoral College vote certification. And it’s not low-level Proud Boy members getting these charges. It’s leaders like Biggs. This was a high-level Proud Boys operation. They even communicated about “regrouping with a second force” as some rioters began to leave the Capitol. That’s a planned invasion:
And note the seeming awareness of the severity of what they were engaged in: when Proud Boy leader (and prolific FBI informant) Enrique Tarrio was arrested, the group freaked out about their communications being compromised and one of them issued an order to “Stop everything immediately”. It raises the question of whether or not what we saw transpire was actually a much scaled-back version of what they were actually planning:
But despite all that evidence, it’s not clear prosecutors are going to be able to prove that the Proud Boys actually planned on breaking into the Capitol building. They had plans, it’s just not clear if that was in their plans:
So the outcome of the trial remains very much uncertain, in part because the defense can legitimately claim their clients were indeed FBI informants. Arguably extensive and enthusiastic FBI informants who have been working with the agency for years, in addition to their work with who knows how many local law enforcement agencies.
It points towards one of the more interesting, and ironic, aspects of the ongoing trials over the perpetrators of the Jan 6 Capitol insurrection: their best defense against charges that amount to war against democracy will be their extensive history of enthusiastically helping the government crack down on anti-fascists and civil rights activists. Because of course that’s how it turned out.
Here’s a story that’s kind of interesting on its own, but it’s really as a kind of barometer of the strength of the Trumpian grip on the hearts and mind of the GOP voting base. It’s also a barometer of the the strength of the gag reflex that’s developed in the GOP in recent years in response to the name ‘Bush’:
George P. Bush, son of Jeb and current Texas Land Commissioner, is reportedly seriously considering running for attorney general of Texas. This would pit him against sitting Attorney General Ken Paxton. And Paxton isn’t just any Republican. He’s a wildly corrupt Trump super-fan-style politician and it’s that open corruption that appears to be the basis for George P’s planned bid.
But this is Trump’s GOP. Open corruption is potentially political asset these days. Especially if it’s open corruption in service of Trump’s glory, and that’s been a theme for Paxton. For example, recall how, back in June of 2016, Paxton tried to use a cease and desist order to muzzle a former state regulator who says he was ordered in 2010 to drop a fraud investigation into Trump University for political reasons. Flash forward to December of 2020, where we find Paxton literally petitioning the US Supreme Court to overturn the presidential election results for the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan. We also discovered that Paxton was working directly with far right disinformation outlet Project Veritas in order to whip up voter fraud allegations well over a year before the 2020 election. He’s even refused to turn over communications about his participation in the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Capitol insurrection. And going forward under a Democratic White House, Paxton’s open support of “nullification” legal theories will probably be pretty popular with a lot of conservative voters.
And then there’s the more traditional forms of corruption, like the charges for securities fraud, bribery, and abuse of office.
So Paxton is openly and grossly corruption. As shocking as it is to say, but George P. Bush just might be a serious step up from the rot currently festering in the attorney general’s office. And yet it’s not at all clear that Paxton’s rot isn’t actually quite popular. Sure, the securities fraud probably isn’t popular. But the rest? Are we sure the GOP electorate wouldn’t see those corrupt acts as a plus?
It’s also worth noting that George P. stood out from the rest of his fellow Bush family members in heartily endorsing Trump. So this race wouldn’t descend into a pro-Trump candidate vs anti-Trump candidate kind of referendum. At least not on the surface, although we should expect it to include a competition over who loves Trump more. But if the race is going to be about Ken Paxton’s corruption as George P. intends, well, that is at least kind of a referendum on Trump. Paxton’s corruption is Trumpism. Gross open corruption sold to the masses as bold populism while dismissing the charges as attacks from the ‘Deep State’. That’s why the story of this race is potentially a lot bigger than just the story of whether or not someone named ‘Bush’ can still win Republican elections. It’s a real test of whether or not the Trumpism model of turning gross open corruption into political gold can translate to other grossly openly corrupt politicians:
“Bush, the grandson of former President George H.W. Bush and nephew for President George W. Bush, went on to say a Paxton challenge would not be centered on “conservative credentials” but how the incumbent has run his office. “I think character matters and integrity matters,” Bush said.”
“I think character matters and integrity matters.” LOL. It’s almost quaint. And that’s why this could be such an interesting race. Paxton is both the poster child for why character and integrity should matter in politics. But he’s also the poster child for the political success of Trumpist-style wild open corruption. The guy literally got reelected in 2018 while facing securities fraud charges. It’s that open corruption that makes him such a tempting political target for figures like George P., and yet there’s no denying he’s still in office despite those charges. It remains very unclear if any of it matters or if it’s even an asset. After all, every legal charge against a Republican these days doubles as a new excuse to claim the ‘Deep State’ is attacking them:
It’s going to be a race of the past vs the future: the ‘character matters’ political aesthetics of yesteryear the Bush family long played to vs the ‘nothing matters, burn it all down’ contemporary politics of Trump. Old awful or new awful. It’s going to be awful either way, but the particular flavor of awful remains in question.
A new timeline of the January 6 Capitol insurrection was just released by the AP. The new details are reportedly based on a previously undisclosed document prepared by the Pentagon for internal use. It confirms what we’ve already known for the most part. But there’s some interesting new information on the actions taken by Mike Pence that day. It turns out Pence issued a direct order to then-acting defense secretary Christopher Miller at 4:08 PM to “Clear the Capitol”. This was happening around the same time Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were making similar requests to military leaders. 9 minutes after Pence issued that order, then-President Trump broke his long silence about the riot that was hours-old at that point and tweeted for his followers to “go home and go in peace.” At 4:40 PM, Pelosi and Schumer were on a call with the Pentagon leadership, asking Miller to secure the perimeter. During that call, they accused “the National Security apparatus of knowing that protestors planned to conduct an assault on the Capitol,” according to the documents.
So only minutes after Mike Pence issues the order to clear the Capitol does Trump tell his followers to “go in peace”. And that raises the question: so was Trump ‘in the loop’ about Pence’s orders? It’s part of the larger question about how aware Trump was of all of the chaos and pleas for help coming from the Capitol and the government leaders holed up inside. After all, if there’s one person who could over rule Pence or the congressional leadership, it’s Trump. So was Trump at all playing a ‘commander in chief’ role that day or were those responsibilities preemptively passed off to Pence? That’s still unclear. But what is clear from this new timeline is that Trump didn’t call off the party until just minutes after Pence issued the order:
“With Trump not engaged, it fell to Pentagon officials, a handful of senior White House aides, the leaders of Congress and the vice president holed up in a secure bunker to manage the chaos.”
With Trump not engaged, it was up to Mike Pence and the congressional leadership to issue the calls to restore order on the Capitol. Which, again, raises the question of why Trump wasn’t engaged? Did he just decide to go incommunicado during the riots? Or was it arranged in advance that Pence would be the acting commander in chief? But for whatever reason, it was up to Pence, Pelosi, and Schumer to try to get the military to step into action. And at 4:08 PM, as rioters were calling for Pence’s hanging, we learn that Pence called Christopher Miller to issue the “clear the capitol” order. Less than 10 minutes later, Trump breaks his silence and issues the “go in peace” tweet:
The timing sure is interesting. Was Trump directly told about the order Pence made? Or was he perhaps surreptitiously tipped off about it? Was Trump being intentionally kept ‘out of the loop’ that day and secretly given tips? It’s a question that’s been raised a number of times as we’ve learned about the timeline of that day. For example, recall the earlier reports about Michael Flynn’s brother, Charles Flynn, was sitting in on the chaotic Pentagon conference call that day. Did Charles perhaps tip off his brother about the “clear the Capitol” order, who then passed it along to Trump? Or was Trump told right away? We have no idea but these are increasingly important questions:
Finally, note the contents of the phone call from Pelosi and Schumer to the Pentagon leadership that took place around a half hour after Pence issue that order:
Keep in mind that we’re learning about this phone call from an internal Pentagon document that got leaked. So when we read that the congressional leadership on the call “accuses the National Security apparatus of knowing that protestors planned to conduct an assault on the Capitol,” we’re really just getting a vague summary of those accusations. It would be interesting to know if the actual contents of that phone call are recorded somewhere.
So the new AP report based on this internal Pentagon timeline hasn’t profoundly changed our understanding of what happened on January 6. But it does raise important questions. Important questions like whether or not Trump made his “go in peace” tweet with the awareness that Pence had just ruined all the fun by issuing an order to clear the Capitol of the Trump’s insurrectionary mob trying to find and hang him.
Following up on the doubling down by Fox News on Tucker Carlson’s repeated prime-time promotion of the “Great Replacement” white nationalist meme, here’s another example of the US conservative movement being led off the far right cliff:
It’s looking like we might be getting an idea of the direction the QAnon movement is taking now that “Q” has effectively disappeared from the internet and the identity of “Q” was potentially revealed a few weeks ago in an HBO documentary. Recall how “Q” went silent following the November 2020 election. And that silence was quickly followed by accusations by major followers that the account for controlling the “Q” persona had been sold on the dark web for $1 million, raising the possibility that “Q” would some day return, under new management. So major questions ahve been swirling for months now about the future of the QAnon movement.
Then, a few weeks ago, an HBO documentary appeared to out the identity of ‘Q’. It’s not a confirmed ‘outing’, but based on the documentary it sure looks like Ron Watkins has either been “Q” all along or was at least playing a supporting role. Watkins made what appeared to an accidental admission in passing during the filming and continues to deny that he is “Q”.
So how have the QAnon followers responded to this revelation? By ignoring it entirely or dismissing it as fake news. That’s been the response so far.
But as the second excerpt below reminds us, the QAnon phenomena has always been less about “Q” and more about being a tool for people to indulge in warped and fantasy. Warped fantasies with a distinct far right white nationalist apocalyptic tinge. Which is why we shouldn’t at all be surprised to learn that the leading Q follower in congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is planning on forming a new congressional caucus: The America First caucus. It’s going to call for the complete ending of immigration and the promotion of America’s Anglo-Saxon heritage. Yes, that’s right, this caucus will specifically ensure that America’s Anglo-Saxon heritage, and no other heritage, is promoted as essentially the core heritage of America. Even US architecture should reflect an Anglo-Saxon aesthetic, according to the leaked draft of the America First caucus documents.
Other members of the GOP who have come out in support of the America First caucus idea include Matt Gaetz, currently under investigation for underage sex-trafficking charges, and Paul Gosar, the lone member of congress who attended the far right America First PAC conference.
Taken together, it’s a hint. A very big hint about what we should expect next from the QAnon crowd, which is exactly what we should have expected all along: a full embrace of white nationalist mythologies. And a continued embrace of “Q”, no matter what:
“None of the main QAnon influencer accounts have mentioned the documentary on Gab, and aside from a couple of random questions by followers of the biggest QAnon channels on Telegram, the documentary’s explosive findings have not been discussed.”
Ron Watkins basically admitted it on camera. We can all watch it over and over. And yet this hasn’t even discussed in the QAnon forums. It’s a remarkable form of...not quite self-discipline...more like denial. But it’s remarkable. The community fixates on every last Q utterance but doesn’t care at all about the revelation of Q’s identity. It raises the question of just how many of the self-professed Q super-fans believe any of it ever or it was always just a giant scam *wink* *wink* joke on the rubes.
And note Ron Watkins’s attempts to suggest it was Steve Bannon who was really Q. Keep in mind that, based on what we know, it’s entirely possible both Watkins and Bannon share control of the Q persona. It’s not mutually exclusive:
And as the response, or lack of response, by the QAnon community to this revelation reveals, we still have no way to predict what’s next for a movement of this nature, even after its prophet is seemingly revealed. Q hasn’t spoken since the election. The QAnon community — perhaps the most gullible online community in existence — is rudderless and without its leader:
But as the following article reminds us, it’s not like we have no idea at all where the QAnon community will go without its leader. We have a very good idea because QAnon is basically just a mainstream extra-trashy rehashing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So the community will presumably just continue down that path and continue networking and merging with other extremist movements. Which is why the new reports about the new pro-Anglo-Saxon America First caucus being started by the biggest Q fan in congress is exactly what we should expect:
“In a section on immigration, the document describes the United States as a place with “uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions” and argues that “societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse into a country, particularly without institutional support for assimilation and an expansive welfare state to bail them out should they fail to contribute positively to the country.””
When will America return to is “uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions” and end the erosion of trust that comes with non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants? It’s the logical illogical next step for the conservative movements plunge into the QAnon abyss:
Will President Biden’s big infrastructure package now face calls from Republicans for the inclusion of a more Anglo-Saxon aesthetic on America’s roads and bridges? We’ll see, but there’s no denying that what we find in the “America First” caucus document captures the contemporary GOP’s id. It’s barely any weirder than what Donald Trump would tweet out on a daily basis for the past four years.
And its Marjorie Taylor Greene, Q leader in confess, apparently leading the way on this initiative. It gives us a sense of where the QAnon movement will go from here as ‘Q’ steps out of the spotlight: into greater and more influential leadership positions inside the conservative movement.
There’s a new Reuters report out on the existing relationship between the Proud Boys and the FBI in the lead up to the January 6 Capitol Insurrection and the ongoing questions about what the FBI knew about the Proud Boys’s insurrectionary plans:
First, recall how one of the Proud Boy leaders who appears to have played a significant role in the group’s Jan 6 planning, Joseph Biggs, was also one of the members of the group with the most extensive history of passing information on to the FBI. Also recall how the Trump team was working closely with the Oath Keepers for providing VIP security for figures like Roger Stone at the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally the immediately preceded the insurrection. Stone is notoriously close to the Proud Boys and has used them for security in the past, which is the kind of fun fact that raises obvious questions about how much the Trump team’s secret planning in the lead up to the Jan 6 insurrection included secret planning with the Proud Boys.
That’s the context that makes one of the newly reported details in the following article potentially so significant. Because it turns out the Proud Boys held a previously unknown vote on December 12, weeks before the insurrection, that was specifically intended to obscure the size of the Proud Boys’ presence in the upcoming January 6 rally. The vote was held after pro-Trump rally in DC where Proud Boys ended up wandering the streets looking for Antifa members to beat up. Four people were stabbed by the end of the night. In response to the bad press, the Proud Boys voted to ban the wearing of Proud Boy colors and outfits at future rallies. And that means the Proud Boys’ presence at the Jan 6 riots was almost certainly much larger than currently recognized:
“A third Proud Boy leader, Joseph Biggs, who was indicted and charged with conspiracy in the January attack, has said in court papers he reported information to the FBI about Antifa for months. Reuters spoke to Biggs two days before the riot. In that interview, he said he had specific plans for Jan. 6, but declined to disclose them. But, he volunteered to Reuters in that call, he was willing to tell his FBI contact of his plans for the coming rally, if asked. Reuters wasn’t able to determine whether such a contact took place.”
They just can’t stop dropping hints about all the details the Proud Boys have been sharing with the FBI. Joseph Biggs literally told a reporter two days before the insurrection that, while he was unwilling to share his plan for Jan 6 with the reporter, Biggs would be willing to share them with his FBI contact. It was an intriguing public admission that got a lot more intriguing after the insurrection two days later. And even more intriguing now that we’ve learned about the previously undisclosed secret vote on December 12 where the Proud Boys planned on showing on January 6 effectively as a secret army:
So in addition to the ongoing questions about the extent of the Trump team’s secret planning and coordination with the Proud Boys, we now have questions about the size and intent of this secret Proud Boy army. Questions that should probably include questions about the futures plans for this secret army.
Just how much of a real difference is there really between proto-fascist Trump-worshipping groups like the Proud Boys and Accelerations neo-Nazi groups like Atomwaffen? That’s the question raised by a recent set of failed “White Lives Matter” rallies that were planned for cities across the US on April 11. It sounds like the idea behind the rallies were was very similar to the intent of the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally: to create a public-friendly presence for the far right while simultaneously bringing together members of groups like the Proud Boy with more their overt violent neo-Nazis under a common banner. Giving the appearance of a genuine grass-roots spontaneous “White Lives Matter” movement was seen as a top priority and, as such, one of the rules the rally organizers imposed was no symbolism of organized groups like the Proud Boys.
There wasn’t a single organizer of the planned rallies although the Proud Boys appear to have played a significant role. At least, the Proud Boys played a significant role until a bunch of antifascist infiltrators leaked the chats of their plans to the media, revealing that this ‘grass roots’ event was heavily a Proud Boys operation that included a number of other open violent neo-Nazis. Those leaked chats, combined with some organizers simply being unable to publicly contain their neo-Nazi track-record, ended up getting most of the rallies canceled, although a few sparsely populated rallies did take place.
So we recently learned that the Proud Boys — a group that played a significant role in the January 6 insurrection and could almost be seen as a kind Trump militia — tried to secretly coordinate a nation-wide series of “White Lives Matter” rallies in coordination with a number of other far right white supremacists, but had to cancel the plan after their secret organizing role was revealed. So, again, what exactly distinguishes the Proud Boys from the violent neo-Nazis they organize with other than perhaps a more refined sense of optics?
“In late March, in a public Telegram channel for the White Lives Matter rallies, administrators emphasized that the marches were unaffiliated with far-right groups like the Proud Boys. “No mentioning of any groups,” a message read. “This is grassroot and no groups are affiliated.””
There’s no group behind the “White Lives Matter” rallies. It’s a purely grass roots phenomena. That was a core rule for the rallies from the very beginning, issued by the Proud Boys and friendly neo-Nazis behind the whole thing:
And while differences erupted in the private chat groups over these rules, and the inevitable violations of these rules by neo-Nazis who can’t feasibly hide their neo-Nazi status, note how the attempts to bring everyone together relied on acknowledging that the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen have different opinions about things but they should still be able to come together under a common cause. The same organization of this North Carolina rally used a swastika avatar. The regular ol’ neo-Nazi is the ‘peacemaker’ between the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen in this dynamic...although the guy sounds a like an Atomwaffen member himself:
So that was a highly revealing fizzled rally attempt. Thanks to the “White Lives Matter” fiasco, we now know that the Proud Boys — the primary paramilitary group behind the Jan 6 insurrection — was networking with violent neo-Nazis just a few months later. And while that networking may not have resulting in the nation-wide “White Lives Matter” rallies like they hoped, that doesn’t mean something awful isn’t going to emerge from this effort. In fact, it turns out that the same NC organizer who was calling for the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen to embrace their common cause decided to create a new group dedicated to doing exactly that.
This still-anonymous individual, who goes by the online monicker “Bolts”, also claims to have joined the National Guard in recent months and has been hoping the 2020 election results and cries of a stolen election will trigger a civil war soon. For “Bolts”, the common cause that should unite the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen is this coming civil war. And, again, this is the guy positioning himself as the relative ‘moderate’ in this movement:
“After canceling the “White Lives Matter” rally, “Bolts” invited the cluster of supporters involved in planning for the scuttled event into a private voice chat to discuss the launch of the new group. A major preoccupation of the discussion was how they will be perceived by the public.”
The implosion of the “White Lives Matter” rally after the exposure of the group’s real intent has clearly triggered the far right. And with good reason. The movement realizes it has to trick people into supporting it so getting exposed like this was kind of a big deal. At least, if would be a big deal if this new got the kind exposure it deserves. After all, we’re talking about the unofficial Trump militia, the Proud Boys, networking with violent neo-Nazis just months after the insurrection. The seeds for future national crises are being sown. And if “Bolts” has anything to say about it, those future national crises will revolve around the active coordination of all of the different White Power movements acting as one:
But, of course, the Proud Boys were already working as one with the rest of the violent far right when these rallies were getting organized. It was only the exposure of their plans, along with the boastings of overly proud neo-Nazis, that really derailed it. The Proud Boys clearly had no actual issue of directly networking with other violent extremists. So, again, we have to ask: what exactly is the difference at this point between the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen other than a more refined sense of optics?
The Republican leadership in the House is in the middle of a fascinating identity crisis right now. The kind of identity crisis that, depending on how its resolved, could end up fast-tracking the next Trump-led insurrection:
The growing tensions between House GOP caucus chair Liz Cheney and the rest of the GOP over whether or not to condemn Donald Trump over the January 6th insurrection hit a boiling point this week. On Monday, we got reports that House minority leader Kevin McCarthy was caught on a ‘hot mic’ episode trashing Cheney while appearing on Fox News. The next day, Cheney published a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post calling this moment a turning point for the GOP while warning that a failure to condemn Trump’s insurrectionary Big Lie about a stolen election is setting the stage for future insurrections.
And, of course, there’s no way in hell Cheney’s op-ed is going to change more than a handful of minds in her caucus. So Cheney essentially committed political suicide by making such warnings. She really must feel a need to issue those warnings.
And now, today, we are learning that the House member who has been tapped by Trump himself as the favored replacement for Cheney in her GOP caucus leadership position, Elise Stefanik, just went on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast where she fully endorsed the ‘stolen election’ meme while promoting the GOP’s joke ‘audits’ of the Arizona vote.
So all indications are that Liz Cheney is set to be punished for her condemnation of the January 6 insurrection and replaced with a Trump sycophant who has been giving full-throated endorsements of virtually all of the stolen election lies. All in all, that sure sounds like the seeds of the next insurrection being sown. Although the next insurrection won’t be a ‘Trump insurrection’. It’s too late for that. It’s going to be a full blown ‘GOP insurrection’ after the party refuses to heed Cheney’s warnings:
“In public statements again this week, former president Donald Trump has repeated his claims that the 2020 election was a fraud and was stolen. His message: I am still the rightful president, and President Biden is illegitimate. Trump repeats these words now with full knowledge that exactly this type of language provoked violence on Jan. 6. And, as the Justice Department and multiple federal judges have suggested, there is good reason to believe that Trump’s language can provoke violence again. Trump is seeking to unravel critical elements of our constitutional structure that make democracy work — confidence in the result of elections and the rule of law. No other American president has ever done this.”
Liz isn’t mincing words. There really is very good reason to believe that Trump’s language can provoke violence again. Especially if the Big Lie behind that insurrection is fully backed by the rest of the party.
And note her observation about the broader impact this stolen election Big Lie could end up having around the world: the GOP is effectively undermining the idea that the institutions that run a democracy, or at least multi-ethnic democracy, can be trusted. It’s a meme no doubt appreciated by authoritarian governments around the world, including the government of China that the has become the a GOP propaganda focal point in recent years:
And that brings us to the interview just done by Cheney’s Trump-annointed replacement as caucus chair, Elise Stefanik, on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. An interview where Stefanik fully backed the stolen election Big Lie and the sham ‘audits’ schemes. In other words, it was basically an audition for Cheney’s role as House caucus leader and Stefanik made it clear she wants the job:
“Stefanik’s remarks on Bannon’s podcast came a day after the former President revived his post-insurrection attacks against prominent Republicans.”
The timing of it all it is quite remarkable: On Monday, we have reports Kevin McCarthy’s ‘hot mic’ moment attacking Cheney. Tuesday brings us Cheney’s op-ed, but also renewed attacks by Trump on Cheney and other GOP leaders who haven’t demonstrated adequate post-insurrection fealty to Trump like Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence. And then Wednesday we have Stefanik going on Steve Bannon’s podcast to get showcased for the role. It’s been a demonstration of where the real power lies in the contemporary GOP: in the hands of figures like Trump and Bannon:
The real leader of the GOP has made his decision: Trump chooses Stefanik because Stefanik choose Trump over all. And now it’s just a matter of time before Stefanik gets the role. Because Trump über alles.
So when the next insurrection happens — and it’s increasingly looking like a when, not if, question — it’s going to be important to keep in mind that what we’ve witnessed over the last few months is the full party embrace of the January 6 insurrection and Big Lies that fueled it. Trump owns the party. Any future ‘Trump insurrections’ are going to be GOP insurrections. Fealty has consequences.
New details came out today on the actions, or lack of actions, during the January 6 Capitol insurrection. Details about who precisely issued the belated order to the National Guard to deploy and clear the Capitol of the insurrectionists. And yet, despite these new details, it’s still not actually who ordered what and why the deployment was delayed for 90 crucial minutes while the a Trumpian army rampaged through the Capitol.
According to the updated timeline, the Pentagon issued the order to mobilize the Guard at 3:00 pm, but only issued the order to deploy the Guard at 4:32 pm. During this 92 minute period, then-Vice President Mike Pence spoke with Miller at ~ 4:08 pm and reportedly called on Miller to “clear the Capitol”, raising questions of whether or not the 4:32 pm order to deploy was in response to Pence’s call.
But Miller told congress that, no, Pence’s call had no bearing on his decision to issue the deployment order at 4:32 pm, in part because Pence was not in the chain-of-command and not able to legally issue military orders at that moment. So if Miller’s deployment order wasn’t in response to Pence’s call, why did it happen at that point, over 90 minutes after the mobilization order? According to Miller, there’s no mystery here. The 90 minute lag between the mobilization and deployment orders was actually a remarkably short period of time.
Miller also appeared to be trying to shrug off responsibility to D.C. National Guard commanding general William Walker. At 3:00 pm, Miller issued the deployment order but after 3:04 pm it was up to Walker to draft the actual plan for clearing the Capitol. And yet, it was Miller who ultimately approved Walkers plan and that approval didn’t happen until 4:32 pm. So Miller appeared to be putting the onus for actually deploying the troops on Walker and yet it really was Miller who ultimately issued the approval.
The distinction between the mobilization orders and deployment orders hadn’t previously been appreciated. Miller himself was confusing the orders during his testimony, initially saying he issued the deployment order at 3 pm, and only later clarifying that it was a mobilization order. It’s a distinction that raises new question about what exactly the decision-making process on that day because the mayor or DC and congressional leaders had been calling on Miller to send troops to the capital for nearly 90 minutes before that 3 pm mobilization order. Up until now, we had assumed that the 3 pm order given by Miller was a deployment order, raising question about why the deployment didn’t happen for another 90 minutes. But now that we are learning that the 3 pm order was just a mobilization order, we have to ask just what exactly was the Pentagon doing from 1:30–3:00? Beyond that, the official deployment order was actually given by Miller until 5:08 pm, which Miller attributed to the ‘fog of war’.
Miller also claimed at one point that Walker had the authority to issue the deployment order on his own at any given point. And yet Walker has testified that he had to wait for approval from Miller and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy before he deployed the troops. So Miller appeared to just be making stuff up at that point.
Oh, and Miller also testified that, while he didn’t speak to Trump at all on Jan 6, he didn’t need to because he already had orders and the authority he needed. But he did speak to Trump on Jan 3, when Miller to Trump of the mayor’s request for additional Guard support. Miller says Trump told him, “Fill it and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights.” So the orders Trump gave Miller on Jan 3 was to do whatever is necessary to protect the rights of the pro-Trump insurrectionist ‘demonstrators’. How exactly those Jan 3 comments from Trump translated into the actions, or lack of actions, three days later is one of the many unanswered remaining questions. And the the longer we go without getting straight answers to these question, the more the meta-answer is emerging that a massive cover-up is underway. A cover up of a very real insurrection plot at the highest levels of government:
“Debates over when the National Guard should have been deployed have been obfuscated by people misinterpreting the 3:00 p.m. order to mobilize the guard with an order to physically deploy soldiers to the Capitol.”
It’s critical distinction: did the acting Secretary of Defense give an order to mobilize or deploy the Guard. A distinction that obscures how awful the timeline for that day really is and hadn’t really been appreciated up until now. In part because even Miller himself was confusing his mobilization and deployment orders during the testimony. He starts off claiming it was a deployment order:
But when asked about why it took so long for the guard to be deployed, Miller then attempts to shift the blame on Walker by pointing out that the 3pm order was a mobilization order, suggesting it up to Walker at that point to orchestrate everything:
Miller even claims that Walker had the authority on his own to issue the deployment order. A claim Walker has directly countered:
Then there’s the interesting detail of a further 36 minute delay between the unofficial deployment order at 4:32 pm and the official one at 5:08 pm. Why the delay? According to Miller, it was “fog and friction, so much going on”:
Finally, there’s the question of what communications Miller may have had with Trump that day. Miller claims he didn’t speak to Trump at all. He also denies that his deployment order was in response to his call with Mike Pence. So at the same time Miller is shirking responsibility for the orders given that day, he’s also asserting that no one issued orders to him that day:
And now, here’s a piece that gives us a bit more in Miller’s Jan 3 interactions with Trump. According to Miller, Trump asked him to do ‘whatever is necessary’ to protect the first amendment rights of the protestors. And as Miller described it, there was no need for him to communicate with Trump on Jan 6 because he spoke with Trump ahead of the insurrection and had the necessary authority and “knew what had to happen.” So Miller seemed to be hinting that he was operating from a set of general orders he got from Trump a few days earlier. Orders to go extra-easy on the insurrectionists:
“Former President Donald Trump was criticized for failing to squelch the Capitol riot, but ahead of the January 6 rally, he requested that the Secretary of Defense pull out all the stops to protect people’s First Amendment rights.”
Do whatever you can to protect the pro-Trump rioters. That’s the ‘request’ Trump made of Miller. A request that is effectively an order when the president makes it. So when Miller says he “knew what had to happen,” we have to ask the question of whether or not the insurrection is what “had to happen”:
And then there’s Miller’s assertion that, no, the deployment was actually remarkably fast:
That’s some high quality trolling right there. Trolling and misdirecting. At least that’s the more direct way to interpret Miller’s shifting narrative. Trolling, misdirecting, and buying time. Kind of like how he was buying time for Trump’s insurrectionists to succeed on Jan 6. Will it work? Will the US eventually just kind of forget about all this and allow a plot to overthrow the government to fall down the national memory-hole without ever truly being exposed and understood? That remains to be seen, but let’s just say Miller’s ‘troll, misdirect, and buy time’ approach to a massive coup plot cover-up in the hopes that the nation just kind of forget isn’t the worst strategy for a successful cover-up. These kinds of strategies actually work.
There was a new DHS report on domestic extremism released on Friday with a particularly ominous warning: white supremacists are apparently planning on infiltrating BLM and police brutality protests in the hopes of finding opportunities to commit violent acts “in furtherance of ideological objectives.” In other words, following the open insurrection of January 6, the far right is returning to its original the ‘boogaloo’ playbook of using false flag violence to instigate a civil war. But it also sounds like they’re interested in attacking the protestors too. So it’s sounding like the strategy going forward is stoking as much violence as possible and making it appear like it’s coming from all sides:
“The bulletin, issued through the National Terrorism Advisory System, says that domestic violent extremists and white supremacists have been looking for “civil disorder” as an opportunity to commit violent acts “in furtherance of ideological objectives.””
Act of violence “in furtherance of ideological objectives.” It’s a disturbing enough phrase on its own, but far more disturbing when considering that those ideological objectives just happen to include the fomenting of a civil war. Orchestrated violent provocations, both from within the protests and against them, likely organized over encrypted apps:
It’s also worth keeping in mind that any plans for strategic false flag violence will also presumably be predicted on the assumption that the broader right-wing media complex will treat these events much like how they’ve covered the January 6 Capitol insurrection: by sticking with the Big Lie narrative about a stolen election and the illegitimatacy of the Biden administration. And then there’s the fellow travelers, like the 124 retired US generals and admirals who just published a letter calling the Biden administration as moving the US towards a Marxist tyrannical government and posing the greatest threat ever to the nation since its founding. The. letter included an implicit denial of the reality of the events of January 6, decrying how troops ave being used “as political pawns, with thousands of troops deployed around the US Capitol Building, patrolling fences guarding against a non-existent threat”. So these generals are providing rhetorical cover and military prestige for exactly the kind of civil conflict the white supremacists are hoping to create:
“The letter, signed by 124 retired members of the armed forces calling themselves ‘Flag Officers 4 America’, said that America is “in deep peril,” having “taken a hard-Left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government”.”
The US is careening towards a tyrannical government under Joe Biden as a result of a stolen election. And no, there is no threat to the Capitol from far right extremists and never was. That’s the message from 124 retired generals and admirals. Every single one of the people who signed that document effectively declared the US to be a occupied nation, thereby framing far right domestic terrorism as waging a fight for liberty. The white supremasists targeting BLM and antifa are probably freedom fighterss in the minds of authors of this letter:
“The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty.” Which is exactly how the ‘boogaloo’ boys and white nationalists tends to fancy themselves. As “supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty”.
Also recall the recent revelations about the shocking extent of the open boogaloo support that was found in the military following the investigation of Steven Carrillo. You have to wonder how many of these 124 generals and admirals are closet ‘boogaloo’ generals and admirals.
And that’s all part of why the very real concerns about the emboldening of far right domestic terrorism as a result of the GOP’s embrace of the January 6 Big Lie narrative shouldn’t be limited to the Big Lie narrative around the events of that day. The new far right meta-narrative — where everyone on the left is part of a Marxist totalitarian conspiracy to destroy the country — has already internalized the Jan 6 Big Lie and moved on to ‘Joe Biden is a Marxist out to destroy freedom after stealing the 2020 election’ narrative that’s going to be the GOP’s message for at least the next four years. Which is a pretty emboldening message.
It’s the cover-up, not the crime. That old adage of US politics might be put to the test in a very big now in the upcoming 2022 mid-term elections now that the congressional Republicans have overwhelmingly come out against a commission to study the January 6 Insurrection, explicitly citing concerns over the impact such a commission could have on the 2022 elections. Yes, after House Republicans overwhelmingly voted against a commission, Republicans in the Senate began publicly grousing about how a commission was part of a Democratic partisan plot to paint Republicans in a bad light in 2022.
That was the basis for their opposition to a commission. The prospect that it could make Republicans look bad. And sure, such concerns about how an investigation might make a party look would obviously be a factor in the decision to support such an investigation. But you don’t normally come out and say it so openly like that. And yet we have multiple Republicans with a similar message, suggesting this was a coordinated deliberate strategy. A strategy of choosing to focus public attention on the cover up. The GOP has clearly concluded that fighting over whether or not to hold a commission on the Capitol Insurrection is politically advantageous vs a commission. Looking openly guilty is preferable compared to the strategy of pretending to be innocent and interested in justice by agreeing to a commission and then allowing all the insurrectionist evidence to spill out.
So we can already see the contours of at least one of the major dynamics of the 2022 election: it was already guaranteed that 2022 was going to be, in part, a referendum on whether or not the Republican Party should pay a political price for the January 6 Capitol insurrection. But by openly opposing the commission due to concerns over Democrats politically weaponizing the commission, the GOP is actively choosing to ensure the 2022 mid-terms aren’t just about Donald Trump’s insurrection but also the party-wide GOP cover up of the insurrection. The party has found a new way to fall on its sword to shield Trump. This time by creating a giant open cover-up. And that’s all what makes this a fascinating test of whether or the cover-up really is worse than the crime, because the GOP is clearly betting otherwise:
“Up until this point, the 2022 factor has been more tacit in Republicans’ opposition than explicit. A commission of the sort proposed in the House bill encompassing the attack and “influencing factors” — e.g. the conspiracy theories peddled by former President Donald Trump and his GOP allies — would keep focus squarely on the sins of the Republican party. In recent days, Republicans have channeled this concern more through complaints about the commission’s scope, seeking to zoom out so far that Trump’s and their culpability seem insignificant. ”
Yeah, up until this point, there hadn’t really been a need for GOPers to come out and explain their 2022 political calculus in their insurrection commission decision-making. It was just assumed by reasonable people to be a factor. But now, when forced to finally make a vote on the matter, we’re hearing senator after senator openly express concern about the political impact of a commission:
Overall, it’s a fascinating political tactic because, on the one hand, it’s a weirdly honest admission of the GOP’s political calculus. But on the other hand, these qualms are being expressed in a manner that seems to be designed to frame all of the concern about the insurrection in general as part of a partisan Democratic plot. In other words, while the explicit message has become, “we are concerned about Democrats politicizing this issue for 2022”, the implied message to the audience is closer to, “there was never really any problem with what happened on January 6th because the Democrats actually stole the election from Trump, and we’re not going to allow them to extend their partisan charade any further.” We’ve entered a political period where open talk of cover-ups act as code language for the Republican Party’s much more sinister under-the-radar political messaging that implicitly justifies the insurrection by describing the Biden administration as an illegitimate Marxist rogue government that stole the office from Trump.
So is the cover-up worse than the crime? Or is an open cover-up a winning political message? We’ll find out in 2022.
With the Republican Party now nearly united at the national level against the idea of a congressional commission to study the January 6 Capitol Insurrection, here’s a recent piece in Vice about the transformation of the Republican Party at the state level. A nearly complete transformation that has left nearly every single state chair in the hands of someone who either openly endorses the ‘stolen election’ Big Lie or at least isn’t going to say anything to rebut the claims.
But as the following article also makes clear, it’s not just Donald Trump’s capture of the Republican Party taking place right now. It really is a much broader capture of the party by the most extremist elements both inside and outside the GOP establishment, with the national Republican establishment using the stolen election Big Lie as an opportunity to push voting restriction laws as aggressively as possible at the same time extremists continue to make gains at the state level. It’s the most far right politicians, after all, who are most shamelessly willing to embrace the popular Big Lies of the day, making this their moment to really shine politically. As a result, in state after state, we’re seeing figures winning the state party chair position with a history of calling for everything from secession to fire squads:
“A VICE News review of public positions of all 50 GOP state chairs shows a significant number are openly pushing conspiracy theories, spouting unhinged rhetoric, and actively undermining voters’ trust in democracy. That includes the chairs of nearly every swing state in the U.S. And the trend is accelerating: Many of the most extreme chairs just won their chairmanships or have been reelected since Trump left office four months ago, a number of them with his explicit endorsement.”
The state GOP chairs of nearly every swing state in the US are dutifully parroting Trump’s election theft Big Lie. Because that’s now a job requirement for almost every GOP state-level and national position, not just the swing states. But it’s the swing state party chairs who are going to be the most consequential in upcoming elections and in nearly every case, these state party chairs or either echoing the Big Lie or at least refusing to refute them...all the while pushing the kind of “election integrity” voting restrictions. It points to what is arguably the most despicable aspect of the party-wide embrace of the ‘stolen election’ Big Lie: it’s cynically being embraced in order to pass sweeping voting restrictions in virtually every GOP-controlled state. It’s the embrace of a Big Lie attack on democracy in order to justify and facilitate a further legislative attack on democracy:
And right one cue, we’re already seeing a return of the GOP calls for secession. It’s one of the features of the modern day GOP: whenever there’s a Democrat in the White House, talk of secession is how aspiring Republican politicians can distinguish themselves. Only now, it’s calls for secession in response to the notion that Trump had the election stolen away. And one of those state party chairs calling for secession, Wyoming Republican Party Chairman Frank Eathorne, sits on the GOP’s sham ‘election integrity commission’. That’s how mainstream the secession idea is within in the GOP caucus these days:
And then there’s Oregon, where the state GOP appears to be openly supporting not just the Capitol insurrection but insurrections against its own capitol:
Finally, we have Oklahoma, where the new state party chair called for executing Hillary Clinton by firing squad shortly before the 2016 election and won the state chair with the backing of arch QAnon-advocates Michael Flynn, Mike Lindell, and Lin Wood:
And that’s all what it’s important to remember that it isn’t just that Donald Trump has personally capture the hearts and minds of the Republican electorate. Trump’s psychological capture of the conservative mind hasn’t just allowed Trump and the Trump family to take over the party. It’s a far right capture of the party. Or rather, a triumphant open consolidation of the ongoing far right capture of the party that’s been accelerating for year. And it’s that far right consolidation of power that could end up being far more consequential in the long run. Trump won’t be around forever.
Of course, the force of political gravity could eventually kick in should the Republican Party open extremism end up costing the party races at the state level. We have no idea when, or if, that state-level electoral rebuttal might take place. The GOP outperformed expectations at the state level in 2020, after all. But if the GOP’s extremism does ever get extreme enough to cause the party to start losing power at the state level in significant way, we might end up seeing some degree of moderation sink in. Assuming, of course, those state-level losses weren’t the result of a Satanic deep state conspiracy to rig the vote, which is clearly an assumption too far for the contemporary GOP. It will presumably just be more calls for secession and executions at that point instead.
Is it news when the inevitable happens? It’s one of the meta questions raised whenever the GOP behaves acts like the treasonous entity it is. So we have to ask, is it really news that the GOP in the Senate is filibustering the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 Capitol insurrection? It would certainly be news if the GOP supported such a commission. Astonishing news. But is it news that the thing that was almost surely going to happen eventually happened? The sad answer is, yes, it’s news. Just not new news. The same old story of Republican treason.
But what is new, and profoundly troubling, are the reasons for this ongoing treason. Because as the following piece points out, when we look at recent polls asking the US voters about whether or not they think political violence might be required, it becomes clear that the GOP isn’t simply worried about an investigation into the insurrection making the GOP look bad. They’re simultaneously worried about the fact that 28% of Republican voters just told pollsters that “there is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders,” and that “things have gotten so off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” In other words, 28 percent of Republican voters basically told pollsters they support the insurrection. So while the GOP is obviously concerned about an investigation making casting the party in a bad light, there’s the parallel concern of being forced to characterize the insurrection in a bad light:
“The more dangerous truth is that a not-insignificant portion of the GOP’s Trumpian base actually appears to believe that the violent mob was justified in its effort to disrupt Congress as it conducted its pro forma tally of the electoral votes that made Joe Biden the 46th president.”
You can condemn, ignore, and celebrate the insurrection simultaneously. That’s the challenge facing the GOP and refusing to support the commission for overtly specious reasons is about as close as you can get to pulling off that trifecta. Or at least the GOP had better hope they managed to thread this needle, because otherwise they just ended up pissing off the dangerously violent 28 percent of the party that not only supports the insurrection but seems to be pining for a lot more insurrections. More insurrections with lots of executions:
How will the GOP walking this line between deploring/ignoring/supporting the insurrection as the Democrat-only congressional investigations into the insurrection plays out? We’ll find out, but it looks like the legally imperiled Matt Gaetz just gave us a preview during a speech at the “America First” conference this week:
““The internet’s hall monitors out in Silicon Valley, they think they can suppress us, discourage us,” Gaetz told attendees at a rally in Dalton, Georgia. “Well, you know what? Silicon Valley can’t cancel this movement, or this rally, or this congressman. We have the Second Amendment in this country and I think we have an obligation to use it.” He went on to suggest that the Second Amendment intended for people to have the ability to form an “armed rebellion against the government” when necessary.”
The 2nd Amendment isn’t just a constitutionally protected right. It’s a constitutionally protected right intended to protect the ability for the populace to form an armed rebellion against the government when necessary. And if you watch the video, that was the big applause line. The crowd loves the idea of an armed rebellion and politicians like Matt Gaetz are more than happy to fan those flames. They’re popular flames in a party that just wants to burn it all down right now. So while we’re forced to wait and see how the GOP’s strategy of deploring/ignoring/supporting the insurrection will evolve as this story plays out, we can be pretty sure it’s going to increasingly look like what Matt Gaetz just did. It will be news when that inevitably happens, but not really.
We got a few more details during the House Oversight Committee hearings on Tuesday on what exactly was ordered, or not ordered, by government authorities during the January 6 Capitol Insurrection. And who issued, or didn’t issue, those orders. There weren’t any major new revelations. Just further confirmation of what we already know. Although we did get a better sense of how many times Pentagon officials ordered the National Guard troops to “standby” on that day: 5 times. We also learned that the Capitol police and DC officials made more than a dozen requests of the Pentagon for the National Guard to come help during this period. Over 12 requests for help and 5 standby orders. The numbers tell a story. The story about a coup that almost happened.
Another part of what made the House hearings particularly interesting is who testified. Because it was two of the generals who oversaw the National Guard forces that day who were called to testify, and one of those two generals happens to be Charles Flynn, brother of arch-insurrectionist Michael Flynn. Recall how the Pentagon initially falsely denied that Flynn was present at all during these meetings. Also recall how we learned that concerns over the military being seen as supporting a coup were held by Charles Flynn and others at the Pentagon who oversaw the preparations and execution of the Jan 6 Capitol Hill security. Those concerns were allegedly the reason for both the lack of preparation in advance of the insurrection and the continued holding back of the National Guard after the insurrection started and congressional calls for help grew. So now we’re learning that five “standby” orders were issued by this group at the Pentagon before the deploy order was finally, belated allowed to happen after the local police had already largely gotten the situation under control. And Charles Flynn was one of the figures issuing those standby orders:
“The House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing on Tuesday with FBI Director Chris Wray and two generals who responded to increasingly frantic requests from the Capitol and law enforcement to deploy the guard: Gen. Charles A. Flynn and Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt. The hearing will begin at 2 p.m.”
Yes, it wasn’t just the case that Charles Flynn was present in these meetings. We’re learning that it was Flynn, Piatt, and Miller who were the ones repeatedly issuing the “standby” orders to the Guard. Ostensibly due to concerns over fears of the military being seen participating in a coup. Concerns that would have made sense if the guard was being order to halt the election certification so the vote could be overturned. But they still haven’t explained how stopping an active insurrection at the Capitol would be seen as a coup:
And we can’t forget that by the time the national guard was allowed to show up, the situation had already been mostly suppressed by the police:
In other words, the guard was only allowed to show up after the insurrection failed. And based on Tuesday’s testimony, it was Chris Miller, Lt Gen. Walter E. Piatt, and Charles Flynn who were determining whether or not the guard needed to continue standing by while Trump’s army ransacked the Capitol. And as we just saw, they were actively deciding to issue standby orders. This wasn’t a situation where an order wasn’t given or somehow wasn’t received. Orders were repeatedly given. Orders to standby...until they stood by long enough for the eventual orders to deploy to no longer matter.
In related news, the Pentagon has decided not to prosecute Michael Flynn over his recent calls for a Myanmar-style military coup in the US. Why the lenient treatment for one of the leading figures behind the insurrection? It sounds like fears of right-wing claims that the Biden administration is using the military to impose a left-wing agenda were the impetus for this decision. Which sure sounds an awful lot like fears of using the national guard to stop an insurrection.
Was the January 6 Capitol Insurrection all just an elaborate federal operation designed by the FBI to entrap Trump supporters? That’s the latest right-wing meme getting pushed by Tucker Carlson this week. It’s a narrative based on an observation and an extreme extrapolation. The observation is that the federal charging documents for the insurrectionists include references to “unindicted co-conspirators”. This observation led to the extrapolation that these unindicted co-conspirators are actually undercover FBI agents and, therefore, the entire Capitol Insurrection was actually an FBI-orchestrated event designed to malign good Trump-loving patriots as domestic terrorists. The meme was first put forward in Revolver.news, a right-wing garbage news outlet.
One of the figures from Revolver, Darren Beattie, joined Tucker Carlson on his show to talk about this story. Recall how Beattie was fired from his position as a White House speechwriter in 2018 after it was revealed that Beattie spoke at the 2016 HL Mencken Club, a small annual conference started in 2008 regularly attended by prominent white nationalists like Richard Spencer. Beattie declared it a “great honor” during the event. But that wasn’t the end of Beattie’s time with the Trump administration. In November of 2020, then-President Trump appointed Beattie to a commission that helps preserve sites related to the Holocaust. Yes, following his loss, Trump appointed a guy he was forced to fire over white nationalist ties to a Holocaust remembrance commission.
Oh, and Beattie is also the guy behind the report in Revolver that was used to suggest Capitol officer Brian Sicknick — who died following the insurrection — had actually died of natural causes and there was a plot to pin his death on the insurrection in order to puff of the impeachment case against Trump. So Beattie someone with exactly the kind of bad faith journalistic track record that would make him the perfect fit for a segment on Tucker Carlson whitewashing the Capitol Insurrection:
“A Revolver representative, Darren Beattie, appeared on Carlson’s broadcast to agree that the “remarkable” report “certainly suggests” the “possibility” that the FBI “organized the riots.” Beattie claimed that the piece is “the most important and the darkest investigative piece” many people have seen “in years.” Beattie said people deserved to know the truth about what occurred on Jan. 6th for the sake of Ashli Babbitt and others. Babbitt was shot and killed by a law enforcement officer as she attempted to enter the Speaker’s Lobby during the siege.”
Yes, the “remarkable” report “certainly suggests” the “possibility” that the FBI “organized the riots.” At least that’s how Tucker Carlson and Darren Beattie wanted the audience to conclude. A conclusion based on the assumption that the unindicted co-conspirators in the charging documents were not just FBI operatives but also the people behind the whole insurrection plot. As Carlson sees it, “In potentially every single case, they were FBI operatives”. And a new meme is born: It’s now going to be taken as gospel in right-wing media that the Capitol Insurrection was the work of undercover FBI operatives. Tucker Carlson and Darren Beattie merely wondering if its possible that all of these unindicted co-conspirators were FBI agents is evidence enough in the minds of this audience that, yes, they were all likely FBI agents and the whole insurrection was an FBI plot:
And notice the subtle word play at work here: Beattie asserts that “key that unlocks the truth to 1/6” is the question of whether the key militia groups were infiltrated and led by the FBI and other government agencies. That leadership role is crucial here. Because if you had FBI agents or informants that were merely members of thee groups plotting the insurrection, but weren’t actively leading the plotting themselves, that is a very different scenario than one where the FBI agents themselves are acting as the ring-leaders of an operation and coaxing unsuspecting people into an insurrectionary mindset. And yet Beattie and Carlson are basically smudging that distinction between those two very different situations by pointing to the possibility that the unindicted co-conspirators were FBI agents and then heavily implying that they were also leading the insurrection planning. It’s just one more bad faith performance by one of the most cynical and dangerous shows on television. And yes, Carlson and Beattie will acknowledge that they don’t yet have the information to prove their case, but the overarching message conveyed to the audience over the course of the segment is that yes, it was probably an FBI set up designed to entrap Trump supporters:
And note how we already know the identity of at least one of the unindicted co-conspirators: “Person 1” is Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes. Recall how we’ve already seen how Rhodes was actively issuing orders to his Oath Keepers during the insurrection. Orders to literally breach the doors of the Capitol in one case. Are we to assume that Rhodes was actually working as an FBI agent this entire time? Although, in fairness, a lot of the leaders of these groups probably do have histories of working with the FBI. Recall how Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio was revealed to a long-time FBI informant. But there’s still a big difference between having a history of acting as an FBI informant and acting as an actual FBI undercover agent. Especially when you’re talking about groups like the Oath Keepers that are literally set up to recruit former members of law enforcement with deep anti-government sentiments. It’s the perfect recipe for finding people with a history of acting as informants who are simultaneously genuinely working to overthrow the government:
So that’s where the memetic lines are currently being drawn on this story. As the Revolver story frames it, “If it turns out that an extraordinary percentage of the members of these groups involved in planning and executing the Capitol Siege were federal informants or undercover operatives, the implications would be nothing short of staggering.” Which is true. The implications would be staggering. At the same time, if there weren’t any FBI informants or undercover operatives in these groups at all that would also be pretty staggering. Wouldn’t that have been a gross dereliction of duty? So we’re facing the question of what is the appropriate number of FBI informants that should have been in these groups without it seeming like an FBI-run entrapment operation. Along with questions of what the role actually was of any informants. Nuanced questions about how the law and justice system works. And that’s a set of questions the American public is obviously deeply ill-equipped to ask, as evidenced by the enduring popularity of someone like Tucker Carlson. It’s part of why this emerging meme is such an important story: it’s exactly the kind of complicated mess the right-wing media has specialized in exploiting for maximum propaganda success:
We’ll see what more we learn about these unindicted co-conspirators. But as Beattie’s appearance on Carlson’s show makes clear, we can expect the lack of certainty about what role those unindicted co-conspirator played in the insurrection to be treated as a green light by figures like Carlson and Beattie to push whatever narrative they can think of that absolves Trump and the insurrectionists.
With that in mind, it’s worth noting another story that popped up this week regarding the culpability for instigating the insurrection: there are growing calls for the arrest of Alex Jones for the role he played in leading the insurrection. This is after social media posts from Jan 6, where Jones brags about paying $500,000 for the Jan 6 pro-Trump rally that immediately preceded the insurrection. In that same post, Jones claims the White House instructed him to lead the march to the Capitol. So we have Alex Jones on video claiming the Trump White House literally gave him marching orders:
“In a video posted from Washington D.C. on January 6, Jones said his media company paid to organize the pro-Trump rally that took place prior to the insurrection. He also claimed that the White House instructed him to lead the march to the Capitol.”
Those were the claims. And yet Alex Jones has never been arrested in relation to those claims. Was he working with the FBI?
And as Jones describes in the following Jan 8 article, those marching orders were given to Jones by the White House three days before the event, so it wasn’t an impromptu decision. Jones also hints at a secret element behind the insurrection, asserting that 80% of the $500,000 came from an unnamed donor:
“In the Thursday video filmed in Washington, Jones said he was asked by the White House to lead the march to the Capitol three days before the event.”
A planned march, led by Alex Jones. That was the request made by the White House three days before the event. That’s what Jones claimed. He even asserted that the secret service pulled him out of the front row 30 minutes before event ended so he could lead the march. The secret service was apparently in on the plan! Along with an unnamed donor who cover $400,000 of the $500,000 Jones paid for the rally:
It’s worth recalling the claims by Jessica Watkins — the Oath Keeper member who lead the military-style “stack” formation group up to the Capitol — who said she was operating as VIP security at the Trump rally before the riot and had even been coordinating with the Secret Service in this capacity. So Jones wouldn’t be the only person to make these claims about the Secret Service working in coordination with the insurrectionist.
Finally, note Jones’s rather hilarious attempts to blame antifa on the insurrection: he claims he didn’t lead the march before a crowd was already there ready to go...a crowd of undercover antifa obviously, who were just there to make the Trump supporters look bad. We were going to lead the march to the capitol but antifa got there first to make us look bad. That’s literally his defense:
Were those really antifa dressed up as patriots? Maybe they were actually undercover FBI agents out to thwart Alex Jones and his totally non-violent patriots who merely wanted to peacefully march to the Capitol to make more speeches? These are the kinds of questions that are going to have to be asked with increasing intensity by figures like Tucker Carlson and Darren Beattie going forward. Otherwise audiences might start asking the basic question of whether or not they should believe their lying eyes and ears.
Here’s a tale of two Republican death threats. Or, rather, a two tales of Republican death threats. There are a lot more than just two death threats involved:
First, Reuters came out with a special report on the growing pandemic of death threats being hurled against the officials and workers who actually conduct US elections. It turns out the volume and intensity of the death threats is far more pervasive and severe than previously acknowledged. Especially in the contested states like Georgia. But part of what makes this story so interesting is that the pattern of Donald Trump publicly targeting election officials who then get inundated with death threats is so clear at that point that it’s possible this wave of death threats and intimidation could be used to prosecute a racketeering case against Trump. And in Georgia, where the death threats have been particularly egregious and severe following Trump’s repeated demonization of state election officials, there are indications that prosecutors are looking into exactly that kind of charge. At least if they can prove Trump’s public comments were part of a coordinated intimidation campaign.
Of course, as the article also notes, this intimidation campaign is inevitably going to work, forcing states to lose some of their more experienced election workers in upcoming elections. So while it’s possible Trump will be facing some sort of criminal charges related to this intimidation campaign, its a virtual certainty that this intimidation campaign is doing very real damage to the ability of states to carry out honest elections. As the following article makes clear, these death threats aren’t targeting the election workers. They are explicitly targeting the elections workers families. That’s the nature of the people behind this campaign. They’re doing the kind of stuff even the mafia might find unseemly:
“Trump’s relentless false claims that the vote was “rigged” against him sparked a campaign to terrorize election officials nationwide – from senior officials such as Raffensperger to the lowest-level local election workers. The intimidation has been particularly severe in Georgia, where Raffensperger and other Republican election officials refuted Trump’s stolen-election claims. The ongoing harassment could have far-reaching implications for future elections by making the already difficult task of recruiting staff and poll workers much harder, election officials say.”
Who will carry out future elections in the states currently inundated with death threats against election workers? Presumably the people carrying out the death threats and their friends. That’s who will carry out future elections in states like Georgia. At least that’s presumably the plan.
And it’s not just high-level elected officials like Brad Raffensperger who are on the receiving end of these threats. Low and mid-level workers are getting them too. Low and mid-level workers who were almost de facto volunteers given how little they are paid for the job:
And it’s not a coincidence that the waves of death threats immediately follow public statements by Donald Trump. Intentionally or not, he’s been the ring-leader of this terror circus:
Then there’s the actions by Trump’s supporters, like the posting of personal phone and home address information:
And these threats aren’t entirely anonymous. Oath Keepers have already been caught directly outside Raffensperger’s home. And when we’re talking about the actions of the Oath Keepers we are implicitly talking about the actions of Trump proxy-militia, as the Oath Keepers made clear with the profound role they played in the January Capitol Insurrection. It’s further evidence suggesting this is an intimidation campaign run in coordination with the Trump team:
And that’s all why the investigation into this intimidation campaign may not be limited to the individuals carrying out the individual threats. This could become a Trump Racketeering case:
Could we see Trump prosecuted for election-related racketeering? Let’s hope so, because otherwise it’s basically an endorsement of some sort of war lord-style ‘democracy’. But, of course, if there was a real racketeering investigation of Trump, it raises the question about what kinds of death threat campaign those prosecutors will face. It’s never easy prosecuting the mob.
But also keep in mind that, while this intimidation campaign has plenty of direct ties to the Trump team, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into assuming that much of this couldn’t be a genuine kind of ‘grass roots’ fascism bubbling up from the Trumpian fever swamps of contemporary America. A whole lot of people really do believe that Donald Trump was some sort of saviour sent by God to vanquish the evil Satanic progressives. People who fervently believe that really are probably willing to kill for Trump out of a sense of fighting for the greater good. It’s part of what made Trump’s public comments demonizing these election officials such dangerous rhetoric.
And that brings us to the next story of Republican death threats and intimidation. This time is an intra-party affair, with the threats taking place within the GOP primary of one of Florida’s most competitive congressional seats. William Braddock, a little-known competitors to GOP candidate Anna Paulina Luna, was recording telling another local Republican to stay away from Luna because Braddock was going to have his ‘Russian Ukrainian’ mafia friends assassinate Luna. Why did Luna need to be assassinated? Well, according to Braddock’s explanation during the phone call, Luna didn’t stand a chance of winning in the highly competitive district. That was his stated reasoning. He wasn’t going to kill her off for the good of the Republican because control of the House is so closely contested. It’s another snapshot into the psyche of the contemporary GOP. A psyche apparently looking for any excuse to murder their political opponents:
“I really don’t want to have to end anybody’s life for the good of the people of the United States of America,” Braddock said at one point in the conversation last week, according to the recording exclusively obtained by POLITICO. “That will break my heart. But if it needs to be done, it needs to be done. Luna is a f—ing speed bump in the road. She’s a dead squirrel you run over every day when you leave the neighborhood.””
He doesn’t want to kill Luna. But William Braddock is willing to do it. Why? Because he’s convinced she can’t win that congressional seat. And everyone congressional seat counts when the House is this divided. That’s his apparent reasoning:
And how was Braddock planning to have Luna killed? A Russian and Ukrainian hit squad. Of course. They’ll even send Braddock pictures. Paid for by Freemasons or the someone from Malta (presumably a reference to the Knights of Malta). He even seems to suggest it’s “beyond my control this point”, which raises the question of whether or not it’s actually Braddock calling for this hit or if he’s doing this on behalf of someone else:
Keep in mind that it’s very unclear that Braddock would win the primary if Luna suddenly died from an extreme case of ‘lead poisoning’. He’s a little-known candidate, which further raises questions of whether or not Braddock was acting on behalf of someone else. Which brings us to his reference to a claimed alliance with two other candidates in the primary Amanda Makki and Matt Tito:
Are we looking at a group assassination effort here? Is this just the unhinged rantings of a lone disturbed individual? Hopefully investigators will be able to figure that out, sooner rather than later. But as the first article made clear, it’s not as if the Republican Party as a whole hasn’t experienced a significant collective psychological shift during the Trump years. Political violence is a much more acceptable topic to bring up these days thanks to the Trump experience. It’s one of the few areas where Trump showed consistent leadership.
And that’s the our two tales of Republican death threats. Death threats for democracy, allegedly. I the first case, we have death threats targeting families designed to intimidate. And in the second case we had what amounted to a ‘collateral damage death threat’ issued, with Braddock telling Olszewski to stop supporting Luna because Olszewski could end up getting hit too. So it’s more like a death threat/assassination plan rolled up in one story. And in both cases, the ostensible justification for these threats was the greater good. That’s the mind set of the contemporary GOP: murdering your political opponents to save democracy. For the greater good, of course.