1/6 Insurrection Investigation

[Rick Plant]

These right wing fascist and militia groups always existed, but Donald Trump allowed them to act on their violence and take over the Republican party.

Democracy expert expects political violence will get much worse and become a 'normal part of our life'



Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, an expert on how democracies can improve at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, spoke to Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent about what Americans witnessed on Jan. 6, 2021, and what can be expected as the United States enters a new era of politics.

The outlook is grim, Kleinfeld explained, noting that things will get much worse before they get better.

"Americans need to realize that paramilitary groups could become a normal part of our political life," she said of those like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, which have been part of the prosecutions of the attack on Congress.

"For the last few years, we’ve seen an uptick in Republican parties at the local level — though occasionally at the state level — using militias for security at party events, having militias vote on party business, in one case in Michigan having militias introduce legislation," she explained. "You’re seeing a lot of photo-ops with militia members — things that normalize their interaction with the democratic process. These militias are being used to threaten other Republicans who aren’t part of this anti-democratic faction."

She cited some of the other countries where police violence has broken out and that it goes from violence to dehumanization. She cited the GOP's use of the word "groomers" to imply Democrats are pedophiles. The same happened to Republican Arizona state House Speaker Rusty Bowers after he refused to overturn the 2020 election results in his state for Trump. He testified that they spent days outside of his home blasting loudspeakers calling him a pedophile while his terminally ill daughter was dying.

"The next stage is making violence against those dehumanized opponents seem more normal. You’re starting to see GOP candidates posing with rifles — everything from Rep. Thomas Massie’s family Christmas photo to Eric Greitens’s new ads about hunting RINOs," said Kleinfeld.

There are three groups an antidemocratic faction of the GOP is going after, she continued: pro-democracy Republicans, elected officials who handle elections, and everyday people like teachers and librarians.

"But if they start losing, then they’ve built up a lot of hatred — a lot of distrust in the system — and then the violence is going to get out of their control," she told Sargent. "It’ll look more like an insurgency. A disaffected left, not connected to the Democratic Party, is also justifying violence. It could get ugly."

The House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Congress and what led up to it will look at the links between the attacks and milita groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

Read More Here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/11/gop-political-violence-militias-jan-6-democratic-breakdown/

[Matt Grantham]

Cassidy is a perjurer Whats worse is what she perjured herself about is nonsense He grabbed the wheel LOL

[Rick Plant]

Rep. Jamie Raskin @RepRaskin

When he sent this tweet, Trump became the first president in American history to call for a protest against the peaceful transfer of power.

At tomorrow's hearing, America will see how it mobilized dangerous extremists & white nationalist groups to come armed to “Stop the Steal.”



https://twitter.com/RepRaskin/status/1546632527024164864

[Rick Plant]

The GOP’s Militia Problem: Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Lessons from Abroad


Members of a Three Percenters group provided security for Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia during a campaign event last year in Ringgold, Georgia (C.B. Schmelter/Chattanooga Times Free Press via AP)

The January 6 Select Committee hearings have been framed as an effort aimed at accountability and posterity. But their findings are at least as important to the future. The Committee’s disclosures that Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson tried to hand-deliver a slate of fake electors to Vice President Pence, that Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs asked Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers to decertify their state’s electors the morning of January 6, and that some Republican Members of Congress sought pardons from then-President Trump for their roles are further signals that co-conspirators in the schemes to thwart the democratic choice for president remain in power. They are not the only ones maintaining and seeking power. Former President Donald Trump is eyeing a return in 2024. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers — militias the Committee has highlighted for their roles as ring leaders for the violence that day — did not see their strength ebb after January 6. On the contrary, violence, first used as a political tool and now partially mainstreamed, has spread.

The events on January 6 are not past. They are prelude.

As a researcher on violence and democracy around the world, I have studied party-linked militia groups for years. In countries like Iraq, Nigeria, Lebanon, and Colombia, politicians outsource violence to specialists in the trade, just as they hire consultants for robocalls and direct mail. In the past, googling these terms brought up countries just escaping from conflict or descending into it. Now, the United States, where militias have been embraced by GOP leaders at the national, state, and local level (as I discuss in detail below), appears among the early search results.

Trump’s flirtation with militia groups began well before the events recounted on January 6. The Oath Keepers assembled to “protect” the polls after then-candidate Trump’s claims of potential fraud – in 2016. Multiple militia groups mobilized in response to Trump’s statements surrounding his inauguration and in response to his calls for more border security. The Oath Keepers provided security to Trump campaign rallies and events in Texas, Minnesota, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere at regular intervals between 2016 and 2020. After Brad Raffensperger, the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia refused to “find 11,780 votes,” he faced death threats that increased after Trump declared him an “enemy of the people.” The family went into hiding following multiple threats, including the appearance of out-of-state Oath Keepers at their home. Speaker Bowers testified that at least one of the crowd members protesting viciously at his home while his daughter lay inside, dying, wore Three Percenter insignia. On Jan. 5, photographs showed Oath Keepers wearing “All access” passes on lanyards as they escorted Roger Stone to a speech he gave by the Supreme Court. And on January 6, militias not only breached the Capitol; Stone appeared to use Oath Keeper militia members as part of his personal security outfit that morning.

The January 6 testimony to date has focused on Trump and the ways he has encouraged and instrumentalized militia members. But support for vigilante violence has spread to other parts of the Republican Party. In 2017, the Portland branch of the Republican Party voted to allow militia groups, including members of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, to act as security at their public events; a Colorado county GOP has also hired militia groups for security. In Michigan’s Grand Traverse County, local officials at a zoom-based public meeting were asked to denounce the Proud Boys after the insurrection – instead, the county commission’s vice chair stepped off-screen and returned with his rifle. In Texas, Allen West, then-Chair of the Republican Party, offered an oath to “swear in” militia members at a Stop the Steal rally in November 2020, posed with armed militia members just days after the January 6 riot, and appeared alongside other Republican state politicians at a rally with the leader of the Oath Keepers militia in March after the latter was under investigation for his involvement in the January 6 attack. This winter, a militia-backed recall election ousted the Shasta County, California Board of Supervisors; the new leaders owe their positions to militia support. In Arizona, Mark Finchem, a sitting member of the House, trumpets his membership in the Oath Keeper militia. The chairman of Wyoming’s GOP – engaged in a fierce battle against Liz Cheney, the January 6 Select Committee Vice Chair – is a member of the Oath Keepers.

The Proud Boys are also infiltrating local Republican parties. In Miami-Dade county, a number of Proud Boys appear to have entered parts of the party hierarchy, bringing their violent intimidation with them. In Nevada, the director of the State’s Republican Party has been accused of recruiting Proud Boys to take part in party leadership votes and intimidate candidates running from the more traditional Republican wing of the party in Clark County (which contains Las Vegas and is by far the largest county in Nevada). The faction’s violent threats forced the Clark County Republicans to hire extra security, hold events in gun-free zones such as schools, and ultimately to cancel multiple meetings due to security fears. Proud Boys accosted Rep. Dan Crenshaw and his staff at the GOP’s convention in Texas this month, chanting a term for him popularized by Tucker Carlson.

Far from reducing violence, the 2020 election and its aftermath heralded a step-change in the mainstream acceptance of violence as a political tool. The FBI arrested Michigan gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley this month after he egged on the January 6 crowd in Washington D.C. with cries of “Come on, let’s go. This is it! This is – this is war, baby”. Kelley met this winter with poll workers in Michigan alongside Michigan State Senate candidate Mike Detmer, who suggested in response to concerns about future election fraud: “be prepared to lock and load… If you ask what we can do, show up armed.” Senate candidate Eric Greitens, already facing domestic violence and sexual assault allegations from different women, now has a video showing the former Navy Seal armed and hunting “RINOS.” He encourages his supporters to do the same, given that there is “no bag or tag limit,” as he states, to killing other human beings.

Violent groups that get involved in politics in other countries follow a common path that I detailed in my last book. At first, politicians recruit experts in violence and intimidation to use those tools as a campaign tactic. Later, those violent leaders run for office or take political roles directly, cutting out the political middleman. Usually, what they want is power and impunity, so that they can make money from more lucrative criminal activities, though sometimes they simply want power for its own sake. To understand where this can lead: 11 of India’s current national legislators face open cases for murder, 30 have attempted murder charges and 10 serving legislators have been convicted of such serious crimes – a doubling from ten years ago. Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, based in Miami, began amassing a criminal record at the age of twenty – but its unclear whether their entrance into Miami politics is at the behest of others or is the beginning of going into business for themselves. In Nevada, it appears more clear that the Proud Boys are still at the first stage, being recruited by unscrupulous political actors who are using their violence to amass more power for themselves.

Why would a faction of Republicans still in power or running for office at the federal, state, and local level make common cause with violent criminals? Because violence and intimidation are already bolstering their power. Intimidation is being successfully used to silence opposition. Representative Gonzalez was one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. After threats to his wife and young children, he decided not to run for reelection.

When 13 House Republicans voted to support greater funding for highways, bridges, and other infrastructure, their colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene publicized their phone numbers. A number admitted to receiving threats afterward, suggesting that a new tactic for “whipping” future votes and compelling Members of Congress to vote against the wishes of their districts had been discovered. Indeed, Rep. Peter Meier (R-Mich.) wrote about a Republican colleague who voted against certifying the presidential election out of fear for his family’s safety. And Meijer also said some of his colleagues who voted to impeach Trump have since traveled with armed escorts “out of the fear for their safety,” altering their routines, and getting body armor, which he noted is a reimbursable purchase.

Americans may feel that these incidents of political violence are “high politics” that they can avoid if they steer clear of the political arena. That feeling is widespread in countries I have studied where political violence grows to dangerous levels. It Is always a false hope. In the United States, it is already far more dangerous to exercise freedom of speech than in the recent past. Driving cars into civilians used to be a tactic favored by overseas terrorists. It had been recorded just twice in the United States before James Alex Fields Jr. murdered Heather Heyer by driving into a crowd of counter-protestors at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. Yet from George Floyd’s murder on May 25, 2020 through September 30, 2021, at least 139 drivers drove their cars into protests across America, injuring 100 – sometimes severely – and killing four. Threats against members of Congress have risen tenfold in the five years since Trump became president, white supremacist activity has risen twelvefold in the same period. For Blacks, Asians, women, and others, hate crimes have increased dramatically in the last five years – and mass shooters emboldened by political rhetoric have struck ordinary citizens going about their ordinary lives from El Paso to Buffalo.

Homicide may seem disconnected from political violence — but in fact, a historical study of homicide from America’s founding discovered that it was tightly correlated with distrust in fellow Americans and in the government. The Pew Foundation has found that trust is at near-historic lows after years of conspiracy mongering. In 2020, murder had the highest one-year jump since 1905 and possibly in recorded U.S. history. Homicide rose all over the country, in cities and rural areas, but increased most sharply in red states. The United States is the only country in the world to have experienced a sharp rise in homicide during the coronavirus, and it rose in the U.S. while nearly every form of non-violent crime fell. Nor is it only adults. Children often enact what their parents only say, acting out the cultural zeitgeist. Between 2016 and 2017, before the mental health challenges caused by the coronavirus and response, physical attacks with a weapon in schools nearly doubled.

International terrorism expert Arie Perliger has found that in Israel and Germany, domestic terrorists are emboldened when they believe that politicians encourage violence or that authorities will tolerate it from their side of the political spectrum. In the select committee hearings, we heard a Proud Boys leader say that then-President Trump’s comment to “Stand Back and Stand By” tripled their membership. Since the election, the Proud Boys have rallied around anti-critical race theory and covid-masking protests, using mainstream causes to boost their membership; they and other extremist groups became increasingly public at conservative rallies, taking part in nearly half of all armed demonstrations in 2021. Stewart Rhodes, leader of the Oath Keepers, has stated that he expected pardons for those arrested at the January 6 insurrection and money for their legal defense.

Violence is overwhelmingly concentrated on the right. But as Justice Brett Kavanaugh has discovered, once violence has been legitimated as a tool of politics, no one is safe. Violence begets violence – once its use mainstreams, moderates who espouse non-violence appear anemic and unable to offer protection to their side. The middle weakens, while violence eventually takes on a rhythm of reprisal far removed from the original causes.

The full accounting of January 6 is finally being unveiled to the public. But its reverberations continue. Globally, militias commit more political violence than any other group – including governments and insurgents. We might hope the committee’s hearings will be a cause for a national conversation as well as an internal conversation and soul-searching within the GOP. Even if Trump passes from the scene, the embrace of violence and intimidation as a political tactic by a faction of the GOP will cause violence of all types to rise – against all Americans.

https://www.justsecurity.org/81898/the-gops-militia-problem-proud-boys-oath-keepers-and-lessons-from-abroad/

[Rick Plant]

DOJ drops a bomb on Bannon's plot



The latest January 6 committee hearing is scheduled for tomorrow and it promises to be dramatic. From what we can gather, this will be the hearing that grapples with the actual violence of that day and will explore what Trump and his accomplices did to bring it about. The committee apparently plans to discuss the participation of armed militia types, some of whom have already been charged with seditious conspiracy by the Justice Department.

Tuesday's questioning will be led by Stephanie Murphy, D-Fl., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and there will be live witnesses — although only one has been named, a former spokesman for the right-wing militia group Oath Keepers. Jason Van Tatenhove will reportedly discuss the group's radicalization and attraction to Donald Trump.

We'll find out what they have in tomorrow's hearing and it's likely to be disturbing

On Friday, Trump's former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone testified before the committee. He may have shed some further light on what the White House did with information that was shared by virtually every government department about the potential for violence on that day. And who knows what else he had to say? Early reports suggested that Cipollone was less than helpful but the committee put out a statement over the weekend that says otherwise:

"In our interview with Mr. Cipollone, the Committee received critical testimony on nearly every major topic in its investigation, reinforcing key points regarding Donald Trump's misconduct and providing highly relevant new information that will play a central role in its upcoming hearings. This includes information demonstrating Donald Trump's supreme dereliction of duty."

That certainly sounds intriguing. And more specifically, the committee's spokesman went on to say, "Cipollone's videotaped testimony will likely be featured prominently during the final hearing."

But the big news over the weekend was that on the eve of his trial for contempt of Congress for refusing to abide by a committee subpoena, former Trump campaign chief and current podcaster Steve Bannon abruptly announced that he was ready to testify after all. He sent a letter to the committee saying that Trump had agreed to waive executive privilege and requested that he be allowed to appear in a live public hearing. (No word on whether he wanted them to remove all the brown M&Ms from the bowl in his dressing room.) Trump confirmed his "waiver" with a typically juvenile extended tweet-like statement:

"I will waive Executive Privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of the Unselect Committee of political Thugs and Hacks, who have allowed no Due Process, no Cross-Examination, and no real Republican members or witnesses to be present or interviewed. It is a partisan Kangaroo Court,

Despite many in the media's credulous reporting of this news, it's not what it appears to be.

Even if he does testify, Bannon would not be off the hook because it doesn't change the fact that he did defy the subpoena for all these months.

First of all, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Bannon has any intention of testifying honestly. Trump's embarrassing letter makes it clear what he expects and there's little doubt that Bannon is on exactly the same page. All you have to do is watch some of his "War Room" podcasts to know that. So any thoughts that this is a sudden change of heart are absurd. This is nothing more than a ploy to delay his impending trial, which he has been trying to do since June 30 when he requested that it be moved to October claiming that he can't get a fair hearing because of the committee hearings.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) mocked his request by pointing out that he's only been mentioned twice in the hearings for a total of 30 seconds. This gambit is designed to change that by putting him at the center of the story although it's pretty unlikely that the judge in his case won't see that.

Even if he does testify, Bannon would not be off the hook because it doesn't change the fact that he did defy the subpoena for all these months. And the notion that he had the executive privilege in the first place is daft. Although he may have been scheming with the president to overturn the election, Bannon hadn't worked in government since 2017. Even his own lawyer said that only some of the requests from the committee could fall under executive privilege. And that assumes it exists with respect to Bannon at all, which it doesn't. (In fact, it really shouldn't apply to anyone since Donald Trump isn't the president, but that seems to be in dispute in some quarters.)

Late last night the DOJ dropped a bomb with a filing that pretty much exposed Bannon's desperate little scheme.

Authorities revealed that one of Donald Trump's lawyers, Justin Clark, testified to the FBI on June 28 that Trump never invoked executive privilege for Bannon in the first place. That certainly was not helpful to Bannon's defense and it may explain why Bannon and his lawyers moved to delay his trial the next day. The filing went into all the reasons why the executive privilege claim was always specious and concludes with this slap down:

"All of the above-described circumstances suggest the Defendant's sudden wish to testify is not a genuine effort to meet his obligations but a last-ditch attempt to avoid accountability."

Usually arrogant and full of bravado, Bannon does seem to be scrambling.

Journalist Jennifer Senior, who wrote a big profile of Bannon for The Atlantic this month, tweeted this:

Intrigued to see Bannon's about-face on the J6 committee. When we were last face-to-face (3/30), he was v[ery]excited about his latest scheme: "If we execute, it'll be classic honey badger." His plan had been to subpoena the J6 committee members. Didn't get traction, obv[iously].

Then, on a 5/17 phone call, he told me (and I quote) "The 6 January Committee -- go fuck themselves." Hmmmm. Or not. And on June 7, two nights before the first J6 Committee hearing, he texted me that said hearing would be a "zzzzsnoozz fest".

I have no clue what Bannon will say. But these hearings have clearly had more power than anyone in Trumpworld had anticipated. And the specter of prison can be very motivating.

This is Steve Bannon we're talking about, so even if he does end up testifying it's hard to imagine that the committee will learn anything of value despite the fact that he was intimately involved in the "war room" at the Willard Hotel in the days before the insurrection and seems to have been aware that something violent was going to happen. He said on his podcast that "all hell is going to break loose" long before people marched to the Capitol. But perhaps the committee has learned all it needs to know about that part of the coup plot.

We'll find out what they have in tomorrow's hearing and it's likely to be disturbing.

Extremists egged on by the likes of Bannon plotted to take over the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. That should never fail to shock. The main questions now are: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2022/07/11/doj_drops_a_bomb_on_steve_bannons_jan_6_plot_574391.html

[Rick Plant]

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne agrees to meet with Jan. 6 committee after Cipollone testimony



Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock and a Donald Trump loyalist, will meet with the Jan. 6 committee later this week.

The former tech executive will sit for an interview with congressional investigators behind closed doors on Friday, according to three sources, and one source added there were no ground rules or defined topics for the conversation, reported CNN.

Byrne participated in a mid-December 2020 meeting at the White House with Trump, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, attorney Sidney Powell and various staffers that focused on efforts to block certification of Joe Biden's election and seizing voting machines.

The panel asked former White House counsel Pat Cipollone about that Dec. 18, 2020, meeting during his interview last week, and excerpts from his interview will be featured during Tuesday afternoon's public hearing, which will focus on the violence that erupted on Trump's behalf at the U.S. Capitol.

Two sources familiar with Cipollone's testimony told CNN about that White House meeting with election conspiracy theorists, including Byrne, and one source said the former White House counsel told the panel he believed the meeting was insane.

The gathering began informally, according to two sources, but eventually devolved into screaming matches as Trump aides disputed some of the more outrageous suggestions by Powell and Flynn, and select committee aides said Flynn's role will be highlighted at Tuesday's hearing.

Committee aides also pointed out that Trump sent the infamous "will be wild" invitation the following day to encourage his supporters to converge on Washington, D.C., as Congress certified the election.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/11/politics/former-overstock-ceo-patrick-byrne-january-6-committee-meeting/index.html


Bannon walked into a perjury trap with his executive privilege publicity stunt: legal experts



Former White House adviser Steve Bannon's request that Donald Trump issue a letter releasing him to speak to House investigators looking into the Jan 6th insurrection may have put him in even greater legal peril reports the Daily Beast.

Last week the former president gave the go-ahead for Bannon -- already facing trial on criminal contempt charges -- which was generally regarded as an attempt to forestall his trial and a as publicity stunt for both parties.

That, however, did not work and now his offer has put him the position where the House Jan 6th select committee could put him under oath where he could blunder and commit perjury.

As the Beast's Jose Pagliery wrote, "The letter was a last-minute attempt to throw a curveball at the Justice Department just a week before Bannon’s criminal contempt of Congress trial for refusing to show up before that very committee," adding, "Now Bannon is barreling toward a trial while dangling potential testimony before the congressional panel—a prime opportunity to perjure himself or explain why he broke the law—and lawyers say there’s practically nothing he can do that won’t land him in even more legal jeopardy."

According to law professor Michael J. Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, "It’s going to make it very hard for him to figure out what he could say that won’t incriminate him. I think he’s going to land in trouble. It just seems inevitable."

While it is unclear whether the committee will take Bannon up on his offer, Pagliery wrote that should they do so, Bannon will have successfully have painted himself into a corner where he either has to tell the truth or face new criminal charges.

"If the committee accepts his tenuous offer, Bannon is in the awkward position of putting himself in one hot seat just days before he’s in yet another," he explained. "For example, committee members could ask him why he never showed up last fall—and whatever Bannon says under penalty of perjury could appear at trial just days later. If he contradicts himself on anything at any point, prosecutors can argue that he lied to Congress—yet another crime—or is lying at trial."

The report also goes on to note that, should Bannon try to "grandstand" during his testimony, it could bring down the wrath of federal prosecutors.

As George Washington University law school professor Catherine J. Ross put it, "If he’s calculating that he can make a better plea deal, it would undermine those strategies… he could make his situation worse if he perjures himself or is seen as an extremely uncooperative witness."

Read more here:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannons-gambit-may-have-just-put-him-in-new-legal-jeopardy

[Rick Plant]

Never-before-seen January 6 footage from our photographer

On January 6, Los Angeles Times photographer Kent Nishimura was assigned to cover a pro-Trump rally at the Ellipse, just south of the White House. Former President Trump railed at the rally over what he falsely claimed was a stolen election and urged his supporters to march on the Capitol, where the results were being certified.

Nishimura followed them, documenting the attack on the Capitol in real time. As he sent in photos and video of the event, he let his GoPro camera, attached to his helmet, run as long as the battery could last. That footage had never been shown until now.

Watch: