(THREAD) Gavin McInnes—co-founder of the Proud Boys—has claimed that no Proud Boys were wearing orange caps during the Capitol assault. He may be right. I don't know. Here's a video of the Proud Boys walking to the Capitol, which I analyze in this thread.
1/
0:46 Orange cap visible
1:17 Orange duct tape visible on man in tactical gear
1:23 Orange marking on man in tactical gear (helmet)
1:29 Orange duct-tape armbands (6 Proud Boys)
The Proud Boys are using military hand signals and many are carrying backpacks. Contents unknown.
2/ It's clear from the video that a contingent within the Proud Boys' military-style march—almost exclusively men who are at the head of the column—is wearing "blaze orange" armbands. The Wall Street Journal implies the Capitol assault was initiated by men in "blaze orange" hats.
3/ It is unclear why only a few Proud Boys—the ones best equipped for a military-style assault—have "blaze orange" arm bands. I don't know what it's supposed to signal. But the video makes clear (through conversations you hear) that these are Proud Boys using Proud Boy slogans.
4/ The men stop to pray for "courage to represent their culture well," then a man filming says "I'm going to go live—mask up!" So it's clear the Proud Boys don't want to be recognized. It also suggests that if they've orange caps in their backpacks, they wouldn't put them on yet.
5/ The man filming (YouTube account: "Eddie Block Films") refers to himself repeatedly as "the crazy cripple" and *repeatedly* says "Marching with the Proud Boys!" There is no question that these are Proud Boys forming up to march on the Capitol in DC on a January 6 livestream.
6/ "We're marching with the Proud Boys!" the filmmaker exclaims. "We got a whole boatload of Proud Boys here, folks." So, we have one thing fairly well confirmed, now: the Proud Boys were (some of them) wearing "blaze orange" armbands *sometime* during the day on January 6 in DC.
7/ When a random woman comes up and identifies one of the Proud Boys as "Adam Bundy" of "People's Rights"—who knows if it's accurate—a man with a megaphone appears to tell her to back off "for her safety and theirs." They clearly don't want their names recorded on the video here.
8/ 9:45 in video: confirmed that one of the Proud Boys in tactical gear has a strip of "blaze orange" duct-tape on his *helmet* rather than his arm. So we're getting closer: we have blaze orange on the head of a Proud Boy marching toward the Capitol in tactical gear on January 6.
9/ So we have what *appear* to be Proud Boys in a video posted by a reader. We see, I think, the scooter-using man who calls himself "the crazy cripple," and they're chanting what they chant in the livestream ("F*ck antifa!") It's DC. Do we know it's 1/6?
10/ I mean, Will Sommer writes for THE DAILY BEAST and says this is the Proud Boys on January 6 in DC—so maybe Gavin McInnes needs to take up his claim the Proud Boys weren't wearing orange caps in DC on January 6 with him? Because it seems—can't be sure—that's what we have here.
11/ Thanks to @the_peetape, we have our confirmation—apparently—that Gavin McInnes is full of it. The Wall Street Journal story does now appear to indicate that it was a contingent of Proud Boys who sparked the invasion of the Capitol. That's if WSJ and The Daily Beast are right.
12/ I hope @CNN will revisit its correction in view of this evidence. It appears the founder of the Proud Boys is *very anxious* to have folks think the Proud Boys weren't the men the WSJ described as storming the Capitol barricades first on 1/6. @sarasidnerCNN@MallorySimonCNN
CONCLUSION/ I'm not going to continue to watch this livestream. I'm sure the @FBI has already put together the reporting from CNN, the WSJ, and The Daily Beast—as I now have with help from the reader previously tagged—to see that the Proud Boys *may* have led the Capitol assault.
NOTE/ I actually find the blaze orange arm bands as or more interesting than the hats, as the "paramilitary" operators Buzzfeed News describes as being the first to attack cops at the Capitol would *not* have worn orange blaze caps at *that* point. Arm bands, though? Who knows.
MORE2/ I have to say, given that Ali Alexander says that the entire march on the Capitol was an Arizona/Alabama GOP joint—Biggs, Gosar, Brooks—the fact that the WSJ *seems* to be identifying the Arizona Proud Boys as first into the breach at the insurrection is interesting. @FBI
WSJ/ Here's the WSJ piece. "At 12:48PM a clutch of men in blaze orange hats and military-style vests turned a nearby street corner, marching straight toward them. In a matter of moments the two groups merged and the crowd swelled to hundreds and surged..." wsj.com/articles/at-th…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
January 6 was an insurrection ensconced in a traveling circus. Many at the Capitol were criminally trespassing, looting, desecrating and shoving, which makes it harder to focus on the far more dangerous, armed core of intruders—still large—which had treasonous mission objectives.
Most arrests so far have involved members of the traveling circus. They committed serious crimes, and will be punished. But I'm far more focused on those who planned to burn ballots, take hostages, steal sensitive equipment, and possibly kill the Vice President and House Speaker.
Media is focusing on the silliest figures in the insurrection—like a guy in a Viking helmet and the guy with Pelosi's lectern. My focus is on the men in tactical gear working with military precision who were armed and carrying zip ties and knew how to get where they needed to go.
Take the 7 *most-used words* in Trump's 1/6 incitement-to-insurrection speech—a speech in which he said he wanted all the people present to go to the Capitol because the country needed to be saved from fraudulent ballots—and you get:
WANT ALL PEOPLE GOING BECAUSE BALLOTS COUNTRY
(PS) The word cloud above includes *only* the words Trump used a dozen times or more in his January 6 speech, and excludes (as word clouds always do) articles and conjunctions.
(PS2) I just think it's interesting to consider the words the Trumpists would've had ringing in their ears the most pre-insurrection. We also see, of course, FIGHT, HELL, ELECTION, FRAUD, NEVER and other words that both focus the attention and are intended to produce raw emotion.
I've now watched almost all of the "Save America March" rally. A number of the speeches I've watched more than once. The number of times Team Trump yells at the mob of Trump fanatics, white supremacists, far-right militiamen and other insurrectionists to "FIGHT!" is *staggering*.
(PS) Many Americans haven't processed yet how strange it is for "FIGHT!" to be the key—clearly *coordinated*—theme of what pretends to be a protest. There was almost *no* talk at the Save America March rally about "making your voice heard." The refrain was, "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!"
(PS2) Trump—only one of many January 6 speakers—used the term 20 times, along with violent rhetoric throughout his speech. The crowd repeatedly started chants that used (echoed) the word. Other speakers repeatedly used it. Don's mid-rally livestream featured the word prominently.
Without a doubt, one of the darker days in our history.
If it's revealed that the insurrection was not only plotted by Trump allies Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks, but that these men were in league with Trump and his team, it will be the darkest day *domestically* since the Civil War.
(PS) Ali Alexander, who's been photographed with Trump, says he worked with Gosar, Biggs and Brooks on the Capitol march as a means to dramatically delay certification of Biden's win—exactly what Trump lawyer Giuliani called Brooks' Alabama peer Tuberville to do mid-insurrection.
(PS2) There have been *five* major-media reports on Trump's reaction during the insurrection, which achieved the aim (delay) both he and his lawyer had sought to advance in phone calls during the assault: "pleased," "excited," "delighted," "giddy," and "borderline enthusiastic."
BREAKING NEWS: Official U.S. State Department Website Inexplicably Says Donald Trump's Presidency "Ended" at 7:49 PM Tonight (January 11); No Explanation Yet for Bizarre Website Edit
(PS) FWIW, I accessed the site at 3:02 PM ET, so the time in the screenshot above (7:49 PM) is not—as some are saying—UTC time. There may well be a computer glitch here, I don't know. Other screenshots have shown other times. But all are today, and State has not explained it yet.
(PS2) Regardless of time-stamp, it's not clear why the State Department would edit this presidency's official biography in *any* way that would say it ended on January 11—let alone do so on a day the House tried to get the Vice President to become Acting President. It is bizarre.
(1 of 2) I wrote a book about the January 2020 articles of impeachment, so I want to push back on some bad political/legal analysis.
The January 2020 articles were a *slam dunk*. It is the January 2021 article—in the way it was written—that is *very strong*, but not a slam dunk.
(2 of 2) The difference between the two impeachments is that the second so manifestly implicates national security that the standard of proof representatives/senators should apply is different. Under that lower standard of proof, voting for impeachment/conviction is a no-brainer.
(NOTE) What I think some political and legal analysts are doing is falsely saying that this article is stronger than the previous articles because the event *attached* to this impeachment was so dramatic and scary. But the "act" in the new article is *not* the riot, but a speech.