You know I like to provide the sources. Here is a 302 which by now you may know is the number of the form used by the FBI to capture interviews. They’re evidence. Oathkeeper Kenneth Harrelson’s attorney has released Person 10’s 302. We know person 10.🧵👇🏻
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Remember this episode of @ZevShalev @NarativTv show with @ninaburleigh where we discussed Constitutional Sheriff Dar Leaf, Hell, and went deep on a certain Oathkeeper doing security at a gas station in Kentucky?
You can now read the 302 and hear ‘Whip’ say the same things in the interview he did while at that gas station in Louisville. He still has not been charged in the conspiracy indictment. His interview was interesting. As stated in that show, I hope he wasn’t being used.
Simmons 302’s provide additional information about how person One, Stewart Rhodes leader of the Oathkeepers, wanted Trump to invoke the Insurrection act. He talks about the QRF, about how the ‘boats weren’t us’, and how he advised against wearing camo, and bringing guns to DC.
He tells us about going to out to dinner the night of Jan 6th.
Stewart Rhodes discussing Insurrection over all you can eat salad and breadsticks at an Olive Garden seems surreal to me.
‘When you’re here, you’re sedition-y’ probably won’t work as a new tag line for them.
Stewart Rhodes discussing Insurrection over all you can eat salad and breadsticks at an Olive Garden seems surreal to me.
‘When you’re here, you’re sedition-y’ probably won’t work as a new tag line for them.
Michael tells the FBI about the golf carts and tells us that he was DC doing personal security detail, he was. For Roger Stone. 
Additional indictments will come because there are others to still name. Person Three for instance. He was the Quick Reaction Force although all indications are that Person Three from NC would be less than ‘quick’. Person 10’s interview has redactions but if you know, you know.
Those redacted names means there might be cooperators close to Person 1. Just this week one of the Oathkeepers lawyers in front of the court about how anyone could go to trial for a conspiracy if Person 1 isn’t yet indicted. It’s a good question. Perhaps superseding indictment 7?
https://twitter.com/dempseytwo/status/1466878441031090190
For anyone who would like to see more of what is happening and has happened to get us where we are now, please read the following thread. Thanks for your time, thanks for reading and please make sure you’re registered to vote.
https://twitter.com/dempseytwo/status/1358396651614928900
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
