Journalists keep writing long pieces about whether Trump could be prosecuted for incitement, QUOTING EXPERTS saying that it'd be a conspiracy charge, not incitement, and still only assessing his incitement exposure.
There are three different conspiracy indictments thus far (Oath Keepers, plus 2 Proud Boys) that have, as their object, "to stop, delay, and hinder Congress's certification of the Electoral College vote."
Those conspiracy indictments all have, as an overt act, use social media to get as many bodies to DC on Jan 6 as possible.
Know anyone else who did that, with the specific intent of delaying certification?
Rudy Giuliani left a voice mail message AFTER THE RIOT trying to delay the certification. Trump gave Pence an illegal order to throw out votes.
Any legal exposure for Trump is far more likely to be conspiracy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I believe RIGHT NOW, it significantly overstates what it shows.
Let's start with the source. Aside from experts, the story relies on a single named source--a recently retired senior FBI person.
Was this person part of the investigation and quit out of concerns? Or was this person one of the people who advanced his career by firing those who investigated Trump people, which is THE LEAST damning explanation for why the FBI missed this terrorist attack?
The details of this story -- and the understanding of the legal charges against Jan 6 insurrectionists inadequate -- are too vague to sustain outrage about it.
Just as an example, I love Mike German, but without knowing how FBI is using the data or how granular the data is, you actually CAN'T make this claim, bc every non-Congressional employee IN the Capitol were breaking the law.
I also think ANY recent senior FBI retiree should be asked if he was one of the people who politicized DOJ and led FBI to not investigate any Trump associates. Some are.
It's hard to find a universe of people who would have knowledge of this investigation but not conflicts.
Magistrate James O'Hara called accused Proud Boy conspirator William Chrestman's actions "despicable" and "extremely stupid or gullible," but granted his motion for release.
The govt asked for a stay, but O'Hara imposed deadlines outside the time (basically, Tuesday mid-day) that the govt is likely to appeal to Beryl Howell to override this decision.
Here's how the original and the superseding Oath Keepers conspiracy compare.
Incidentally, the nifty thing about adding websites onto the existing conspiracy is it'll make it easy to add in Stewart Rhodes, who recruited bodies for Jan 6 on the web.
This looks like it's the bus from NC.
Known and unknown on this could get very big (another 40 people, maybe).
Basic argument is: 1) Jury accused Zip Tie Guy of using force to thwart peaceful Xfer of power, threatening Republic 2) He had a taser 3) Mom threatened to fight to death 4) Under abetting charge, she's on the hook for his taser