Thread by @DarrenJBeattie

1/x The Revolver News story last week is perhaps the most underrated news story in the world.

revolver.news/2021/06/stewar…

2/x
More reporting next week, but let’s take stock of current state of play.

After our first groundbreaking report on Fed infiltration Twitter was in such a panic that a fact check was pinned to trending that “Yes, Trump supporters did attend protest”

revolver.news/2021/06/federa…

3/xAnother attempt to rebut Revolver was a ridiculous nitpick about the specific term “unindicted co-conspirator.”

While they’re wrong here too, to even stage a defense at this level is to effectively concede the larger point of fed infiltration

4/x The core question is not whether the specific phrase "unindicted co-conspirators" is used to refer to a fed, but rather whether any of the unindicted "persons" listed in the charging docs are feds

On this question the fact checkers are surprisingly demure

5/x Among this gang of fact checkers, RedState’s @shipwreckedcrew stands out. While his struggles have been an amusing blend of bad faith and bad takes, he at least stepped into the arena to attempt a debunking.

6/x Now, the central legal thrust of Revolver’s report was that the DOJ has a lay-up indictment, already in hand, on Stewart Rhodes, for conspiracy charges, based on evidence ALREADY ALLEGED by Federal prosecutors:

7/x

To be clear Revolver does not WANT Rhodes to be indicted. It's not necessarily our position that he engaged in any conspiracy at all.

The point is that the government's own allegations suggest Rhodes is part of conspiracy. That they could indict him. So why haven't they?

8/x The notion that 1/6 is some big terrorist event is comparable to 9/11 is a joke. But this is essentially the government's position. So why, if they already have an indictment, haven't they indicted the leader of the militia group they say is so scary?

9/x Amazingly, @shipwreckedcrew actually concedes, up front, in its entirety, the core legal argument expressed in the Revolver report:

10/x Shipwrecked then pretends that it's not even curious that six months have gone by with zero charges filed against the Oathkeepers leader who *prosecutors* - NOT Revolver News - appear to argue both organized and activated in real-time the entire alleged conspiracy:

11/x Lest there be any confusion, these pages are ***how the Justice Department concludes its own argument*** in the section: “The Evidence of the Conspiracy.”

12/x After conceding, in full, Revolver’s entire legal analysis, Shipwrecked grasps for a mainstream-media friendly explanation of what he just read. He latches on to the Buzzfeed article cited in Revolver’s own report:

13/x
This alone is curious. While arguing “no great revelations” were made, his best explanation of why Rhodes is still free comes from the Buzzfeed article linked in our report.

14/x

It’s like he read the report, suddenly realized how odd it was that Mr. Rhodes is still unindicted, then grasped for the first mainstream media friendly explanation he could find.

This is cognitive dissonance, or the Internet calls “cope”.

15/x

But let’s steel-man Shipwreck's argument

He now suggests the DOJ punted for 6 months on Rhode prosecution for onspiracy charges b/c there's probably a separate criminal investigation into Rhodes for "financial schemes"

He bases this on the Buzzfeed article he just read.

16/x

More from shipwrecked:

17/x
Let's understand what Shipwreck argument suggests.

The head of the DOJ calls 1/6 “domestic terrorism” on the level of Oklahoma City Bombing

Many institutional elites call 1/6 *worse* than 9/11

Feds are using narrative of 1/6 to justify its new domestic war on terror...

18/x

And shipwrecked suggests that Mr. Rhodes, the head of the militia group the government and media have made out as the big 1/6 boogeyman, is not indicted b/c he may or may not have done proper tax accounting?

19/x

If the DOJ believes its own absurd rhetoric about Rhodes, this non-prosecution would be like having Osama Bin Laden chilling in Montana instead of an Afghan cave in Sept 2001, but letting 6+ months go by without arresting him because of IRS red tape.

20/x

Indeed, let's suppose Mr. Rhodes is NOT a fed. Even then the fact he hasn't been indicted is a BIG DEAL because it would show that the government simply doesn't take its own hyperbolic rhetoric about 1/6 seriously

21/x

*sarcasm* A word of advice to aspiring “insurrectionists”: if you want to buy at least 6 months of freedom from the FBI vanning you, freezing your bank accounts, and keeping you in jail until trial, make sure to do something to raise eyebrows from a tax lawyer first.

22/x

This will buy you time to drive over the border & escape to non-extradition country or stick around and build up a legal war chest and make media appearances to win over public opinion, or destroy records the Feds haven’t seized so all they have is obstruction of evidence

23/x

This is obviously a JOKE. DO NOT do that. But you see the point: either Shipwreck’s argument is a joke, or the above two tweets aren’t.

One must believe Shipwreck is a joke, or else the entire Justice Department is.

Frankly, we believe both!

24/x

It’s also fascinating how, to our knowledge, there has been no search warrant served on Rhodes’s personal residence (as there was recently on Rudy Guiliani).

25/x

One would think home computers, notes, iPads or additional electronic devices would be highly relevant to BOTH the Oath Keepers alleged conspiracy and this Get Out Of “Insurrection” Free hypothetical mail fraud theory pushed by Shipwreck’s theory...

26/x FBI apparently doesn’t want any of it. The fact that apparently only a single iPhone from Rhodes has been taken in by the FBI, 3-4 months after 1/6 happened does not even strike Shipwreck as curious enough to warrant comment.

27/x

All of this raises perhaps the world’s most obvious question: why didn't feds indict Rhodes months ago, in a separate standalone case if preferred, then tack on any financial charges later?

28/x

This is exactly what was done with alleged Oath Keeper James Breheny, who faces his 1/6 charges in a case separated from the Caldwell et. al docket.

There is precedent for this WITHIN the current crop of Oath Keepers defendants. This should NOT be holding up prosecution.

29/x

Here's a better explanation that elegantly resolves each and every outstanding issue in the entire 1/6 saga:

Revolver is right.

30/x

Ironically, Shipwrecks point about minor unrelated charges in a stand-alone case is one way for FBI-DOJ to create the impression they punished Rhodes without having to concede any possible undisclosed relationship between him and counterintelligence equities.

31/x

This is almost exactly what happened in the Michigan Plot. The DOJ ended up burning their own informant (Robeson) who they did not disclose as an informant in the October 2020 indictment.

32/x

Amid apparent suspicions Robeson "broke bad" on prosecutors, Robeson is now charged in a separate case, on an unrelated weapons charge.

33/x

It's a shame Fed informant Steve Robeson didn't heed Shipwreck's advice, start a nonprofit, and potentially have tax issues before getting mixed up in the Michigan Plot.

He could be on a beach in Bolivia right now instead of in Federal prison.

34/x

More reporting from Revolver next week. But for now, readers should be asking Fedsurrection Deniers:

Is that really all you’ve got?

As Trump would say: "They're not sending their best"