The Justice Department argues that Stewart Rhodes both substantially organized and activated an imputed plan to use violence, on 1/6, in real-time, through a series of encrypted Signal messages beginning at 1:38 p.m., as Trump concluded his rally speech on the National Mall, and 62 minutes before Oath Keepers lieutenants allegedly formed a "Military stack" to rush the Capitol doors.
If such a confidential relationship did exist between Stewart Rhodes and one or more U.S. counterintelligence equities, how do the FBI and other responsible agencies reconcile the enormous gravity of this omission from their previous deflections, non-answers, and boilerplate that they had "No actionable intelligence" before 1/6? If such a confidential relationship did exist between Stewart Rhodes and one or more U.S. counterintelligence equities, does this explain the FBI and Justice Department's failure to pursue criminal actions against Stewart Rhodes in similarly high-profile "Right-wing conspiracy plots" in which Rhodes appears to have played a similarly driving role?
More specifically, did the FBI or any other U.S. counterintelligence equities maintain a discrete or confidential relationship with Stewart Rhodes during the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff? Was this fact dispositive in the Justice Department's decision to charge 19 defendants - including certain of Stewart Rhodes's alleged Oath Keepers underlings - for conspiracy to obstruct a legal proceeding, and to spare Rhodes of similar charges?
If Stewart Rhodes is subsequently arrested after the date of this report, how does the Justice Department explain its failure to indict Stewart Rhodes on conspiracy charges for nearly six months, when its declared purpose for seeking bail denial for simple trespassers was the DOJ's stated need to prevent "The immediate danger to the community" defendants allegedly posed? Given that multiple Oath Keepers were charged before the January 20th inauguration citing the need to stop their "Immediate danger," why did the DOJ not file immediate charges against Rhodes, and then make a superseding indictment later in time, as is their routine practice in 1/6 cases?
From the very outset of Stewart Rhodes's founding of the Oath Keepers, to his actions in advance of and on the day of 1/6, Stewart Rhodes's entire career has been a case study in "Fierce rhetoric" wherein Rhodes repeatedly rallies his followers to take action, and everyone gets indicted but him.
A "Wild, paranoid rumor" that Attorney General Eric Holder was preparing a drone strike against them caused Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes to remove his men from the supposed "Kill zone." In a recorded video, other Bundy supporters talked openly of shooting Rhodes for what they viewed as "Desertion" and "Cowardice." Rhodes later described one situation as "This close from being a gunfight." He recounted another situation in which he said a man drew a gun on a member of another militia.
Revolver's previous investigative report generated tremendous attention and created a national conversation about the possibility of federal infiltration, incitement, and foreknowledge in relation to the events of 1/6. If our first piece helped to focus the conversation about 1/6 on the possibility of federal infiltration and incitement, we hope this piece will focus the question of possible federal infiltration and incitement on Oath Keepers founder and boss Stewart Rhodes.
Wednesday, June 30, 2021
Federal Protection of "Oath Keepers" Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol "Insurrection" Lie Wide Open
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment