1/6 Insurrection Investigation

[Rick Plant]

Exclusive: Witness Claims Trump’s Chief of Staff Was on Phone Call Planning Jan. 6 March on Capitol
Trump’s team agreed it would encourage supporters to march, but try to “make it look like they went down there on their own,” Scott Johnston tells Rolling Stone



Donald Trump’s White House chief of staff and a national campaign spokesperson were involved in efforts to encourage the president’s supporters to march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. That’s according to a person who says he overheard a key planning conversation between top Trump officials and the organizers of the Jan. 6 rally on the White House Ellipse — and has since testified to House investigators about the phone call.

Trump and his allies have tried to minimize his role in calling his supporters to the Capitol and argue he was simply participating in a lawful, peaceful demonstration.

Scott Johnston — who worked on the team that helped plan the Ellipse rally — says that’s just not so. He claims that leading figures in the Trump administration and campaign deliberately planned to have crowds converge on the Capitol, where the 2020 election was being certified — and “make it look like they went down there on their own.”

Johnston, who says he described the phone call to House select committee investigators, detailed his allegations in a series of conversations with Rolling Stone. Johnston says he overheard Mark Meadows, then-former President Trump’s chief of staff, and Katrina Pierson, Trump’s national campaign spokeswoman, talking with Kylie Kremer, the executive director of Women for America First, about plans for a march to the Capitol. Johnston said the conversation was clearly audible to him since it took place on a speakerphone as he drove Kremer between the group’s rallies in the final three days of 2020.

“They were very open about how there was going to be a march,” Johnston says. “Everyone knew there was going to be a march.”

According to Johnston, Meadows, Pierson, and Kremer discussed the possibility of setting up a permit to make the march from the White House to the Capitol official. He says the trio decided against officially permitting the march, citing concerns about security costs and about the optics of a sitting president organizing a push towards Congress as lawmakers certified his loss in the 2020 election. Ultimately, Johnston tells Rolling Stone, they planned to “direct the people down there and make it look like they went down there on their own.”

Kremer’s group, Women for America First, helped lead the Jan. 6 rally at the White House Ellipse, where Trump delivered a speech and told supporters to “fight like hell” and said he expected them to march on the Capitol. “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said. As Trump spoke, people began leaving the rally to walk toward the Capitol.

The president’s camp insists this wasn’t part of any pre-planned push. In the book where he recounted his time in the White House, Meadows called the Jan. 6 violence “the actions of a handful of fanatics across town.”

Johnston’s account suggests there was a deliberate strategy by Trump’s allies to have supporters descend on the Capitol. Such a connection would implicate top White House and campaign officials in drawing crowds to Congress without a permit — a step that could have required added security and may have allowed law enforcement to better prepare for the day’s events. Those crowds overwhelmed the Capitol police and engaged in an hours-long battle with law enforcement. Four people died during the attack.

According to Johnston, rally organizers were “constantly” using “burner phones” — cheap, prepaid cells that can be harder to trace because they’re not personally identified with a user or a user’s account — “to talk about” potential permits and plans for a march with Trump aides.

Johnston says that, in the key phone conversation he overheard, the group settled on ordering a march without an official permit. “Nobody wanted to do it because they didn’t want to pay for it,” Johnston says of obtaining a permit. “They didn’t want to have to provide security and all the other expenses.”

On Dec. 20, 2021, Johnston testified to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, and he provided Rolling Stone multiple pieces of documentation showing his interactions with the committee. Johnston also says he told investigators that he knew the call took place on a “burner phone” in the final days of 2020 because the discussion came right after Kylie Kremer directed him to purchase three phones for her group.

“I’m the one that bought the burner phones,” Johnston says.

The committee did not respond to an inquiry regarding Johnston’s allegations about the rally organizers and about his testimony. A source familiar tells Rolling Stone that committee investigators have asked Amy Kremer, Kylie’s mother and the chair of Women for America First, about their use of burner phones. The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said Amy Kremer has denied using the devices. The source did, however, confirm that key phones used by the rally organizers were purchased in California. That corroborates the account from Johnston, who says he told committee investigators that he bought the phones at a CVS in Cathedral City, California.

The committee is also seeking Meadows’ phone records via a subpoena sent to Verizon, but the former White House chief of staff sued to block that subpoena in December. The case is ongoing. A spokesman for Meadows declined to comment.

Rolling Stone reported in November that Kremer and other Jan. 6 rally organizers used burner phones to communicate with White House officials during the planning stages of that event. After that report, Kylie and Amy Kremer denied using burner phones in a statement from their lawyers. Johnston, who was one of the sources for that reporting, says Kylie Kremer directed him to purchase the phones on Dec. 28, 2020, so she could “communicate with high-level people.”

According to Johnston, on the call with Meadows and Pierson, Kylie Kremer was adamant that Women for America First could not be publicly affiliated with the march, even though she privately approved of it. Johnston says Meadows was willing to help secure a permit for the march but was also amenable to Trump supporters converging on the Capitol without one.

Pierson disputed Johnston’s version of events in a text message to Rolling Stone. “No such call took place,” Pierson wrote. Pierson further suggested that she did not know who Johnston was and that “phone records” would disprove his “defamatory claims.”

Asked about Johnson’s allegations, Kylie and Amy Kremer responded through their spokesman, Chris Barron. “The claim regarding the substance of any phone call between Katrina Pierson, Kylie Kremer, and Mark Meadows is absolutely false,” Barron wrote. “If anyone gave testimony to the J6 committee claiming that such a call took place and that was the substance of the call should be incredibly concerned — the last I looked lying to Congress was a crime.”

Organizers of the Ellipse rally told Rolling Stone last year that they participated in “dozens” of meetings with White House staff and pro-Trump Republicans in Congress as they planned protests against Trump’s election loss. And Rolling Stone reviewed text messages among the rally organizers — including Johnston — in which the organizers said they were “following [Trump’s] lead” in planning the Ellipse rally.

While the House select committee is clearly investigating the high-level organization of the Ellipse rally and related efforts to overturn Trump’s election loss, it does not have criminal authority. The congressional committee can, however, make referrals to the Justice Department, which is conducting its own investigation. Thus far, the FBI has largely focused on militant groups that were present at the Capitol and people involved in the storming of the building, hundreds of whom have been arrested and now face criminal prosecutions, jail time, probation, and fines. While these rank-and-file supporters have suffered criminal consequences, many prominent figures involved in the Jan. 6 rally remain members of good standing within the GOP, where they continue to hold powerful and lucrative positions in and out of government.

Rolling Stone cannot independently verify Johnston’s claim about the December phone conversation. He says he’s unaware of any recording of the call. The only other person Johnston believes may have overheard it is another Ellipse rally planner, Matt McCleskey. Johnston says McCleskey was also in the car when Kylie Kremer spoke about the march with Meadows and Pierson. However, Johnston says it’s unclear if McCleskey would have heard the call, as the staffer often wore headphones as he worked during the long drives.

McCleskey tells Rolling Stone Johnston’s story is “not true” and says he was “never in the presence of a phone call involving Meadows and Pierson.”

The committee has subpoenaed Meadows, Pierson, and Kremer. In a letter that accompanied those subpoenas, Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) indicated his interest in communications the Kremers had with Meadows. Thompson also indicated to Meadows that the committee is interested in the role Trump’s former chief of staff played in planning the Jan. 6 events. “It appears that you were with or in the vicinity of President Trump on Jan. 6, had communications with the President and others on Jan. 6 regarding events at the Capitol, and are a witness regarding activities of that day,” Thompson wrote. “Moreover, at least one press report indicates you were in communication with organizers of the Jan. 6 rally, including Amy Kremer.”

Johnston had been volunteering for conservative causes since long before Jan. 6, 2021. In 2015, he worked in Arizona with Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lawrence, two right-wing activists who later joined the rally planning team led by the Kremers. Stockton and Lawrence introduced Johnston to the Kremers, and he assisted them during months of rallies they staged in the lead-up to Jan. 6.

With multiple investigations into Jan. 6, cooperating witnesses can have a variety of motivations for coming forward. Some may hope to avoid legal trouble while others could be eager to shape the public narrative or settle scores. Ultimately, Johnston said his relationship with the Kremers soured, in part, because he came to view them as “total grifters.” Johnston claimed he told investigators that the Kremers used donated funds for personal expenses. In text messages reviewed by Rolling Stone from the days after the Capitol attacks, Johnston accused Kylie Kremer of having him accompany her on a “weird and inappropriate” trip to go “bra shopping.” Johnston says he directly witnessed Kylie take cash that was collected at a Women for America First “March for Trump” event for her purchases on that trip. 

“She took a handful right out of the donor basket,” Johnston said.

The Ellipse rally was not the only major pro-Trump event that was set to take place in Washington on Jan. 6. There were also plans for a rally called the “Wild Protest” that was to be held alongside the Capitol grounds. One of the organizers of that demonstration, far-right activist Ali Alexander, claimed in a television special produced by Fox News host Tucker Carlson last November that a Trump campaign staffer approached him at the Ellipse Rally and directed him — as well as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones — to lead a march to the Wild Protest site. “A Trump campaign staffer walks up to me and says, ‘You know, Ali, there are people leaving the overflow and there are already tens of thousands of people at the U.S. Capitol. With your presence and the presence of Alex Jones, why don’t you guys walk down Pennsylvania, gather people together, and then position them for your rally.'”

Jones made a similar claim in a video that he posted on Jan. 7, 2021. “The White House told me — three days before — we’re going to have you lead the march,” Jones said. “Trump will tell people, ‘Go and I’m going to meet you at the Capitol.”

Alexander and Jones have both been subpoenaed by the House select committee. In letters accompanying those subpoenas, which were sent last year, the committee indicated it was interested in the role both men played in plans to march to the Capitol.

Alexander and Jones — who both have a long history of promoting false conspiracy theories — have not produced any evidence of their claims or named the White House and campaign staffers who they say directed them. The pair have insisted their actions on Jan. 6 were non-violent and law abiding. Jones did not respond to a request for comment. In an email, Alexander, who did not respond to requests to name the alleged staffer, claimed “event planning is not one dimensional.”

"No one instructed anyone to have a structured march (formation, banners, fencing, etc.) that I’m aware of. The walk over was colloquially described as ‘a march’ by some, as ‘a walk over’ by others,” Alexander wrote. “And that was an evolving issue that developed and changed the advertising or characterization of the event as it was quickly planned.”

Stockton and Lawrence have told Rolling Stone they were among a group of Ellipse rally organizers who had concerns about the Wild Protest due to Alexander’s links to militant groups and the rally’s proximity to the Capitol. The pair claimed Amy Kremer brought those concerns to Meadows and that they were under the impression he would resolve the issue. Earlier this month, the committee subpoenaed Kimberly Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign aide and the fiancée of the former president’s son Don Jr. In a letter accompanying that subpoena, the committee indicated it was interested in “concerns raised” about Alexander’s presence at the Ellipse rally.

Johnston said that, in his committee interview, the investigators were specifically focused on whether Meadows knew about plans to have a march on the Capitol. This questioning left Johnston with the impression that other witnesses testified the former White House chief of staff was involved in plans to have crowds go from the Ellipse to the Capitol. “I don’t think I’m the only one that’s told them that he knew about the march,” Johnston says of Meadows.

“Mark Meadows and Katrina Pierson,” Johnston says of the investigators, “that’s the two they’re going after.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jan6-trump-mark-meadows-capitol-attack-republicans-1324218/

[Rick Plant]

Convicted Cowboys for Trump founder complains Marjorie Taylor Greene didn’t attend his Capitol riot trial
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/cowboys-trump-couy-griffin-marjorie-taylor-greene-b2041673.html

[Rick Plant]

Jan. 6 committee to hold Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in criminal contempt



The House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots is preparing to hold two more Trump allies in criminal contempt.

As reported by Politico's Kyle Cheney, the committee is going to vote on whether to recommend criminal contempt charges for former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro and former White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino.

BREAKING: The Jan. 6 select committee is preparing to hold in contempt:

-PETER NAVARRO
-DAN SCAVINO

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1507052456747966479

Jan. 6 panel to vote to hold former Trump aides Navarro, Scavino in contempt
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/jan-6-committee-trump-navarro-scavino-contempt-congress/

[Rick Plant]

MAGA rioter who yelled for 'patriots' to force open Capitol doors pleads guilty to felony charge



A North Carolina man who was on the front lines of the January 6 riot encouraging rioters to battle police at the U.S. Capitol has pleaded guilty to a felony, the Department of Justice announced today.

Lewis Easton Cantwell, 36, of Waynesville, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to obstructing, impeding, or interfering with law enforcement during the commission of civil disorder.

“According to court documents, on Jan. 6, Cantwell joined other rioters at the front of one of the entrances into the Capitol and used his cellphone to make several video recordings of individuals battling with law enforcement officers,” according to a DOJ release. “During one of the recordings, he yelled for rioters to “get the door open.” At another point, he yelled that they needed “fresh patriots to the front.”

In reporting last July, the Asheville Citizen Times described Cantwell as having co-owned a since-closed teashop called “Sip’ Sum” and having served from 2005-2007 as a private in the U.S. Army. He was an explosive ordnance disposal specialist.

The newspaper also reported that Cantwell initially was assigned a public defender but “traded for a high-profile criminal defense attorney, Eduardo Balarezo” a D.C.-based attorney who it said had previously represented El Chapo.

“It is unclear how Cantwell went from qualifying for a public defender to securing Balarezo’s representation,” it reported.

But the Smoky Mountain News reported on December 15 that “California-based Attorney Nic Cocis entered his request to replace Eduardo Balarezo as Cantwell’s attorney of record.”

Cantwell, who will be sentenced on Sept. 22, 2022, faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-riot-guilty-plea-2657035014/

[Rick Plant]

Ginni Thomas pushed 'Stop the Steal' plans to Indiana Republican originally nominated to January 6 committee

On Friday, NBC News reported that, in addition to previous revelations that far-right activist Ginni Thomas was in close contact with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on overthrowing the 2020 presidential election, she was also in contact with the office of a top House Republican who had been nominated by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to investigate the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"Shortly after the 2020 election, Virginia 'Ginni' Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent an email to an aide to a prominent House conservative saying she would have nothing to do with his group until his members go 'out in the streets,' a congressional source familiar with the exchange told NBC News," reported Scott Wong. "Thomas told an aide to incoming Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks, R-Ind., that she was more aligned with the far-right House Freedom Caucus, whose leaders just two months later would lead the fight in Congress to overturn the results of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory."

"Thomas wrote to the aide that Freedom Caucus members were tougher than RSC members, were in the fight and had then-President Donald Trump’s back, according to the source familiar with the email contents. Until she saw RSC members 'out in the streets' and in the fight, she said, she would not help the RSC, the largest caucus of conservatives on Capitol Hill," said the report. "Her November 2020 email came in response to a request from the RSC to offer policy recommendations as Banks was set to take the helm of the group in early 2021. But when Thomas portrayed the RSC as soft in its support for Trump and told its members to take to the streets, the aide thanked her for her suggestions and moved on."

Banks would ultimately be one of the Republicans McCarthy nominated for the House Select Committee investigating January 6. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected his appointment, along with the appointment of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), leading McCarthy to withdraw all his nominations and boycott the committee. Pelosi ultimately appointed two Republicans to the committee anyway, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).

There is no evidence that Justice Clarence Thomas was directly involved in his wife's planning to overturn the election. He was the sole justice to vote to block the transmission of communications records from the Trump White House to the committee, a move legal experts slammed as "mind-boggling," although it is unclear whether his wife's communications were part of that batch of records or, if so, whether he was aware of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/ginni-thomas-pressed-gop-lawmakers-protest-2020-election-results-rcna21644

[Rick Plant]

Riot committee 'locked in' on 4-minute video of Proud Boys leaders meeting prior to Jan 6th



According to a report from Rolling Stone, the House select committee investigating the Jan 6th insurrection has taken an interest in a four-minute clip filmed before the attempted insurrection that showed Proud Boys leaders meeting leaders of the Oath Keepers.

Earlier in the month, the Guardian's Hugo Lowell revealed that the Justice Department and the House select committee had come into possession of "hours of nonpublic footage" taken by a Goldcrest Films documentary crew that was following both Enrique Tarrio, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes before the riot.

According to Rolling Stones' Hunter Walker, that footage contains a 4-minute clip filmed in a garage that may become key in the prosecution of Capitol rioters and organizers.

As Walker wrote, "As part of the investigation, the committee has obtained footage of Proud Boys leaders — including four minutes that may contain audio of a key meeting — and testimony linking the right-wing group First Amendment Praetorian to the organizers of the Jan. 6, 2021, rally on the White House Ellipse, where Trump urged the crowd to "fight like hell" as his defeat was being certified at the Capitol. "

Once source told the reporter, "They’ve been locked in on Proud Boys and Oath Keepers,” before adding it has become a "major part” of their investigation.

Noting, "A second source confirmed the committee’s interest in the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and First Amendment Praetorian, " the report continued, "The third source, who has seen the footage, said it largely features the Proud Boys and that Rhodes is only present during a meeting he had with Tarrio in a parking garage near the Capitol on Jan. 5. According to the third source, Oath Keepers general counsel Kellye SoRelle, Latinos for Trump President Bianca Gracia, and Vets for Trump co-founder Josh Macias also participated in the meeting. They further said the footage obtained by the committee includes approximately 'four minutes' of B-roll that may contain audio of the parking-garage meeting."

The report adds that federal prosecutors referenced the meeting when Tarrio was indicted on charges of conspiracy.

According Waker, "...the meeting took place after approximately 5 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021, when Tarrio was released from jail after having been arrested the day before on charges related to the destruction of a Black Lives Matter banner during a previous pro-Trump rally."


Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee ‘Locked In’ on Proud Boys

Investigators have obtained testimony linking rally organizers to First Amendment Praetorian and “four minutes” of footage that may contain audio of a key Proud Boys and Oath Keepers parking-garage meeting, sources say.


Members of the Oath Keepers militia group stand among supporters of President Trump occupying the east front steps of the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol building has been examining the role far-right militant groups played in efforts to overturn President Trump’s election loss and the violence that erupted that day. As part of the investigation, the committee has obtained footage of Proud Boys leaders — including four minutes that may contain audio of a key meeting — and testimony linking the right-wing group First Amendment Praetorian to the organizers of the Jan. 6, 2021, rally on the White House Ellipse, where Trump urged the crowd to “fight like hell” as his defeat was being certified at the Capitol.

A source familiar with the situation, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, confirmed the committee is focusing on specific militant groups.

"They’ve been locked in on Proud Boys and Oath Keepers,” the source said, adding that First Amendment Praetorian, which is also known as “1AP,” is a “major part” of the House investigation.

The House select committee is separate from the criminal investigation into the attack that is being conducted by the Justice Department. Leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have both faced federal charges for alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 attack. A second source confirmed the committee’s interest in the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and First Amendment Praetorian.

First Amendment Praetorian has been identified by both The New York Times and CNN as a far-right “paramilitary group.” The little-known organization presents itself as a boutique security consultancy for conservative causes. A LinkedIn page that appears to belong to Robert Patrick Lewis, the group’s chairman, describes First Amendment Praetorian as a group that is “dedicated to providing intelligence and security services to grassroots events in order to ensure Americans may express their 1st Amendment-protected rights to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and political affiliation.” The committee subpoenaed Lewis last November. In a statement announcing that subpoena, the committee said 1AP “provided security at multiple rallies leading up to January 6th that amplified the former President’s unsupported claim that the election was stolen.” Lewis did not respond to a request for comment.

On March 20, The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reported that the committee and the Justice Department have obtained “hours of nonpublic footage” from a Goldcrest Films documentary crew that filmed Enrique Tarrio, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes prior to Jan. 6. Three sources confirmed to Rolling Stone that the committee is in possession of the footage.

The third source, who has seen the footage, said it largely features the Proud Boys and that Rhodes is only present during a meeting he had with Tarrio in a parking garage near the Capitol on Jan. 5. According to the third source, Oath Keepers general counsel Kellye SoRelle, Latinos for Trump President Bianca Gracia, and Vets for Trump co-founder Josh Macias also participated in the meeting. They further said the footage obtained by the committee includes approximately “four minutes” of B-roll that may contain audio of the parking-garage meeting.

In addition to his position in the Proud Boys, Tarrio was the chief of staff of Latinos for Trump, an activist group. Through that organization, both Tarrio and Gracia had attended events at the White House. Macias reportedly spoke at a pro-Trump rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. At the time, he was out on bail on weapons charges related to a November 2020 incident where he and an alleged co-conspirator were arrested after police claimed they drove from Virginia to a vote-counting center in Philadelphia two days after the election in a Hummer loaded with handguns, an AR-15, over 100 rounds of ammo, and a samurai sword.

Federal prosecutors described the parking-garage meeting in an indictment against Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders that charged them with conspiracy related to the Jan. 6 attack. According to that indictment, the meeting took place after approximately 5 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021, when Tarrio was released from jail after having been arrested the day before on charges related to the destruction of a Black Lives Matter banner during a previous pro-Trump rally. Prosecutors alleged Tarrio met with Rhodes and other unnamed individuals in an underground garage near the Phoenix Park Hotel, which is located roughly a half mile from the Capitol.

"During this encounter, a participant referenced the Capitol,” according to the indictment.

Gracia and Macias did not respond to requests for comment. In an email to Rolling Stone, SoRelle suggested the prosecutors’ story of the meeting was “exaggerated.” SoRelle described it as a short encounter that took place as she and Rhodes were visiting Gracia’s “hotel room to pick up our badges for the speaking event the next morning.”

“I had located a couple of attorneys’ names and contact information when Enrique was arrested, because I had been contacted by multiple people about helping him … so Bianca thought we should all go down and make sure he had counsel information and to say hi,” SoRelle wrote.

SoRelle further claimed “the exchange was very brief” between Rhodes and Tarrio and that, in her estimation, it was “10 mins in the garage, tops.”

“Stewart and Enrique were introduced and said their hellos,” SoRelle explained.

Jon Moseley, an attorney who has represented Rhodes, the Oath Keepers founder, has previously told this reporter that federal prosecutors’ claim the Capitol was “referenced” during this meeting was “absolutely false.”

“The only thing that was discussed was that Enrique Tarrio had just made bail and was looking for ideas on getting a lawyer,” Moseley wrote in an email earlier this month. “In general, all of the indictments are works of fiction, like John Grisham novels. So to say, that part of the indictment is false is really not saying much.”

Moseley went on to say, “Stewart Rhodes with Kellye Soirrelle [sic] was getting ready to leave a parking garage when she learned that Enrique Tarrio with Latinos for Trump leaders was entering the same parking garage on the ground floor.”

“They were asked do you want to come meet Enrique Tarrio? Rhodes and Soirrelle answered (in my words) why not?” Moseley wrote.

Moseley did not respond to an additional request for comment on Friday afternoon.

Dan Hull, an attorney who has represented Tarrio and other members of the Proud Boys also did not respond to a request for comment. Hull put up a post in January wherein he suggested the Proud Boys are not the same as the Oath Keepers.

“Proud Boys and The Oathkeepers are WAY different from each other. Way. One’s a working-class frat. One’s a demented militia. One is playful and fun. The other is paranoid and nuts,” the Instagram post said. “Learn the difference, folks.”

Scott Johnston, who was a member of the “March for Trump” team that helped stage months of protests against Trump’s loss around the country, tells Rolling Stone he has spoken to committee investigators and linked First Amendment Praetorian to the group that planned the Ellipse rally. According to Johnston, First Amendment Praetorian provided security for November and December 2020 March for Trump rallies in Washington. Johnston dismissed the group as “geritol security” and “a joke.”

“Cindy Chafian had her husband Scott Chafian supposedly provide security using 1AP,” Johnston tells Rolling Stone. “They’re a bunch of 70-year-old men who just wanted VIP tickets.… If they were the security protecting everyone that day, well then, God help us all.”

According to Johnston, Scott Chafian was a leader of the group. A second, separate March for Trump source, who requested anonymity due to the investigation, also said they believed Scott Chafian played a top role in First Amendment Praetorian.

“When we were introduced to 1AP, I thought Scott Chafian was running it,” the source said, adding, “He was introduced to us as having a government clearance and all of that.”

In a text message to Rolling Stone on Friday, Cindy Chafian denied she or her husband were members of First Amendment Praetorian.

"I am not part of 1AP and neither was my husband,” Cindy Chafian wrote. “They simply provided auxiliary security at the rallies.”

Cindy Chafian said she first “met” First Amendment Praetorian during the lead-up to March for Trump’s Nov. 14, 2020, event in Washington. According to Cindy Chafian, she “used them” for a March for Trump event on Dec. 12, 2020 and her own “separate event” on Jan. 5, 2021.

“That’s as far as the relationship goes. I haven’t worked with them since. Any other questions you would have to send to me and I would have to clear with my attorney since I have been subpoenaed. Thank you,” Cindy Chafian wrote, adding a smiley-face emoji.

On a Linkedin page that appears to belong to Scott Chafian, he describes himself as an “organizational development specialist” who had “a 20 year career in the US Navy as a seagoing Surface Warfare Officer, and then on the ground as an Expeditionary Warfare Officer.”

Cindy Chafian was subpoenaed by the committee last September after helping the pro-Trump group “Women for America First” secure a permit for the main Jan. 6 Ellipse rally. Women for America First is headed by Amy and Kylie Kremer, a mother-and-daughter team who also were leaders of the nationwide March for Trump protests against the former president’s election loss.

Johnston worked as an aide and driver to Kylie Kremer. Rolling Stone has verified Johnston’s March for Trump involvement through multiple sources including group text messages. According to multiple sources, Johnston was in Washington, D.C., with the March for Trump group at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel. He has provided financial statements that appear to confirm he was at the Willard.

As detailed in the Rolling Stone story published on March 20, Johnston has claimed Kremer took part in a phone call with former top Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about whether they should obtain a permit for a march from the Ellipse rally to the Capitol. Ultimately, Johnston said the trio decided not to hold an official march and instead to “direct the people down there and make it look like they went down there on their own.”

Pierson responded to Rolling Stone’s reporting on Johnston’s allegations by saying “no such call took place” and that “phone records” would disprove Johnston’s “defamatory claims.” A spokesperson for Meadows declined to comment.

Johnston said Kremer used a “burner phone” that was one of three he claims she directed him to purchase for her and her mother, Amy. Burner phones are cheap, prepaid cells that can be harder to trace. Johnston said Kremer told him she needed them to “communicate with high-level people.”

Johnston told Rolling Stone the initial meeting where he relayed these allegations to committee investigators took place last Dec. 20 and that it was an “informal” one, with a staffer taking handwritten notes. After the story on his claims ran in Rolling Stone, Johnston said committee investigators reached out to him to set up an on-the-record interview with a court reporter transcribing the conversation.

Spokespeople for the committee did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Johnston showed Rolling Stone copies of communications with the committee indicating his next interview is set to take place on March 28. Investigators also asked Johnston to provide them with any “corroboration” he might have for his claims regarding “the use of a prepaid phone or the purchase of the phone in California” by the Kremers. During his communications with investigators, Johnston says he was reminded of the penalties for making false statements to Congress and informed that other committee witnesses have denied burner phones were used. A source familiar with the investigation has told Rolling Stone that Amy Kremer denied using burner phones to committee investigators.

Chris Barron, a spokesperson for Amy and Kylie Kremer, offered a terse emailed response to a question about Johnston talking to the committee.

“We hope he tells the truth. Lying to Congress is a crime,” Barron wrote of Johnston.

In a FaceTime call, Johnston showed Rolling Stone text messages he received from Kylie Kremer that he said he had provided to the committee. The messages appeared to be part of extensive communications between Johnston’s phone and a number used by Kremer. Johnston also displayed what appeared to be a history of messages with a number connected to Amy Kremer.

One of the texts Johnston provided to the committee showed Kremer writing to a March for Trump group on Jan. 3, 2021, to say that she and another organizer were “overwhelmed with our phones.” A second text was dated Jan. 15, 2021. The latter message showed Kremer telling Johnston, “I’ll call Greg if I need a bat phone.” Johnston said this was referring to Greg Kurbatoff, a March for Trump security consultant, and that “bat phone” was a euphemism for a burner.

“Even though it was coy, she was still alluding that there were other phones,” Johnston said of Kremer.

In a phone call with Rolling Stone on Friday afternoon, Kurbatoff said there was “nothing at all that was underhanded” about the Kremers’ rally on Jan. 6. Kurbatoff specifically said he gets “a little upset” about allegations the pair were involved in plans to stage a march on the Capitol building.

“Amy and Kylie, we all were on the same page the day of the sixth, under no circumstances do we exercise anything with the Capitol because our permit specifically said … there will be nothing going to the Capitol. It was not for the Capitol, it was just for the Ellipse. You know, it was a successful event. Afterwards, you know, that just — you know, that’s history,” Kurbatoff explained, his voice trailing off as he acknowledged the violence that followed the rally.

Kurbatoff said he never saw the Kremers use “burner phones.” He attributed allegations the devices were used to people involved with the group who were “upset” they didn’t get to appear on the rally stage or weren’t paid more for their work.

“As far as burner phones, I’m not sure what the burner phones would have been used for because there was nothing nefarious going on,” Kurbatoff said. “I think you’ve got a couple people that have been scorned.… There’s some people that got scorned, and they were upset that they didn’t get their 15 minutes.”

Johnston said his text-message conversations with the Kremers stopped by March 15 of last year. On that day, in one of the March for Trump group chats, Johnston complained to the Kremers about an order of MyPillows — the brand headed by Trump ally Mike Lindell — that rally organizers were supposed to receive.

The dispute descended into Johnston accusing Kremer of taking him on a “weird and inappropriate” trip to go “bra shopping.” It appears Kremer subsequently removed him from the group chat.

“That was the last communication I ever had with Kylie Kremer,” Johnston said.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jan-6-committee-oath-keepers-proud-boys-first-amendment-praetorian-1327050/

[Rick Plant]

John Eastman ties to Clarence Thomas scrutinized after Ginni Thomas election text revelations



According to a report from Politico, attorney John Eastman -- who was leading the charge to overturn 2020 presidential election results that ousted Donald Trump from the White House -- is receiving new scrutiny over his relationship with Justice Clarence Thomas.

In light of revelations about texts being exchanged between Ginni Thomas and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, where the wife of the Supreme Court justice was passing on conspiracy theories and urging the Trump's inner circle to do what they could to remain in power, one member of the House select committee investigating the Jan 6th insurrection said he has some questions for Eastman.

As Kyle Cheney reports, "Eastman spent the final weeks of Trump’s presidency driving a strategy to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory, a plan that relied on legal theories so extreme the Jan. 6 select committee says they could amount to criminal conspiracy and fraud," before adding, "The select committee has evidence that when a top Pence aide challenged Eastman’s plan on Jan. 4, 2021, Eastman initially told him he believed two Supreme Court justices would back him up. One of them was Ginni Thomas’ husband, Justice Clarence Thomas."

Politico is reporting that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is raising concerns about Eastman and Justice Thomas.

"Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told POLITICO that the new details raise important questions about whether Eastman had a specific reason to believe Justice Thomas would support his radical gambit, or if he was simply voicing a hunch," Cheney wrote before noting, "Eastman’s attorney Charles Burnham did not respond to questions about whether Eastman maintained ties to the Thomases or communicated with either of them in the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 defeat. There’s no known evidence that Eastman was directly in touch with either of the Thomases during his campaign to pressure Pence to subvert the results."

According to Politico, "Eastman had reason to know Thomas’ views well: He clerked for the George H.W. Bush appointee in the 1990s before becoming a mainstay in deeply conservative legal circles."

The report goes to note that when investigators asked Eastman if he had any reason to believe that the Supreme Court would support his plan to have former vice president Mike Pence refuse to certify the election and throw it back to the states, his response was to plead the 5th Amendment.

What has raised red flags was testimony from Pence lawyer Greg Jacob who told the committee that Eastman had told him that at least two Supreme Court justices might support his plan, with Jacob saying he couldn't recall if Eastman named the other justice.


Ginni Thomas’ West Wing contacts raise new questions for another Trump ally: John Eastman
The Jan. 6 select committee has evidence that Eastman expected Justice Clarence Thomas to back his dubious legal theory to block Joe Biden's victory.



Ginni Thomas’ unfettered access to Donald Trump’s chief of staff — and potentially others in his West Wing — raises new questions about another figure at the center of Trump’s gambit to subvert the 2020 election: attorney John Eastman.

Eastman spent the final weeks of Trump’s presidency driving a strategy to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory, a plan that relied on legal theories so extreme the Jan. 6 select committee says they could amount to criminal conspiracy and fraud.

The select committee has evidence that when a top Pence aide challenged Eastman’s plan on Jan. 4, 2021, Eastman initially told him he believed two Supreme Court justices would back him up. One of them was Ginni Thomas’ husband, Justice Clarence Thomas.

Eastman’s assertion, described by Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob to the select committee earlier this year, appeared to be a guess based on analysis of Thomas’ long legal career. Eastman had reason to know Thomas’ views well: He clerked for the George H.W. Bush appointee in the 1990s before becoming a mainstay in deeply conservative legal circles.

But the revelation that Thomas’ wife kept in contact with Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows in the weeks after Trump’s defeat — pressing him to keep trying to overturn the election — adds a new wrinkle to the timeline. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told POLITICO that the new details raise important questions about whether Eastman had a specific reason to believe Justice Thomas would support his radical gambit, or if he was simply voicing a hunch.

Eastman’s attorney Charles Burnham did not respond to questions about whether Eastman maintained ties to the Thomases or communicated with either of them in the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 defeat. There’s no known evidence that Eastman was directly in touch with either of the Thomases during his campaign to pressure Pence to subvert the results.

But the conservative legal scholar has taken pains to avoid revealing his interactions in that timeframe.

Eastman has sued the Jan. 6 select committee to prevent them from enforcing a subpoena for his records and testimony. He’s also sued his former employer, Chapman University, to prevent the school from turning over thousands of pages of his emails to the select committee. And when Eastman appeared before the committee last year, he embraced a blanket strategy to resist their questions: pleading the Fifth.

During that deposition, investigators specifically asked Eastman to articulate whether he believed the Supreme Court would have supported his gambit. He replied with a single word: “Fifth.”

Other than Trump, Eastman has proven to be the most significant figure in the select committee’s investigation, one the panel’s top lawyer — House General Counsel Douglas Letter — called the “central player in the development of a legal strategy to justify a coup.”

The panel is engaged in extensive, hard-fought litigation to obtain Eastman’s Chapman University emails, and it is awaiting a federal judge’s decision about whether Eastman can continue to shield them behind claims of attorney-client privilege. While the panel says it has put some of its legal fights on the back burner, Letter has remained fixed on winning the battle against Eastman. And the select committee used the fight to publicly unload some of its key evidence, including excerpts of interview transcripts with Eastman and Jacob, Pence’s counsel.

The committee says Eastman has failed to show he had a legitimate attorney-client relationship with Trump, and that even if he did, the House’s need for the documents requires waiving the privilege. House lawyers argued in court papers that Eastman may have conspired with Trump to commit multiple crimes — including felony obstruction of Congress — in the aftermath of the election.

Eastman’s theory centered on Pence, who was required by the Constitution to preside over a joint session of Congress to count the votes cast by the Electoral College. Though it’s typically a ceremonial event, Eastman developed a theory — and convinced Trump to back him — that Pence could simply refuse to count the votes of several key states Biden won. The most extreme version of his plan called for Pence to simply declare Trump the winner on the spot. The version Eastman suggested would have buy-in from Thomas, according to Jacob, would have had Pence postpone the count and ask GOP state legislatures in Biden-won states to consider replacing Democratic electors with Trump loyalists.

Jacob told the select committee that when Eastman pushed this idea, he replied, “If this case got to the Supreme Court, we’d lose 9-0, wouldn’t we, if we actually took your position and it got up there?”

Eastman said he actually believed the court would vote 7-2, Jacob recalled.

“And I said, ‘Who are the two?’ And he said, ‘Well, I think maybe Clarence Thomas.’ And I said, ‘Really? Clarence Thomas?’ And so we went through a few Thomas opinions and, finally, he acknowledged, ‘yeah, all right, it would be 9-0.’”

Jacob told the committee he couldn’t remember the other justice Eastman had mentioned as a potential vote in Trump’s favor.

However, in a Dec. 11 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas, splitting from the rest of the court, to say they would have docketed a challenge some conservative states brought against election procedures in more liberal ones. Both justices indicated, though, that they wouldn’t have stepped in to grant the emergency relief the red states sought.

Thomas’ more recent vote against the select committee’s effort to obtain Trump-related records through the National Archives — he was the lone dissent — has sparked renewed controversy in light of the emergence of his wife’s messages with Meadows. Though it’s not clear any of her correspondence were, or should have been, included in the Archives files, it has sparked questions about whether Thomas should have recused from the matter.

When Eastman appeared before the committee to plead the Fifth, committee counsel John Wood asked him about Jacob’s view that not a single Supreme Court justice would have supported Eastman’s plan.

“Dr. Eastman, did you, in fact, agree with Mr. Jacob that not a single member of the Supreme Court would support your position?” Wood asked.

“Fifth,” Eastman replied

“And, Dr. Eastman, which position was that that Mr. Jacobs said not a single member of the Supreme Court would support?” Wood asked.

“Fifth,” Eastman said again.

On Jan. 6, as rioters bore down on the Capitol, Eastman and Jacob engaged in a tense email exchange, in which Jacob accused Eastman of being a “serpent in the ear” of the president and encouraging him to embrace unsupportable legal theories. He reiterated his belief that no justice of the Supreme Court or appeals court judge would have agreed with Eastman’s strategy.

Eastman replied that he disagreed, arguing that if Pence had postponed the session and called on the state legislatures to act, the courts may have demurred.

“I remain of the view not only would that have been the most prudent course … but also had a fair chance of being approved (or at least not enjoined) by the courts,” Eastman wrote.

After another brief disagreement, Eastman closed his email exchange with Jacob: “When this is over, we should have a good bottle of wine over a nice dinner someplace.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/26/ginni-thomas-west-wing-trump-john-eastman-00020675