Stewart Rhodes, Witness At David Eastman Trial Found Very Guilty [UPDATED 5/8/23]

Exhibit 1:  Alaska Constitution Article XII

§ 4. Disqualification for Disloyalty

No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution.  (emphasis added)

Exhibit 2: Head of Texas House General Investigative Committee on why a Republican member should be expelled from the House for having sex with an intern (from Austin-American Statesman):

"The expulsion of a fellow member is a level of punishment we don't take lightly," [Republican Rep. Andrew] Murr said to House members. "It's not meant to punish the member. Rather it is intended to protect the integrity and dignity of this legislative body and to provide accountability to everyone who works and serves in this building."

[UPDATE May 8, 2023 - Texas State Rep. Bryan Slaton resigned today.]

Exhibit 3:  Below - link to and excerpts from the Sentencing Memorandum for nine Oath Keepers after conviction of multiple crimes related to Jan. 6, 2021.   

Tying the threads together:

A.  Alaska state House member David Eastman is a life member of the Oath Keepers.   Its leader, Steward Rhodes was convicted this week of, among other things,  

". . . the jury found through its guilty verdict, that Rhodes led a conspiracy to use any means necessary, up to and including the use of force, to oppose the lawful transfer of power from President Trump to President-Elect Biden. Numerous co- conspirators testified that Rhodes’ repeated messages urging forcible resistance to the election results are what caused them to join the attack on the Capitol on January 6." 

B.  A lawsuit filed after the November 2022 election against then reelected, but not yet sworn in, Rep. Eastman by one of his constituents charged that he should not be sworn in because his membership in the Oath Keepers violated the state constitution provision cited above [Exhibit 1].  See ADN Dec. 6, 2022

The trial judge found that Eastman belonged to such an organization in violation of the Constitution, however, the judge also ruled that the First Amendment of the US constitution trumped Article XII Section 4.  

C.   Steward Rhodes was a key witness for Eastman in the trial, testifying electronically while in custody.

This past week Stewart Rhodes, the head of the Proud Boys, was convicted of a number of charges relating to his organization of and promotion of the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.  The prosecutors are arguing that he be sentenced to 25 years, by far the longest sentence of any Jan 6 defendant so far.  

Below are excerpts from the sentencing memorandum from the prosecutors to the judge - for Rhodes and the eight other Oath Keepers who were convicted with him.  

The first excerpt is the opening of the memorandum dealing with the group as a whole.  The second excerpt is a couple of pages the begins the 20 page justification for Rhodes' sentencing recommendation which begins at page 81.  (The whole document is 183 pages, so you can see Rhodes takes up a good portion.)

I offer this to remind the Alaska Legislature who their colleague is.  He has a life membership in this organization which he very easily could have ended, but chose not to.  

Excerpt 1:

"GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND MOTION FOR UPWARD DEPARTURE

These defendants were prepared to fight. Not for their country, but against it. In their own words, they were “willing to die” in a “guerilla war” to achieve their goal of halting the transfer of power after the 2020 Presidential Election. As a co-conspirator recognized, their actions made these defendants “traitors.”1

Using their positions of prominence within, and in affiliation with, the Oath Keepers organization, these defendants played a central and damning role in opposing by force the government of the United States, breaking the solemn oath many of them swore as members of the United States Armed Forces. To support their operation, they amassed an arsenal of firearms across the Potomac River and led a conspiracy that culminated in a mob’s attack on the United States Capitol while our elected representatives met in a Joint Session of Congress. Two juries found all nine defendants guilty of participating in this grave conduct. These defendants are unlike any of the hundreds of others who have been sentenced for their roles in the attack on the Capitol. Each defendant therefore deserves a significant sentence of incarceration."

Excerpt 2:

"A. Stewart Rhodes

Rhodes led a conspiracy to oppose by force the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He exploited his vast public influence as the leader of the Oath

[Table of Penalty Enhancements here]

Keepers and used his talents for manipulation to goad more than twenty other American citizens into using force, intimidation, and violence to seek to impose their preferred result on a U.S. presidential election. This conduct created a grave risk to our democratic system of government and must be met with swift and severe punishment. A 25-year (300-month) sentence is compliant with the Sentencing Guidelines and necessary to satisfy the factors this Court must consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing a sentence.

All of these counts group. Accordingly, the total adjusted offense level for Rhodes would be the highest of the offense levels for the three counts, which is 33.

The government also submits that an upward departure of six levels is warranted under Note 4 for the degree to which Rhodes’ offense conduct “was calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, cmt. n.4. And Rhodes deserves no credit for “acceptance of responsibility.” This would bring the defendant’s offense level to 39, for a recommended sentence of 21.8 to 27.25 years (262 to 327 months) of incarceration. The government’s recommended sentence of 25 years (or 300 months) of incarceration is just above the mid-point of that range.

a) Additional Factual Support for the Specific Offense Characteristics

The relevant conduct of Rhodes’ co-conspirators caused and threatened to cause physical injury to the law enforcement officers protecting the Capitol on January 6 and substantial damage to the building. It is appropriate to apply Section 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) simply for the relevant conduct of the conspirators he led. But there is more.

The evidence at trial established, and the jury found through its guilty verdict, that Rhodes led a conspiracy to use any means necessary, up to and including the use of force, to oppose the lawful transfer of power from President Trump to President-Elect Biden. Numerous co- conspirators testified that Rhodes’ repeated messages urging forcible resistance to the election results are what caused them to join the attack on the Capitol on January 6. See, e.g., 10/18/22PM Tr. at 4099 (testimony of Jason Dolan that Rhodes’ words constituted a call “to take up arms and fight back”); messages “regalvanized” him to “resist the fraud” and to come to D.C. on January 6 prepared to fight against “[t]he corrupt elements in the government that were allowing the election to proceed, and obviously leftists and extremists and whoever else was in the way”); 1/3/23PM Tr. at 2556-57 (testimony of Caleb Berry that he believed, based on the messages of Defendants Rhodes and Meggs, that he and his fellow Oath Keepers had a duty to “defend the Constitution” by “fight[ing] against the federal government if I had to,” because “[w]e needed to act or we would die”). And a preponderance of the evidence shows that Rhodes ordered his co-conspirators to join in the attack on the Capitol, both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, Rhodes sent his followers knowing words of approval of the riot, like his message that “the founding generation -stormed the governors mansion in MA . . . . They didn’t fire on them, but they street fought. That’s where we are now. Next comes our ‘Lexington.” Directly, Rhodes spoke on the phone with Meggs moments before Meggs led Stack One to breach the Capitol. Gov. Ex. 1500. Accordingly, this Court can and should find that Rhodes, through his offense conduct and that of his co-conspirators, caused and created a risk of injury to others and damage to property."

Message to the Alaska legislature:

Rep. Eastman acknowledged membership in the Oath Keepers, acknowledged his continuing membership in the Oath Keepers, and that he was on the Capitol grounds on January 6 (though he did not enter the Capitol).  He has not announced that he has cancelled his membership in the Oath Keepers.  In fact, Stewart Rhodes was a key witness in Eastman's December trial.  

Eastman's membership is in clear violation of the Alaska Constitution Article XII, Section 4.  

Keep in mind the words of the Texas Investigation Committee Chair, Rep. Andrew Murr:  

"'Rather [the purpose of expulsion] is intended to protect the integrity and dignity of this legislative body and to provide accountability to everyone who works and serves in this building.'"

I'd also note that Article II, Section 12 gives the Alaska legislature the power to expel a member with a 2/3 vote.  The limits on the judge in Eastman's trial do not apply here.  

§ 12. Rules

The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure. Each house may choose its officers and employees. Each is the judge of the election and qualifications of its members and may expel a member with the concurrence of two-thirds of its members. Each shall keep a journal of its proceedings. A majority of the membership of each house constitutes a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel attendance of absent members. The legislature shall regulate lobbying. [emphasis added]

I realize that there are reasons both the Republicans and the Democrats in the Alaska House feel it might be in their best interests to leave Eastman in the House.  I realize that minor compromises must often be made to pass legislation.  But harboring a member who is a member of an organization that tried to overthrow the US presidential election, and a supporter of its leader, who was convicted of multiple crimes related to Jan 6, is not a minor compromise.  

Integrity of the legislative body is also important.  Doing the right thing only when it doesn't possibly threaten your own best interests is NOT integrity.  

[I'd note that the Texas House has not yet voted to expel Rep. Rep. Bryan Slaton as I post this, nor can I find any indication that he has resigned.]  

Trying To Make Sense Of Eastman Trial

I'm just not as deep in the Eastman trial as I've been with other trials I've covered, say, most recently the Redistricting trials.  I heard part of Day 3 and most of Day 4.  Monday, Steward Rhodes may or may not be a witness.  As I understand it, he's in Federal custody and not in control of his time.  

So take my comments as preliminary musings.

For those unaware of this trial, one of Rep. Eastman's constituents has challenged the state for allowing Eastman to run for office because the Alaska  constitution prohibits members of organizations that advocate overthrowing the government running for public office.  

"Article XII – General Provisions

§ 4. Disqualification for Disloyalty

No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution."

Eastman is a founding and life member of the Oath Keepers.  The Division of Elections said they can't make that kind of call and now it's in the courts for a determination.  The trial is being fast-tracked so a decision can be made before the legislature in convened in January.  

Matt Acuña Buxton has been live Tweeting the trial and you can get a blow by blow here.

Here are two critical Tweets he posted that outline the basic two questions and the judge's thoughts on those questions after the plaintiff's case was made:

As Judge McKenna has pointed out, the test is simple and straight forward: 

Is Eastman a member of the Oath Keepers? 
Have the Oath Keepers ever advocated or taken part in efforts to overthrow the government?

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 15, 2022

Day 4 of the Eastman trial will be underway soon. More Eastman witnesses on the agenda.

Biggest development from Day 3 was Joe Miller's motion to cut the trial short. Judge ruled that a jury would, given a most favorable view of plaintiff's evidence, disqualify Eastman.#akleg

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 16, 2022

The plaintiffs had experts who basically had studied domestic terrorism and cited numbers and talked in detail about the Oath Keepers, their by-laws, their leader Stewart Rhodes and evidence that came up in his trial and other Oath Keeper trials.  

There were two Eastman expert witnesses.  One, Guandolo, is ex military, ex-FBI, and kept diverting the discussion from Oath Keepers to "the real terrorist threats" like BLM, Antifa, etc. who he said are funded and directed by the Chinese Communists.  Right win terrorists were not an issue in his mind.  He also thinks Islamist terrorists are the biggest threat to the US, but I'm not sure if he said they were funded by the Chinese too.  

He was at the Capital on Jan 6 and it was peaceful.  The people who went into the Capitol were invited in by the police. 

The plaintiff's attorney got him to acknowledge that he's been a friend of Eastman's since they attended some far-right training sessions together.

The other witness, Michael Nichols, sounded sincere, though what he said was hard to believe.  The January 6 rally at the Capitol was peaceful, friendly, more like a tailgate party.  He also said that Oath Keepers are people who defend the Constitution and uphold the law.  

I didn't feel the plaintiff's attorney did enough to challenge these witnesses. While the second witness sounded sincere and may have been, how would he square with what he saw (he admitted he arrived late) with the footage we saw in the January 6 hearings?  There were a lot of people there in a lot of places.  And I can believe a bunch of like minded folks heeding the former presidents call to come to Washington, felt good being among so many people who felt like they did.  But it also means that people could easily have seen peaceful demonstrators in one place and time, while there was violence in other parts at other times.  

I was also taken by how sure both the witnesses were of their beliefs, even if they were not mainstream beliefs.  There are lots of people who have strong, out-of-the-mainstream beliefs.  Some of them are actually right.  It's why everyone needs to study epistemology - the field of philosophy that examines how people verify what is true.  

One person suggested the plaintiff's attorney let the two witnesses talk on and on because he wanted the Judge to see how crazy they were.  We'll see if that was a good strategy.  At one point - and I can't find it now - Judge McKenna said there were two points to prove:

Meanwhile I would also mention that Joe Miller, the defendant's attorney, while staunchly advocating for his client, is also respectful of the judge, the process, and the plaintiff's side.  

Matt Acuña Buxton has been live Tweeting the trial and you can get a blow by blow here.

Here are two critical Tweets he posted that outline the critical two questions and the judge's thoughts on those questions after the plaintiff's case was made:

As Judge McKenna has pointed out, the test is simple and straight forward:

Is Eastman a member of the Oath Keepers?
Have the Oath Keepers ever advocated or taken part in efforts to overthrow the government?

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 15, 2022

Day 4 of the Eastman trial will be underway soon. More Eastman witnesses on the agenda.

Biggest development from Day 3 was Joe Miller's motion to cut the trial short. Judge ruled that a jury would, given a most favorable view of plaintiff's evidence, disqualify Eastman.#akleg

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 16, 2022

Warnings From Half Of A Yellow Sun

The phrase, "Everything is impossible until it is done" often attributed to Nelson Mandela among others, tells us not to give up hope that we can accomplish something.  It's a positive inspiration for people fighting to elect sensible politicians or to change oppressive laws.  Surely the Supreme Court decision declaring the right to gay marriage is an example of the truth of that quote.  Tattoo it on your brain.  

But I want to look at the possibility of negative events in this post, which might be more aptly said, "Everything is impossible until it isn't."  NOT taking action because we DON'T think something bad can really happen is a problem.  

Below is a short passage from Half Of A Yellow Sun a novel by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.  

The book portrays the lives of (mostly) upper class, educated Nigerians.  Part I is titled "The Early 60s."  I'm now in Part II:  "The Late Sixties."  I'll briefly point out why I think it is relevant to us today for those who may not see in the passage what I see.

The narrator, in this chapter, speaks from the perspective of Ugwu, an Igbo, who is the houseboy of Odenigbo who teaches at the university in Nsukka. He is also Igbo though he often speaks to Ugwu in English.  Odenigbo is often referred to by Ugwu as Master. Odenigbo hosts weekly afternoon lunches for a small group of faculty - where they have lively discussions about the politics of their newly independent country.  

The gathering in the passage is a little different.  There had been a recent coup and now there are reports on the radio that the Muslim, Hausa-speaking Northerners are starting to attack the Christian Igbo soldiers who they accuse of tribal favoritism and corruption in the newly independent nation of Nigeria.

"Ever since the second coup some weeks ago, when the Igbo soldiers were killed, he had struggled to understand what was happening, read the newspapers more carefully, listened more closely to Master and his guests.  The conversations no longer ended in reassuring  laughter, and the living room often seemed clouded with uncertainties, with unfinished knowledge, as if they knew something would happen and yet did not know what.  None of them would ever had imagined that this would happen, that the announcer on ENBC Radio Enugu would be saying now, as Ugwu straightened the tablecloth, "We have confirmed reports that up to five hundred Igbo people have been killed in Maiduguri."

"Rubbish!" Master shouted.  "Did you hear that?  Did you hear that?"

"Yes, sah,"  Ugwu said.  He hoped the loud noise would not wake Baby up from her siesta.  

"Impossible!" Master said.

"Sah, your soup," Uguw said.

"Five-hundred people killed.  Absolute rubbish!  It can't be true." [emphasis added]

I'd note that in the next chapters the slaughter will get even worse.  

My sense is that most US citizens are still sitting too comfortably in their lives to believe how close we are to the impossible.  Or maybe a little too uncomfortably to believe things could really get even worse.  They are telling people like me not to be alarmists.  Things always work out.  

Well, until they don't.  

In May 2020, Trump said Trump said keeping US deaths to 100,000 would be a ‘very good job.’  Over a million people in the US died of COVID.  Where's the outrage?  Well, the million who died aren't here to complain.  And while their families were affected,  most of us didn't have physical contact with all those dead bodies.  The deaths were spread out geographically.  But let's consider how many people died.  The ten largest cities in the US have populations above 1 million.  

But the next ten, if all those deaths took place in their cities, would have been wiped out!

11	San Jose	California	1,003,120
12	Fort Worth	Texas	958,692
13	Jacksonville	Florida	938,717
14	Charlotte	North Carolina	925,290
15	Columbus	Ohio	921,605
16	Indianapolis	Indiana	892,656
17	San Francisco	California	884,108
18	Seattle	Washington	787,995
19	Denver	Colorado	760,049
20	Washington	District of Columbia	718,355

Source:  https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities

It would have a lot more impact if the deaths had been geographically concentrated in any of these cities.  The whole population would be gone!  Ghost town.  

We still don't comprehend the enormity of the disaster.  And because we refuse to even wear masks, we continue to offer our bodies as breeding ground for the virus.  Even if we have no symptoms, we give the virus a host where rest and mutate into newer and potentially even more deadly variations.

But perhaps the biggest catastrophe waiting to happen is the loss of our democracy.  Women have already had a basic human right ripped away from them.  Now far right legislators are trying to limit their right to interstate travel.  If the Supreme Court next fall cedes all voting decisions to state legislatures, Republican legislatures will gerrymander their states so that only Republicans can win.  They'll change voting laws and procedures so that potential Democratic voters will have a video game worth of obstacles blocking their attempts to vote.  

Armed (unregulated) militias could duplicate the slaughters that Odenigbo can't believe are being reported on the radio.  If you don't believe that you didn't see any footage of January 6.  You don't understand the hate and anger behind the anti-abortion laws.  You fail to consider the 320 million guns owned by US citizens.  You're not paying attention to regular mass shootings - there have already been 48 in the US in July 2022 and today is only July 17!

Some US citizens understood the gravity of things when they watched the January 6 insurrection.  Others while listening to the Congressional Jan 6 hearings.  But most people seem to be incapable of believing a fascist takeover of the United States could really happen.  Their image of the US as the land of democracy and freedom blocks the image of an authoritarian take over.  No government in history has not eventually fallen.  Despite the talk of American exceptionalism, we aren't any different.  

Some people may think that they are law abiding white citizens so they'll be fine. Only bad people have to worry.  

And many might imagine the worst, but can't imagine they have the power to do anything about it.  That's understandable and curable.  

We all need to keep these two quotes visible:

EVERYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE UNTIL IT IS NOT.  

To remember that losing our democracy is very possible.

EVERYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE UNTIL IT IS DONE.

To remember that we can work to preserve our democracy and defeat those who want to kill it.  

The most immediate thing you can do is make sure as many people as possible vote blue. Don't believe me?  Stacy Abrams got enough blue voters registered and to the polls in Georgia in 2022 to give its electoral college votes to Biden and to replace two Republican US Senators with Democrats.  She did it by planning and hard work.   There are many organizations working hard to duplicate that kind of work.  In 2020, nearly 2/3 of eligible voters voted.  That was a presidential election year when more people vote.  It was a record high.  But it means that 1/3 of voters did NOT vote.    

You can help find those non-voters and encourage them to vote blue.  Here are some organizations working on that.  

Six Organizations Getting People to Vote and How to Help Them

Fearless Action is a youth led group getting people to vote.

The League of Conservation Voters

Fascist/authoritarian takeover isn't inevitable.  But the fact that majority of the Republicans in the House and Senate won't say that Biden won the election, but instead are denying the insurrection, and are attacking the January 6 investigation, and doing nothing to prevent it from happening in 2024 is not a good sign.  

While the 2022 election is critical to maintaining a democracy, the larger threat looming over the world is Climate Change.  While a growing number of people are convinced that climate change is real, they aren't willing to fight hard to slow it down.  Every day of delay means more extreme climate change impacts and more suffering of all living creatures on the planet.  (Well, there probably will be some creatures who will find a way to thrive in the new earthly reality.)

I'm guessing the title of the book is related to the flag of the short-lived breakaway country of Biafra.

Choking The Secret Service, Smashing China, Taking Down Security Magnetometer - Thoughts From Today's Jan6 Committee Hearing

The headlines are expressing surprise at how much the the January 6 Hearings are revealing and Republicans are claiming not to have understood how serious things were.  

From @PalmerReport:

CNN says many Republican officials are “stunned” by today’s bombshells about Trump. No. They knew he was every bit this evil. They’re only stunned that the January 6th Committee was this successful at digging it all up.

No one who has paid any attention whatsoever, didn't know how bad it was.  Only those who had a  vested interest in believing Trump should have known.  

Here are some thoughts which I started jotting down after the first break today:

1.  Most pressing question for me was: what motivates a person like Cassidy Hutchinson, who has served a number of far right politicians before moving to the White House, to now testify about what she saw?  How did she make the decision?  I understand that we tolerate flaws in people we love or people we hope will achieve important outcomes.  Democrats defended Clinton during his impeachment trial because they thought his presidency was more important.  I'm just curious how people decide their hero has cross one line too many?  

Later, Hutchinson actually told us it was watching the her big boss actually encouraging the insurrection.  

 "As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic, it was un-American. We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie,".  

2.  Dripping Ketchup, Smashing China:  In regards to that first question,  I'm sure there are some very proper GOP women who will finally be convinced after hearing that he smashed the china against the wall.  

Hutchinson testified that T was so mad at Barr for an interview with the media (AP I think) that he threw his lunch against the wall, getting it full of ketchup, and breaking the (White House presumably) china.  

They might think that groping 'those kind of women' was just boys being boys.  But visualizing the ketchup dripping down the wall and seeing the broken china pieces on the floor will be enough for some to draw the line.  

3.  The Magnetometer,  steering wheel, and the neck.  Hutchinson testified that Trump learned the audience for his speech wasn't as big as he wanted because his supporters didn't want to go through the Magnetometer machines and have their weapons confiscated.  He said they weren't going to hurt him and should keep their weapons and take them to the Capitol

“I don’t fucking care they have weapons,” he allegedly said. “Take the fucking mags away.” Then in his speech, he urged those same supporters to march down to the Capitol. 

And then when the secret service refused his order to drive to the Capitol, Hutchinson testified that he grabbed the steering wheel and the neck of the secret service guarding him trying to get them to turn around and drive to the Capitol with the mob.  

"“I’m the f—-ing president, take me to the Capitol now,” he told his staff, according to Hutchinson. The president lunged for the steering wheel, Ornato told Hutchinson, and when Engel tried to restrain him, Trump lunged for Engel and tried to grab him around his throat area."  (MSNBC)

I'd note T has denied these events ever happened.  Of course.  Maybe he should call up Rep. Thompson and volunteer to testify under oath.  

4.  Hanged versus Hung.  She talked about T encouraging the people who wanted Pence 'hung.'  Just for the record, pictures and clothes and even juries can be hung.  But when talking about people executed with ropes around their necks, the right word is 'hanged'.  I don't think it matters too much, but it is a curiosity of the English language.  

5.  Cassidy Hutchinson is merely 25 years old and has had positions working for various powerful Republican politicians since graduating from college.  She was remarkably composed at the hearing today.  

People might tell you we need to get past this and just move on. We don't do that for most crimes where there's an accused unless the prosecution doesn't think there is enough evidence, or the accused is a white police officer or very wealthy and/or well connected.  

Not enforcing the law vigorously against those who tried to overthrow the election and end American democracy as we know it, by people who continue to call the visible leader of that movement their hero and want him to run again in 2024, only encourages such behavior to continue. Putting every insurrectionist  in  prison isn't going to change their minds, just as imprisoning a murderer isn't going to change his mind.  We put them away to stop them from committing more crimes. Though a civilized country would find far more humane and effective ways to deter and rehabilitate then the US prison system. 

And for those Republicans, particularly in Congress, who want to just let it go, I'd remind them that there were ten Congressional Benghazi investigations from April 2013 to December 2016.

"Despite numerous allegations against Obama administration officials of scandal, cover-up and lying regarding the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, none of the ten investigations found any evidence to support those allegations."

And then there was the Clinton email investigations.  The Republicans are less effective in investigations that end up in prosecutions.  They're more effective in creating 'scandals' to hurt their opponents' election chances.   

Finally,  John Durham is still investigating the FBI investigation of the Russian connections to Trump.  He was appointed in May 2019.  The recent trial jury in that investigation found attorney John Sussman not guilty.  That's over three years for people whose math is rusty.  At about $1 million per year.  

New Season Of Sopranos Debuts At House Jan 6 Insurrection Hearings

 The new season stars DJT as Tony Soprano and his head honchos trying to persuade elections officials to change elections results.  With visits to Arizona and Georgia, threatening phone calls.  It's all there including thugs sent out to intimidate election officials and their grandmothers.  

Here's the full hour long audio recording of the then president's phone call to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State pressuring him to find enough votes to swing Georgia over to Trump.  (They only played a snippet at the hearing.)

Later in the episode we heard from two election workers - mother and daughter - who had been named by Trump and accused of counting fraudulent Biden votes.  These women had T thugs at their homes harassing them.  Even going into the grandmother's house looking to make a citizens arrest of the two women Trump had accused.  Imagine how an older black woman in Georgia might react to a crowd of angry white men breaking into her house.  She lived when lynchings were still happening on a regular basis.  

Here's Faye Moss' testimony:

What the hearing left out - or I just missed - was that these two women have filed two lawsuits over this.

"Protect Democracy, through its Law for Truth project, represents Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss in two landmark defamation lawsuits. Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss served as election workers in Fulton County, Georgia during the 2020 election. False claims that they engaged in ballot fraud in that capacity have caused them to suffer extensive harassment and threats of physical violence.

The first suit names The Gateway Pundit, a website which the complaint calls “among the leading purveyors of false information in the United States.” Law for Truth has undertaken this representation in partnership with the law firms DuBose Miller LLC, Dowd Bennett LLP, and Kastorf Law, LLC and the Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic. The Gateway Pundit, along with its founding editor Jim Hoft, and contributor Joe Hoft, knowingly disseminated blatantly false stories claiming that Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss were involved in a conspiracy to commit election fraud, and continued to publish these untruths long after they were proven to be false. 

The second suit names Herring Networks, Inc., which owns and operates One America News Network (OAN), OAN CEO Robert Herring, OAN President Charles Herring, OAN staffer Chanel Rion, and frequent OAN guest Rudolph Giuliani. The suit alleges that the defendants have knowingly and repeatedly disseminated false information about Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss and their work for the County on election night. In this suit, Law for Truth represents Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss, in partnership with the law firms Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, DuBose Miller LLC, and Kastorf Law, LLC."

Sitting behind Ms Moss in the opening of the video is Mike Gottlieb, Ms. Moss and her mom's attorney. who has been filing suits for other election workers defamed and attacked.  

Here's a link to the actual suit against OAN.  It was filed Dec. 21, 2021.  

Did the committee not mention these lawsuits to gain greater pity for Ms. Moss?  I don't know.  But I personally feel much better knowing that steps are being taken to punish those who knowingly spread lies like this that cause great harm to people doing their jobs.  Jobs that are fundamental to democracy.  (It was amended in May when OAN OAN retracted its claims about Georgia, Moss, and Freeman.  That's good, but were there no consequences other than the expenses of hiring a lawyer for the harm they've done these women?  And what about the people who harassed them and entered the grandmother's home?  If there are no consequences they become emboldened to do it again.  Our system is failing.)

We need as many strong, upstanding citizens as possible to work and volunteer at voting places in every election to make sure elections are not stolen by the likes of Don Soprano.  

History's Verdict, SCOTUS & Presidential Elections, Right Has Good Reason To Hate Pelosi, Judging Others

There's guns, abortion, Ginni Thomas, Jan 6, COVID, Louis DeJoy still running the post office, the high rejection rates in Alaska's recent all mail in election, climate change related fires and storms yet no serious action to curb carbon emissions, Ukraine, attacks on LGBTQ,  . . . 

There are just too many fronts for anyone to meaningfully comment about much.  

So I'm limiting this to a couple of very narrowly focused thoughts.  

1.  How Will History Report All This?  People have been talking about how history will judge things that are coming to light at the Jan 6 hearings.  But I've been concerned that if gerrymandering and misinformation and voter suppression work, those in control will be the people who will write history in T's favor.

But then I realized that historians around the world will also be writing this history and if we're lucky, they'll preserve the real story.  And if we're even luckier, the hearings - like the Watergate hearings did eventually - will shock enough people into realizing how close we were to a coup.  And we'll have a repeat of the post-Watergate cleaning up.  

2.  The Supreme Court And Presidential Elections.  As I watched Twitter today there was a lot of attention on Ginni Thomas, Tom Eastman, Clarence Thomas, and Alito.  Now people may think this is all just wild speculation, but I've been fairly careful with who I follow on Twitter, and I've found Twitter gives me a one to three day heads up on what gets covered in the mainstream media.  But as I was listening to the chatter that suggests Eastman thought that if the ratification of the election got delayed a week or so, then Thomas and Alito would support the T position.  Far fetched?  

Then I thought about how the Court intervened to interrupt the Florida recounts to declare Bush president.  They've done this before.  John Roberts was on the Bush side of that verdict. And I began to think about how that too was probably planned out in advance.  Scary stuff.  Maybe some researchers will get some of those involved to offer more on how that was pulled off.  

3.  Nancy Pelosi, an American Hero.  Several people gave Pelosi a lot of credit today.  First, for calling Congress back after the insurrection so they could finish ratifying the election.  Not giving the Court any time to intervene.  Second for going ahead with the Jan 6 hearings.  That she'd even pulled a fast one of McConnell who refused to participate in a joint Senate and House hearing that would have give T Republicans much more power. (As someone said, they would have subpoenaed Hunter Biden and interrogated him for three months to block everything else.)  But McConnell said no, and now the Democrats can do what they want and they're doing it well.  With the considerable assistance of Liz Cheney.  

4.  Lessons in Making Judgments About People - Exhibit 1:  Liz Cheney.  I totally disagree with most of her policy beliefs.  Never expected to be saying positive things about her. But I do share her belief in the rule of law.  And the various T insiders who have been testifying remind us that despite the many morally questionable decisions they had to make to serve Trump, they did have some red lines they wouldn't cross.

As Someone Who Closely Followed The Live Watergate Hearings, This Is Really Different

 I started this post while I was watching what I thought were the live Jan 6 hearings Thursday.  I was watching on YouTube, but I also followed the Twitter feed on the hearings and people were commenting on things I wasn't seeing.  In the long run, that's good, because what I was watching was not what I would expect after the committee hired a consultant to help them make the hearings more compelling.  

Turns out what I was watching was live in July 2021.  For anyone objecting to the committee getting professional help, just watch the old hearing.  You'll be thankful.  Same sort of thing - four law enforcement officers telling their stories, comments by committee members - but dragged on too long and was repetitive.

Then I found rerun of Thursday's hearing and things made sense.  It was significantly tighter and more compelling that the first one.  

But, it still was a very different experience than the Watergate hearings.  Those hearings had both Democrats and Republicans (a lot more even numbers) who took turns questioning witnesses.  Yes, like most committee hearings, they had already questioned the witnesses in private and pretty much knew what they were going to say.  But Republicans were able to do a sort of cross examination of the witnesses, softening the edges of those testifying against Nixon and bringing out more context in general.  

Also, revelations came out over time.  While the committee knew what was coming each day, often they only learned things a day or two before.  Like when Alexander Butterfield revealed that Nixon had a secret recording system in his office.  That was a blockbuster discovery.  It meant everything that people testified had been said could actually be checked on tapes.  Nixon went to the Supreme Court to prevent the release of the tapes claiming executive privilege.  No one knew what the Court would say.  But when they said the tapes weren't protected, it was pretty much over for Nixon once they started comparing the testimony against the tapes.  Lots of lying about what people knew and when they knew it.   Here's the part where Butterfield reveals the existence of the tapes.

This looks more like Trump impeachment hearings than the Jan 6 hearings, except the Republicans weren't stonewalling the whole event.  The interrogator in the clip is Fred Thompson, on the Republican staff, and later a GOP Senator from Tennessee.  In those days GOP staffers and members of Congress who helped investigate the GOP president weren't shunned by their party. And I don't recall any women or people of color involved.  Lots of Southerners, who were mostly Democrats in those days.  

The event Thursday night seemed more like the prosecution making their opening or closing argument before the jury.  Lots of gushing over the witnesses.  It was a strong, logical, evidence backed argument, but I can understand why GOP viewers might think it was partisan.  The tone of the Watergate hearings was much more formal.  While witnesses were thanked, they weren't fawned over.  

I'd also note the timing of  the events.   

• The break-in occurred May 28, 1972 (50 years ago last month).  
• Nixon was reelected in November 1972
• Alexander Butterfield testified before the Watergate Committee on July 16, 1973.
• Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.

These events just plodded along.  Here's a detailed timeline.  

The break-in didn't happen on national television like the insurrection did, but it took over two years before Nixon left office.  He resigned rather than be impeached.  Had he not resigned, it would have taken much longer. 

Two years for our current scandal will be January 2023.  And while Nixon supporters stayed loyal until the end, when it became clear he had lied to the American public, House and Senate Republicans did NOT rally to support him. (A few did, but most let him know he was going to be impeached if he didn't resign.)  

 [I realize as I write this there could be readers who don't know details beyond the word "Watergate." The Watergate housed a then new luxury hotel and office space and apartments.  The Democratic National Committee had an office there and Nixon operatives broke into those offices to spy on the Democratic campaign headquarters.  Sort of like breaking into the Democratic National Committee's computers in 2016] 

"LEFFINGWELL attempted to push past me and other officers. When he was deterred from advancing further into the building, LEFFINGWELL punched me repeatedly with a closed fist"

George Washington University's Program on Extremism has a website where you can see the documents being submitted about the people apprehended by the FBI and, I think,  other law enforcement agencies.

"The Program on Extremism has launched a project to create a central database of court records related to the events of January 6, 2021. This page will be updated as additional individuals are charged with criminal activities and new records are introduced into the criminal justice system.

If you’d like to contribute to offset the costs associated with court record fees and research on this and other projects, you can support the Program’s research here."

Different people have different documents filed.  Some I've seen are (links take you to an example):

Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint

Statement of Facts

Criminal Complaint

Indictment

Detention Memo

 The documents I have looked at were mostly Statements of Facts, which seem to have the following general structure (I've given an example of each part):

1.  Identify the person filing the report and where they work

"On January 6, 2021, your affiant  [a person who swears to an affidavit.], Michael Attard was on duty and performing my official duties as a Special Agent. Specifically, I am assigned to the Counter-terrorism squad tasked with investigating criminal activity in and around the Capitol grounds. As a Special Agent, I am authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention, investigation, or prosecution of a violation of Federal criminal laws."  From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Aaron%20Mostofsky%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

2.  Background information on what happened January 6 in the Capitol

"On January 6, 2021, a joint session of the United States Congress convened at the United States Capitol, which is located at First Street, SE, in Washington, D.C. During the joint session, elected members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate were meeting in separate chambers of the United States Capitol to certify the vote count of the Electoral College of the 2020 Presidential Election, which had taken place on November 3, 2020. The joint session began at approximately 1:00 p.m. Shortly thereafter, by approximately 1:30 p.m., the House and Senate adjourned to separate chambers to resolve a particular objection. Vice President Michael R. Pence was present and presiding, first in the joint session, and then in the Senate chamber." From https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Greg%20Rubenacker%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

3.  How the agency got information about the individual being charged."

"On January 7, 2021, the FBI received several tips from the public (tipsters) that PATRICK MONTGOMERY of Littleton, Colorado, was seen in photographs posted on Facebook inside the Capitol building Senate Chambers on January 6, 2021. The persons providing the tips also indicated that MONTGOMERY had posted photographs from inside the Senate Chamber on that same day.
A tipster, who will be referred to as T-1, identified MONTGOMERY as the man circled in a photograph below, wherein he appears to be standing inside the Senate Chambers:
MONTGOMERY appears to be part of the crowd that entered the Senate Chambers on January 6, 2021, and, as explained below, MONTGOMERY is wearing the same clothes as he was wearing outside the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Your Affiant spoke with T-1 on January 12, 2021. T-1 told your Affiant that IT is a Facebook friend of MONTGOMERY and that IT knew MONTGOMERY because they worked together as river guides for three years.
Another tipster, who will be referred to as T-2, provided a post from MONTGOMERY’S Facebook page, wherein a member of the public posted on Facebook the photograph above and a commented to MONTGOMERY asking, “Is this you? I saw it on another page and it looked like

Case 1:21-mj-00044-RMM Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/21 Page 3 of 8
you.” T-1 responded, “I have saved this photo and will be indetifying [sic] you to authorities,” to which MONTGOMERY replied, “Got nothing to hide...”
Following this post, MONTGOMERY corresponded with T-1 by email on January 7, 2021. T-1 provided the email exchange to your Affiant. MONTGOMERY’S email address contains the name of MONTGOMERY’S hunting company, Pmonte Outdoors: pmonte3006@[redacted]. In response to T-1 stating, “You have been reported to the police in DC as well as the FBI,” MONTGOMERY responded, “I’m not a scared cat or running from anything. . . . Im [sic] so deeply covered by the best Federal Defense lawyers in the country in case you chicken shit cry boys don’t want it takes to defend our freedom from these corrupt politicians.” MONTGOMERY went on to explain, “I didn’t storm the castle violently. My group was let in peacefully by the police we were talking to with respect. We came a[n]d left peacefully before the anarchist and Antifa showed up breaking shit and being hoodlums.”  From https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Patrick%20Montgomery%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf       

4.  Description of the person and what that person did

"At approximately 2:30 p.m. on January 6, 2021, I was performing my official duties on the first floor of the United States Capitol building. In reacting to the crowd that had breached a window of the building, I moved to a hallway in the northwest corner of the building, i.e., the Senate wing of the Capitol building. While there, I attempted to form a barrier with other officers to stop or deter additional individuals from entering the Capitol building. In the course of this effort and while inside the Capitol building, I encountered an adult male who later identified himself to me as Mark Jefferson LEFFINGWELL. LEFFINGWELL attempted to push past me and other officers. When he was deterred from advancing further into the building, LEFFINGWELL punched me repeatedly with a closed fist. I was struck in the helmet that I was wearing and in the chest. Working with other officers, I was able to gain control over LEFFINGWELL, who attempted to struggle while being detained. I transported LEFFINGWELL to United States Capitol Police headquarters for processing. While in custody, but prior to being advised of his Miranda rights, LEFFINGWELL spontaneously apologized for striking the officer. When told that the officer who LEFFINGWELL had struck was me, LEFFINGWELL apologized to me for striking me."  From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Mark%20Jefferson%20Leffingwell%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

5.  List of the specific charges.

"Based on the foregoing, your affiant submits that there is probable cause to believe that BRIAN MCCREARY violated 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (2), which makes it a crime to (1) knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do; and (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions. For purposes of Section 1752 of Title 18, a “restricted building” includes a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service, including the Vice President, is or will be temporarily visiting; or any building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.
Finally, your affiant submits there is also probable cause to believe that BRIAN MCCREARY violated 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2), which makes it a crime to willfully and knowingly: (D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; (E) obstruct, or impede passage through or within, the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings; and (G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings." From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Brian%20McCreary%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

When I started writing this post I went through various statements and took some excerpts to give you a sense of what they say.  As I looked at various statements I realized they followed a general pattern.  So I went back and developed the above list of examples of each of the five part of the statements.  

So, now that I've finished that, I have already given you a lot of excerpts.  But below are the ones I started out with.  

From this Statement of Fact

"TIMOTHY LOUIS HALE-CUSANELLI (HALE-CUSANELLI) of Colts Neck, New Jersey, traveled to the District of Columbia to participate in a rally and protest at the U.S. Capitol. HALE-CUSANELLI is enlisted in the United States Army Reserves, and also works as a contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle where he maintains a “Secret” security clearance and has access to a variety of munitions.

On January 12, 2021, I received information from an individual who has been enrolled as a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) with NCIS. The CHS reported that HALE-CUSANELLI told the CHS that HALE-CUSANELLI was present at the riot at the United States Capitol Building and, as part of the riot, he entered the Capitol building itself. HALE-CUSANELLI then showed CHS videos on his cell phone which depicted HALE- CUSANELLI making harassing and derogatory statements toward Capitol Police officers both inside and outside the Capitol building.

During our meeting on January 12, 2021, the CHS reported to me that HALE-CUSANELLI is an avowed white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer who posts video opinion statements on YouTube proffering extreme political opinions and viewpoints under the title the “Based Hermes Show.” HALE-CUSANELLI also posts similar content in other forums. Prior to traveling to the rally and protest on January 6, 2021, HALE-CUSANELLI wrote “Trust the plan, it’s the final countdown, stay tuned next episode” and 'Trust the plan, major announcement soon.'”

From this Statement of Fact

"On or about January 6, 2021, an individual called the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center to report that the individual seen in the widely circulated Getty Images photograph (Figure 1) was named ADAM JOHNSON. The caller claimed that ADAM JOHNSON was a resident of Bradenton, Florida, and that the caller knew this information because he/she shared a mutual friend with ADAM JOHNSON. The FBI conducted research on government databases and learned that there was an individual named ADAM JOHNSON associated with residences in two cities in Florida: Bradenton and Parrish (which is near Bradenton). A search of the Florida’s Department of Motor Vehicles returned ADAM JOHNSON’s driver’s license photograph. By comparing this photograph to the image of PERSON 1, your affiant reasonably believes that PERSON 1 is identical to ADAM JOHNSON.

On or about January 8, 2021, the FBI consulted with members of the Speaker’s staff and learned that before the forced entry to the Capitol building began on January 6, 2021, the Speaker’s lectern was stored in the Speaker’s Suite, located under a staircase to the third floor on the House side of the Capitol building. On or about January 7, 2021, the lectern was found by a member of the Senate staff in the Red corridor of the Senate wing off the Rotunda in the Capitol building. According to the House of Representatives’ curator, the Speaker’s lectern has a market value of more than $1,000."

From this Statement of Facts:

"SCHAFFER was among the rioters who sprayed United States Capitol Police officers with “bear spray,” a form of capsaicin pepper spray sold by many outdoors retailers, as part of their efforts to push the officers back inside the Capitol and breach the Capitol Building themselves. SCHAFFER was photographed and captured on surveillance video carrying “bear spray” and engaging in verbal altercations with Capitol Police officers inside the Capitol Building.SCHAFFER is seen holding a clear sunglasses in one photograph, and bear spray in other photographs.

The photographs show SCHAFFER in a blue hooded sweatshirt under a tactical vest with a baseball cap that reads “Oath Keepers Lifetime Member.” The “Oath Keepers” is an organization that characterizes itself as a militia of former law enforcement and military personnel and has often, as a group, urged President Trump to declare Martial Law in order to prevent the Congress from certifying the Electoral College Results.

SCHAFFER, who is the front man of the heavy metal band “Iced Earth,” has long held far-right extremist views. During an interview in 2017, SCHAFFER identified himself as an “anarchist” and referred to the federal government as a “criminal enterprise.” During that same interview, SCHAFFER stated that the 2016 Presidential election was 'rigged.'”