Interesting. It is virtually certain that the operation leader for the Oath Keepers Jan 6 operation was a certain Michael Simmons.

Mother Jones (July 26, 2021): We’ve Unmasked the Oath Keepers’ January 6 “Operations Leader” 1/16 tinyurl.com/ybm7ccsa
It is also virtually certain that Simmons, the operation leader, has flipped, because (1) we know from the Jan 12 Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy indictments that Simmons was not charged for seditious conspiracy (he wasn’t one of the 11 who were) 2/16 tinyurl.com/y7sb2fmh
and (2) because it is hard to imagine why he wouldn’t have been charged along with the other eleven if he hadn’t flipped. 3/16
A priori, of course, one would expect the “operation leader” to have been fully implicated in the seditious conspiracy described in the indictments.

For example, ¶ 19 of the charging document has the operation leader in on the following very private GoToMeeting: 4/16
Stopping the lawful transfer of presidential power, including preparations for the use of force, and urging those listening to participate” unmistakably describes intending a seditious conspiracy as defined by 18 USC § 2384. Everything else that ensured was the details. 5/16
The rest of the charging document doesn’t refer to the operation leader (who is not identified) very often, but when he is, it is clear that he was, as expected, fully involved in the seditious conspiracy. I have collected these references from the charging document. 6/16
7/16
8/16
9/16
10/16
11/16
12/16
Another piece of evidence that Simmons has flipped is that in the Mother Jones article cited above Simmons says that he agreed to share what he knew with the FBI. “I answered everything they asked me,” he said. 13/16
He also said: “I don’t feel like I did anything criminal,” to which one wants to ask: Really? Did you have a lawyer with you?

I believe we can assume he did, and that on the lawyers advice, Simmons sang like a canary. 14/16
What we really want to know, of course, is how close all of this (as well as other things we don’t know) gets the DoJ to nailing Trump and other individuals like Alexander, Stone, Jones, and Giuliani. 15/16
I think it can be shown that it gets the Department very close to that indeed. But it’s going on 5:00 in the morning (I’m on PST) and I need some sleep. Plan to return to this tomorrow. 16/16

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @twoodiac

Jan 19,
Was Michael Simmons, identified by Mother Jones as the operation leader for J6, deeply implicated in a much wider plot to block the transfer of power to Biden that involved, not just Rhodes, but also the likes of Giuliani, Stone, Bannon, and Sidney Powell? 1/21
This possibility began to dawn on me when I read an FBI 302 (interrogation report) on Simmons dated 8 Dec 2021 that is available on the web at Politico. 2/21 tinyurl.com/y7dhllup
Much about what Simmons told the FBI on 8 Dec 2021 made no sense, particularly in the light of the DoJ charge of seditious conspiracy dated Jan 12 (seven days ago) against Stewart Rhodes and 10 other Oath Keepers. 3/21
Read 22 tweets
Jan 16,
There are two passages in the Oath Keepers indictments whose significance has gone unnoticed by the commentators. These passages suggest that someone in the inner circle of the Oath Keepers has already flipped and become a DoJ informant. 1/20
Paragraph 19 of the charging document: The charging document identifies individuals Rhodes trusted as part of his inner circle, and names them. Question: why is the *operation leader* not named, and why was s/he not indicted? 2/20 tinyurl.com/y7sb2fmh
The above paragraph is incorporated in the part of the document (paragraphs 14 through 134) concerned with the key seditious conspiracy charge (18 USC § 2384). 3/20
Read 22 tweets
Jan 15,
Here’s the key statute in Rhodes’s indictment (“SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY”: 18 U.S. Code § 2384). Note that the use of the term “force” is different in kind from the other charges against Rhodes and his co-conspirators. 1/13 tinyurl.com/j6eap2p
Other charges include: obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to prevent an officer to discharge any duties; destruction of government property; civil disorder; assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers; destroying documents on or after Jan 6. 2/13
All of these other federal crimes were committed *in the course of pursuing seditious conspiracy.* (Consider especially “...or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any *law* of the United States.”) 3/13
Read 14 tweets
Jan 13,
“The DoJ alleges the defendants conspired to forcefully oppose the transfer of power between then-President Donald Trump to Joe Biden, including by trying to take control of the U.S. Capitol.” 1/5 tinyurl.com/yavthzp4
Let me note that the use of encrypted digital messages strongly corroborates my criticism on Jan 5 of a thread by @SethAbramson. 2/5 tinyurl.com/ydfjmss9
The same point was made recently by @glennkirschner2 3/5
tinyurl.com/y8zhh7dm
Read 6 tweets
Dec 20, 2021
I think there is at least a 50-50 chance that Trump will be indicted and convicted for serious *federal* crimes. It is therefore highly relevant that a Republican POTUS in Jan 2025 could pardon Trump for those crimes. 1/5
That is another reason why politics is the name of the game behind Trump’s lawsuit against Letitia James.

Trump is announcing, among other things, that there will be a loyalty test for all R politicians in the midterms and in 2024. 2/5
The loyalty test is to ignore any state or federal crimes he has undoubtedly committed.

For Trump, it has always been a question about who you are for and who you are against--and certainly not the law.

And you have to be *for* him. He has always demanded complete loyalty. 3/5
Read 6 tweets
Dec 20, 2021
"Mr. Trump’s lawsuit comes less than two weeks after Ms. James signaled that she would seek to question Mr. Trump under oath early next month."

He's scared to death.

nytimes.com/2021/12/20/nyr…
He's doing this to block the subpoena to testify under oath. But it's such a flakey move it will only get him a very short delay. In the meantime, it's a bad look for Trump. It makes him look like he's running from the law, which he is. He's getting desperate.
I expect, momentarily, to see all the legal experts weighing in about what a flakey move this is by Trump. But Trump must *know* that it is a flakey *legal* move. (He isn’t that stupid.) But to understand his motive here, it is necessary to look at the *politics*.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(