[UPDATE JUNE 8, 2021]
NEW INTRODUCTION
The following articles have been revised and updated. The new versions replace the previous versions: Part 1, Key Findings and Overview; Part 4: Transient 3: The Oath Keepers Join The Proud Boys Attack; and Part 5: The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers Planning and Coordination.
While the revisions of parts 4 and 5 corrected some factual mistakes, they did not change the substance of the key findings. In fact, the revision in Part 4, specifically the Oath Keepers timeline, strengthened some of the key findings.
What some critics of the original analysis missed is that the model used in this analysis can either be falsified or corroborated by new evidence. It is a testable model. It can also be corrected as facts are corrected. The model can also be expanded as new evidence comes to light. The model makes specific claims that can either be falsified or corroborated by additional evidence or a more persuasive discussion or interpretation of the facts.
The model also examines the process of events and communications leading up to the January 6 insurrectionary attack. In doing so, it also uncovers a period that requires further investigation and analysis. The mainstream press is satisfied with receiving videos from amateur sleuths and not delving deeper. The media’s “scoop” is simply videos and pictures showing Oath Keepers at various security events for Roger Stone. The real story is one- or two-levels below the surface reality and concerns how and why this decision comes about and who is involved.
Between the November and December “Stop The Steal” protests in Washington, D.C., Roger Stone’s security undergoes a major transition from his “private army” of Proud Boys to the untested Oath Keepers. The shift from the Proud Boys to the Oath Keepers eventually enables the Proud Boys leaders to keep the rank-and-file Proud Boys confined to their hotel rooms on January 5. Did the Proud Boys leadership initiate this shift with the approval of Roger Stone? Why did Roger Stone approve this shift? The entire decision-making process requires further investigation and analysis.
The Single-Envelopment Three-Transient Attack model proposed in this intelligence analysis asks readers to understand the January 6 insurrectionists’ attack as a military attack and not simply as a protest run amok into a riot. This is the model I present in this five-part series.
The model's claims are four: (1) there was a joint plan between the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys; (2) there was pre-attack coordination between the two groups; (3) there was joint execution by the two groups during the attack; and (4) there was some mechanism for sharing operational intelligence between the two groups during the attack. Those four claims are testable. They are falsifiable. This is the strongest model interpreting the evidence presented by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the evidence collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
There are two alternative models: the Immaculate Insurrection model and the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Six Parallel and Interlocking Conspiracies model, the latter described by Marcy Wheeler in four posts on the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the sixth conspiracy.
The Immaculate Insurrection model is the go-to model of defense lawyers. The insurrectionary attack was conjured up by the gods of war. If that is too spiritual, we can combine the sociology of collective movements and the influence of John Boyd. Now, the insurrectionary attack arises from the collective mind of the crowd imbued with the sense of “fingerfeel” and intuitive sense of schwerpunkt or focus of effort. However since fingerfeel and schwerpunkt take a great deal of training to develop, it is unlikely that the entire attack is spontaneous. That said, there are two instances when the MAGA mob achieves what the Proud Boys did not: briefly open the Senate Carriage doors (pdf) on the east side of the Capitol building at 1418H (via EmptyWheel) and opening the east side Columbus Doors from the inside (pdf) at 1439H (via DOJ).
The second model, described by Marcy Wheeler, though not endorsed by her, is the Six Parallel and Interlocking Conspiracies model put forth by the Department of Justice in numerous criminal complaints, indictments, and other motions. This model assumes parallel conspiracies and parallel planning by the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. It presents evidence of pre-attack coordination between the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. It makes no assertions regarding joint operations during the attack or any manner of shared communications during the attack.
It is an improvement over the Immaculate Insurrection model, but it suffers two faults. One, the Department of Justice misinterprets its own evidence regarding the formulation of the joint plan. And two, by fragmenting the conspiracies DOJ prosecutors of individuals involved in the attack may not realize how unified the attack was. As shown in Part 4, there are six strong correlations between a Proud Boys action and an Oath Keepers communication or action. Maybe one or two can be dismissed as coincidences, but not six.
Wheeler is certainly correct that she and I are writing about two different things regarding conspiracy. But our differences are more apparent than real. My mistake was to conflate her comments as agreeing with the DOJ’s Six Parallel Conspiracies model. Her comments do not indicate that at all. I apologize. As she wrote in response to my “problematic military analysis”:
“[W]hen I map out the conspiracies we’re seeing on January 6, I’m not talking about the overarching conspiracy that made it successful, how the entire event was planned. Rather, I’m observing where prosecutors have chosen to use that tool—by charging four separate conspiracies against Proud Boys that prosecutors are sloppily treating as one, and charging (as of yesterday) sixteen members of the Oath Keepers in a single conspiracy—and where they haven’t, yet—for a set of guys who played key roles in breaching the East door and the Senate chamber who armed themselves and traveled together.”
I am agnostic on who else should and should not be charged with conspiracy regarding the Columbus Door breach on Transient 3 (“the East door”) and the “Senate chamber.”
It does not matter to me if there are one, four, or five prosecutions of Proud Boys for conspiracy.
I put all the Proud Boys together in one operational plan (conspiracy) based on evidence from Document 84 in the Nordean case. The DOJ filed a motion denying that it denied Nordean due process. On page 4 are two quotes from a December 30 video call with the secret inner core of the Proud Boys’ leadership, a cell called MOSD. One participant in that video states, “‘It’s all one operational plan’” (pdf) (via EmptyWheel). A second participant states that the January 6 operation is “‘a completely different operation’” from previous Proud Boys operations. This operation involves “‘a lot of contingencies…[and] teams that are going to be put together.’”
Now, not all the Proud Boys may have been aware of “‘one operational plan.’” But element five of eight presented by Wheeler states: “Co-conspirators don’t have to know precisely what the others are doing, and, in large conspiracies, they rarely do.”
I do not know what each individual Proud Boy knew, and I do not care what they knew. I neither know nor care if prosecutors can prove all elements of the crime of conspiracy, though I clearly prefer that they win their cases. What I do believe is that the inner, secret leadership of the Proud Boys—the MOSD cell formed by the Proud Boys’ national chairman—knew that that every member of the Proud Boys participating in the January 6 insurrectionary attack were executing “‘one operational plan’” with “‘a lot of contingencies’” and with “‘teams that are going to be put together.’”
Now, whether federal prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable to doubt to juries that one or more Proud Boys from Arizona or Missouri or Florida or New Jersey or Washington State participated in that conspiracy is not my concern.
I do agree 100% with Wheeler that “If Trump, or even his flunkies, are going to be held accountable for January 6, it will almost certainly be through conspiracy charges built up backwards from the activities at the Capitol. I am agnostic on whether they will be, but it’s not as far a reach as some might think.”
I believe the insurrectionary attack on January 6 was deliberately planned with the participation of Donald Trump, select individuals in the Trump campaign, and a select group of his closest advisers. I also think that if the FBI/DOJ move up the “food chain” as it were, from indicted Oath Keepers and Proud Boys leaders for the January 6 conspiracy, to unindicted leaders who have documented direct and indirect links to the Trump campaign, that it may continue up the food chain to Trump.
Marcy Wheeler has pointed out that there is a difference between “the possible scope of the January 6 investigation” and “the likely one.” Wheeler also pointed that based on just what we have seen in public filings—in contrast to FBI evidence and DOJ search warrants we have not seen—that “the investigation is already just two degrees of separation from Donald Trump via both Rudy and Stone, and that’s just what we can see looking at what prosecutors have been willing to share.”
There are other networks and channels of influence and communications yet to be fully explored like the Council for National Policy and the Christian Right; veterans groups and other than self-identified militias; and the overlap between QAnon, as a networked insurgency or “national security threat” and influenced by Michael Flynn, and the New Apostolic Reformation.
That is beyond the scope of my analysis of the January 6 attack. But I have been influenced in that regard by an analysis by Aimee Vanderpool. And Seth Abramson has written extensively on the topic of the January 5, 2021, “war council” and general planning. He has written more articles and Twitter threads than I have been able to absorb, but I generally agree with his analysis (here, here, here, and here).
If critics have a better model than the model presented in this series of articles, I am eager to read it. If readers have new evidence that falsifies or corroborates the model, I am willing to consider and incorporate the new evidence. But having a model is better than not having a model.
I view the efforts of Marcy Wheeler, Seth Abramson, Aimee Vanderpool, and myself as operating in different but complementary lanes. They may not agree with that assessment.
My aim is to understand the January 6 insurrectionary attack as a military attack. Other researchers may be looking specifically at how some veterans’ groups linked to Trump were involved. Other researchers may be looking at QAnon or Council for National Policy groups. The model can expand, if necessary, to incorporate more groups. At this point the model is limited to the most credible evidence provided by the DOJ/FBI court filings.
Wheeler analyzes the DOJ filings from a legal perspective. Whether or not I agree or disagree with small pieces of her analysis is irrelevant. My model does not disprove anyone’s legal analysis. However, in the original Part 1 I did mistakenly conflate Wheeler’s analysis or comments with the Department of Justice’s analysis and I did mistakenly criticize her analysis. I apologize. That was my error.
Abramson and Vanderpool examine the persons and organizations that may have played crucial roles in having the January 6 event occur. I limit my analysis to how the attack looks from a military intelligence perspective. Hopefully, my analysis contributes to others’ research and analysis.
END NEW INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Part 1 covers the Key Findings and Overview.
Part 2 covers Transient 1, the Proud Boys and MAGA mob attack on the western side of the Capitol building. The MAGA mob would not enter through the West Doors on the Upper West Terrace until about 1440H. The MAGA mob would continue battling law enforcement officers in the Lower West Terrace tunnel until about 1715H.
Part 3 covers Transient 2, the main attack thrust of the Proud Boys up the Northwest Stairs through the Northwest Courtyard and then into the Senate side of the building by about 1414H.
Part 4 covers Transient 3, the main attack thrust of the Oath Keepers on the east side of the Capitol building. While the Columbus Doors allowing the Oath Keepers to enter the Capitol building at 1440H. This part covers two estimates of the total time it took to move from the Ellipse to the east side of the Capitol. The government's latest filing states that happened at 1428H, just 7 minutes before the "stack" formed and entered the building at about 1441H. Part 4 also finds six correlations between Proud Boys actions and Oath Keepers communications and actions. The key findings in Part 4 is that the attack appears to be coordinated and there appears to be some mechanism for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to share operational intelligence in near-real time.
Part 5 examines the evidence of joint planning and coordination by the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys before the January 6 insurrectionary attack. Kelly Meggs, the Florida Oath Keeper who led the "stack" formation appears to have been deeply involved in "organizing an alliance" with the Proud Boys and "orchestrating a plan" with the Proud Boys. Part 5 argues that most of the Proud Boys' leadership communications on Telegram on January 4-5 are political theater intended to keep the rank-and-file Proud Boys "busy" and off the streets.
INTRODUCTION
The federal investigation into the January 6 attack on the foundation of our democracy via the military-like assault on the Capitol building, according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) filing on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s first day in office, as Marcy Wheeler sharply noted, “will likely be one of the largest in American history, both in terms of the number of defendants prosecuted and the nature and volume of the evidence,” (pdf) according to the DOJ’s filing on March 12, 2021 (via EmptyWheel).
The DOJ reported that it had, up to 75 days ago, served “over 900 search warrants” and collected “more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage…approximately 1,600 electronic devices…the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers…over 210,000 tips, of which a substantial portion include video, photo and social media…and over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments.” The investigation includes 14 law enforcement agencies.
Consider just a single discovery release from federal prosecutors to Ethan Nordean’s defense lawyer. Nordean is the Proud Boys’ leader, the first among equals, on January 6 as a stand-in for Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys who was arrested in Washington, D.C. on January 4.
On April 29, 2021, the government released “eleven (11) strings of text messages, totaling over 5,000 pages, that contained the terms ‘Ministry of Self-Defense’ or ‘MOSD’…” The following day, the government released the full extraction of Telegram messages from Nordean’s cell phone. This release totaled “approximately 1,172 Telegram message strings (totaling over 1.3 million messages). The extracted text of the Telegram messages in Nordean’s phone runs over 204,000 pages (pdf) when printed in .pdf format, which does not include any of the images, audio, or video files that are associated with the message strings” (via EmptyWheel).
Of the “over 204,000 pages” of Telegram messages, publicly available pages found in court filings specifically related to those Telegram messages is about 2 pages.
Repeatedly in court filings DOJ prosecutors have stated that they have provided the bare minimum amount of evidence to show probable cause that a defendant or defendants have violated a specific federal law or continue to pose a danger to the community and should not be released from pre-trial detention.
For example, there are at least 7 DOJ filings against defendants in which the government explains that via a search warrant for Google that it obtained GPS, Wi-Fi access points (pdf via DOJ), and Bluetooth beacon data (pdf via DOJ) that can situate a connected mobile device using a “‘maps display radius’” accurate within 10 meters of the access point 68% of the time. This data allows the FBI to produce a map of an individual walking through the Capitol building at specific times and through specific areas, including when they entered and departed the Capitol building. It has produced only two such maps in the filings, though there may be more I have not seen. But it is indicative of the fine-grained evidence that the DOJ may be able to produce for defendants whose mobile devices were connected via a Google account.
In other words, all legal analyses and, in this case, an intelligence analysis of the January 6 attack, are based upon a minimum amount of evidence available to the public. Our analyses and assessments can be corroborated by future disclosures, require modifications, or undermine our findings completely. I accept that.
Conversely, federal prosecutors and FBI special agents are dealing with the proverbial “mountain of evidence.” Federal prosecutors and the FBI have, as of May 13, 2021, according to a Washington Post analysis, charged “at least 411 suspects,” including “75 people [charged] with assaulting police” and members of two groups, Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, charged with conspiracy. At least 31 people are charged with conspiracy, according to the Post’s analysis.
The other consideration to keep in mind is that the FBI and DOJ prosecutors are preparing criminal cases that will either be tried before a jury, or the defendants will plead guilty before trial. In other words, DOJ lawyers are not analyzing the January 6 attack as a military attack.
CONSPIRACY CHARGES CAUSE DOJ PROBLEMS
This lack of analysis or understanding of the January 6 insurrection as a military attack has seemingly caused some difficulties for federal prosecutors in court, particularly when pressured by the Court or defense lawyers to produce “a plan.”
The Washington Post on May 13, noted that “prosecutors will have to spell out how much of their evidence points to planning by some of the attackers, how much was spontaneous and what remains uncertain about the origins of the riot.”
This has been a running problem for federal prosecutors and at times federal prosecutors who in court have apparently lost the plot, so to speak, on the planning for the military attack by the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.
Within one week of the January 6 attack, the FBI and DOJ were looking at conspiracy charges, according to the Washington Post and CNN. By January 19, the DOJ had filed its first conspiracy case against the Oath Keepers.
Marcy Wheeler called this the “First Node of the Insurrection Conspiracy.” By early February, Wheeler noted that the indictment of several Proud Boys suggested the apparent outline of “two parallel conspiracy prosecutions, each sharing the same object—to halt the vote certification — and each also sharing several of the same overt acts.”
By the middle of March, following the “First Superseding Indictment” (pdf) of four Proud Boys leaders—Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Charles Donohoe—and some additional evidence, Wheeler observed that this “brings two parallel conspiracies laid out over a month ago closer together, arguably intersecting.”
In Wheeler’s description of the DOJ/FBI’s intersecting conspiracies the intersecting appears to be limited to the proximity of Joseph Biggs and two other Proud Boys with the Oath Keepers’ “stack” formation on the east side of the Capitol at the Columbus Doors. In other words, the DOJ’s “intersecting” was limited to a time-space correlation between the two groups at one instance. Wheeler noted that “these conspiracy indictments will remain separate only for prosecutorial ease.”
Wheeler, in my opinion, points out a probable problem the DOJ prosecutors have—namely that they are not looking at January 6 insurrection as a military attack with one operational plan. If you keep the prosecution of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys separate for “prosecutorial ease,” which may be a very sound legal strategy, it may also have the unintended effect of not allowing prosecutors to see how these two attacks were jointly planned and jointly executed.
And I think that the separation of the conspiracy trials helps the media and the general public portray the January 6 attack in terms other than as a jointly planned and jointly executed attack by the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Clearly my analysis challenges the conventional wisdom and goes beyond the available evidence. But it is the analysis of the available evidence that drives the key findings. The DOJ, and certainly some of my critics, do not analyze the January 6 attack as a military attack. In fact, some critics have done precisely zero analyses.
Simply put, there is almost certainly a tactical reason why Biggs and two other Proud Boys exited the Capitol building and then re-entered the Capitol building in front of the Oath Keepers. Their movement outside the building made no tactical sense when the best option was to open the Columbus Doors from the inside. But I argue that their transition from Transient 2 to Transient 3 appears to be part of the battle plan.
In her March 19 article, twice linked above, Wheeler describes “The State of the Five Now-Intersecting January 6 Militia Conspiracies.” In April, following another federal indictment, Wheeler added a fifth Proud Boys conspiracy: the Proud Boy North Door. Here are the DOJ’s six parallel and “intersecting conspiracies”: Oath Keepers, Proud Boy Media, Proud Boy Leadership, Proud Boy Kansas, Proud Boy North Door, and Proud Boy Front Door.
First, by the DOJ’s criteria of intersecting, a strong time-space correlation, there is no intersecting between the Oath Keepers and Proud Boy Media and Proud Boy Kansas. Oath Keepers and Proud Boy Leadership and Proud Boy Front Door are correlated only through Joseph Biggs’ proximity to the Oath Keepers at the Columbus Doors. In other words, the DOJ’s apparent criteria undermines the presumed prosecutorial ambition to tie the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys into one conspiracy, even if they keep those conspiracies separate for “prosecutorial ease.”
Second, what ties all the Proud Boys’ conspiracies together—Media, Leadership, Kansas, North Door, and Front Door—is the fact that they were operating from one operational plan (pdf) as Proud Boys (via EmptyWheel). From a military intelligence perspective, there are not five Proud Boys conspiracies. There is one. But the DOJ is presenting the Proud Boys’ cases as five conspiracies, while the Oath Keepers are treated as one conspiracy. I am agnostic on whether this is the right prosecutorial strategy.
But there is a way to understand why the DOJ has divided the one Proud Boys conspiracy into five conspiracies based on what the DOJ may know for fact certain.
The May 13, 2021, government response to a Nordean motion (pdf via EmptyWheel) states that on 29 December Tarrio formed a secret MOSD cell that was the inner core of the Proud Boys leadership for the January 6 attack. The 5 named members of the 6-member MOSD were Enrique Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Charles Donohoe. The latter four are named in the Leadership Conspiracy. There is one person that is part of the MOSD that remains unnamed. They are designated by the DOJ as “Person-1.” It is Person-1 who states there is “one operational plan” on the video call. Rehl gives the other operational details. Person-2 was “visible on the screen at the time the [Person-1] statement was made.” The Person-1 and Person-2 nomenclature is confusing. But in any event, only 5 of the 6 MOSD members are named. The sixth person is ambiguous.
The DOJ has also stated in a different filing that Unindicted Co-Conspirator-1 and Person-2 were located away from the Capitol grounds and monitoring all the Proud Boys’ electronic transmissions (see this pdf via EmptyWheel).
It is reasonable to assume that the DOJ possesses the “one operational plan” with “many contingencies” and a plan to form the Proud Boys into groups. And it is reasonable to assume that UCC-1 and/or Person-2 and/or Person-1 can testify and verify the contents of the plan. The DOJ has exploited Nordean’s cell phone and they have the apparent cooperation of at least one and possibly one or two more high level Proud Boys.
If those assumptions are true, then the other separate conspiracy trials make sense: prove the existence of “one operational plan;” prove the “contingencies” and division into groups; prove the group was briefed on the plan; prove the group exists; and then prove the group traveled and acted together in ways consistent with the plan.
The “Front Door” conspiracy is the leadership of Transient 2: Biggs and Dominic Pezzola. The “North Door” is two young brothers, JP and Matthew Klein. The Kansas group is not given a location in the DOJ in its filings. They appear to be located or heading toward a subterranean area of the Capitol building. I am not familiar with the layout of the building so I hesitate to guess where they were. And the Media conspiracy group appeared to broadcast at least one message to the right-wing: “Murder The Media.” That is the logical extension of Trump calling the media the “enemy of the people.”
But it is an apparent stumbling block for federal prosecutors to articulate in court what the “plan” was that is most troubling.
On March 3, the Washington Post reported that Judge Beryl A. Howell released Ethan Nordean from pre-trial detention because “the government had not supplied evidence to date that he directly ordered individuals to break into the Capitol.” The Post quoted Judge Howell as stating, “‘Evidence that he directed other defendants to break into or enter the Capitol is weak, to say the least.’” The Post also quoted Judge Howell stating, “‘The government has backed down from saying that he directly told them to split into groups and that they had this strategic plan.’” And the Post noted that Nordean’s defense attorney had “argued that the government failed to allege any evidence of plans or conspiracy to commit any specific crime involving the ‘depredation’ of government property.”
Nine days later March 12, a pre-trial detention hearing resulted in Judge Amit Mehta releasing Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell. Caldwell’s defense attorney asked in his filing claiming five government inaccuracies: “‘Doesn’t the Court find it odd that the Government hasn’t outlined the specifics of the premeditated plan? What time was the ‘invasion’ scheduled to begin? Who would lead the attack? What was the goal once the planners entered the Capitol? Who was the leader in the attack? What was the exit strategy of the planners?’” (pdf) (via EmptyWheel).
But it is the response of Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy which is stunningly dangerous. AUSA Rakoczy is prosecuting the Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell’s case.
Wheeler analyzed Rakoczy’s response to Caldwell’s attorney’s questions. First, Wheeler quoted part of Rakoczy’s response: “‘They were waiting to see what leadership did. When leadership did what they referred to as ‘nothing,’ they did take matters into their own hands. They were waiting and watching to see what was happening.’” Wheeler then noted:
“AUSA Kathryn Rakoczy conceded that the alleged co-conspirators didn’t have hard and fast plans as to what would happen before the event. This was a plan made of ‘possibilities,’ which included the possibility (the facetious excuse offered by Caldwell) that other groups would resort to violence if Vice President Pence threw out the vote and the Oath Keepers would have to respond with force, or that President Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act and the Oath Keepers would come in to institute martial law. As Rakoczy described, they were ‘watching and waiting to see what leadership did’ to achieve the goal of preventing the vote count, which goal the ‘government submits was unlawful and corrupt.’”
Wheeler also pointed out that only after Judge Mehta released Caldwell “did Rakoczy point out the problem with this argument: Caldwell is not charged with conspiring to storm the Capitol [emphasis in original].
Wheeler’s analysis also pointed to a larger potential problem for prosecutors and perhaps for the public to understand: The goal of the conspiracy was much larger than assaulting the Capitol and stopping the certification of the Electoral College vote. Wheeler argued:
The government on March 23 filed another motion regarding Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs (pdf) (via EmptyWheel) and his activities related to operational planning and on May 13 made another filing related to additional Proud Boys Telegram messages (pdf) (via EmptyWheel). All the planning and coordinating related to these additional DOJ releases are analyzed in detail and in the larger context of operational planning in Part 5.
On April 19, Judge Timothy Kelly ordered that Proud Boys leaders Ethan Nordean and Joseph Biggs to remain in pre-trial detention. The Washington Post reported that Judge “Kelly said that whatever gaps in prosecutors’ case so far, there was abundant evidence that Army veteran Biggs and Nordean with others planned in advance for violence and to cause chaos, coordinated confrontations with police, and conspired to conceal or ‘nuke’ their encrypted messages.” Just to note, in this ruling Judge Kelly is relying upon evidence contained in the “First Superseding Indictment” of the Proud Boys and not later filings by federal prosecutors.
Defense lawyers argued, according to the Post, that Nordean and Biggs “were prepared only to protect Trump supporters from far-left violence. Their attorneys also argued that Proud Boys members expressed as much surprise as anyone that they were able to breach the Capitol, and prosecutors had not presented any clear evidence of what their plan was.”
The Post also reported Judge Kelly’s rebuttal to the defense claims: “‘In the end, the evidence is overwhelming that Nordean and Biggs had a plan for that day. The question is, what is the strength of the government’s case that the plan is what the grand jury charged?’ Kelly said. ‘In my view, the evidence is strong enough,’ the judge said, ‘even if as in most conspiracy cases, we don’t have a document or information that lays out the conspiracy plainly.’”
And some judges have distinguished between defendants in terms of how serious their crimes were or how dangerous they are in the future. The Washington Post reported that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. ruled: “‘In our view, those who actually assaulted police officers and broke through windows, doors, and barricades, and those who aided, conspired with, planned, or coordinated such actions, are in a different category of dangerousness than those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way.’”
Thus, some federal judges have ruled that there is not enough evidence of a conspiracy. Some federal judges have ruled there is enough evidence, but they would like to see more. And at least one federal prosecutor for one day almost sounded like a defense attorney.
If Judge Kelly’s comments are indicative of the strength of the federal prosecutors’ cases, then each prosecutorial filing in the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys cases adds more evidence and digs a deeper hole for the defendants to try and escape.
THREE MODELS OF THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION ATTACK
What follows next is a presentation of three models for understanding the January 6 insurrection attack as a military attack. These models are the Immaculate Insurrection, the Five Parallel and Intersecting Conspiracies, and the Single Envelopment Three Transient Attack.
The Immaculate Insurrection model is the favorite of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers defense lawyers. In this model there is no prior operational planning; there is no intent to “storm” the Capitol building; the defendants’ intent was to defend Trump or the election results from Antifa; there is no coordination with other groups; and the defendants were simply caught up “in a moment” or “swept away” by the crowd’s emotions. When the insurrectionists found themselves inside the Capitol, inside the Senate Chamber, or attempting to breach the door at the Speaker’s Lobby, their reaction was Gomer Pyle’s “surprise, surprise, surprise, golly, shazam.”
The Six Parallel and Intersecting Conspiracies model, discussed above, is the apparent model of the Department of Justice, as described by Marcy Wheeler. The weakness of the DOJ model is that it does not attempt to understand the attack as a military attack that has a clear military design and follows some important principles of war (if you will). The DOJ also breaks apart the one operational plan of the Proud Boys into five conspiracies. This breaking apart may not be so detrimental if the conspiracies are seen as resulting from “one operational plan.” The DOJ prosecutors and FBI special agents apparently misinterpret or misunderstand a crucial piece of evidence that they have disclosed in a court filing.
However, the strength or virtue of Wheeler’s analysis of the DOJ model is that she argued strongly that the conspiracy to overthrow the government began long before January 6, 2021 and was driven by Donald Trump. As Wheeler argued, “The real goal…was to overthrow the democratic system…. [and] do whatever it took to prevent the lawfully elected President from taking power.” We share a common view of the larger conspiracy.
The third model, the model I propose here in this intelligence analysis is the Single Envelopment Three Transient Attack model. This model makes the strongest claims and goes beyond Wheeler’s model and the presentations by federal prosecutors because it is based on an intelligence analysis of the evidence presented by federal prosecutors as well as other photographic and video evidence found on such websites as Insurgent Hunter (Jan6Evidence) and DeTrumpify and Sansa Stark’s timeline.
Future federal disclosures of evidence could corroborate this model, modify this model, or undermine it. The weakest part of the model is the finding that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys shared a Tactical Operations Center or had some means of sharing operational intelligence or updates. But if they did not, the core of the model remains intact.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
The following are the key findings of this intelligence analysis. The findings are backed by evidence and analysis.
The Single Envelopment Three Transient Attack model:
Transient 1 was a deception (see Part 2). Even though the bulk of the MAGA rioters were congregating and attacking along the West Capitol Plaza the main purpose of this transient was to focus the manpower and perceptions of the defending police forces on this location.
Transient 2 was the main attack (see Part 3). The Proud Boys shifted their focus and manpower from Transient 1 to the Northwest Stairs. They broke through the thin police line on the stairs, dashed across the Northwest Courtyard, and bashed open the windows and doors on the Senate side.
The Proud Boys maneuver from the Transient 2 breach to the Senate Chamber up one flight of stairs was both a tactical failure and a catastrophic strategic failure (see Part 3).
The Proud Boys transition from Transient 2 to Transient 3 was also both a tactical failure and a catastrophic strategic failure (see Part 3).
Transient 3 was also a main attack (see Part 4). The Oath Keepers “stack” formation and VIP Security detail both staged to the east side of the Capitol where they waited, inert and lacking initiative, until the Proud Boys or the MAGA rioters opened the Columbus Doors.
The Oath Keepers arrived on the east side of the Capitol building at 1428H, according to the “Fourth Superseding Indictment” of the Oath Keepers (see Part 4).
Based on the new arrival time at Capitol East, the Oath Keepers departed the Trump speech at 1253H; they took an estimated 31 minutes to put on their tactical costumes; they departed the Ellipse at an estimated 1324H; and walked for 64 minutes and arrived at Capitol East at 1428H. (see Part 4).
The attack was jointly executed by the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (see Part 4).
There are six correlations or indications, based on an analysis of Proud Boys actions linked to Oath Keepers’ communications, suggesting that the Oath Keepers were receiving near-real time Proud Boys operational updates and reacting to those updates (see Part 4).
The Oath Keepers were apparently reacting to Proud Boys communications in near-real time because Person Ten, the Oath Keepers ground commander on January 6, was either co-located inside the Proud Boys’ Tactical Operations Center, or was monitoring their “New MOSD” Telegram channel (see Part 4). Person Ten was most likely not co-located in the Proud Boys’ TOC. This finding is changed to mean that the six correlations between Proud Boys actions and Oath Keepers communications and/or actions suggests there is some mechanism for the Oath Keepers to acquire the Proud Boys’ operational updates.
The attack was jointly planned by the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (see Part 5).
The inert behavior of the Oath Keepers on Transient 3, including a total of 95 minutes from the time they left the Trump speech to the time they arrived at Capitol East, makes sense only if the Oath Keepers had pre-planned the attack (see Part 4 and Part 5).
THE PURPOSE OF AN INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Federal prosecutors are limited in their court appearances to the actions of a single defendant or a small group of defendants. Defendants appearing at the same time-space coordinates inside the Capitol building are treated separately by the DOJ because they are different court cases. In the intelligence analysis, those time-space coordinates are brought together.
The DOJ prosecutors do not analyze the January 6 attack as a military attack. They do not write about maneuvers or transients. The DOJ does not write about focus of effort. The DOJ does not write about maskirova or deception.
Let me offer one example of how the intelligence analysis differs from the DOJ/FBI filings. This difference is absolutely critical to the analysis.
“Alliance” and “Orchestrated” Versus “Coordination”
The prime example of where this intelligence analysis challenges the interpretations of both the DOJ concerns the joint planning of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. In my view, the DOJ misconstrues the evidence collected by the FBI from Kelly Meggs. All the data and quotes come from the DOJ filing “Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Request for Pretrial Release” (pdf) (via EmptyWheel).
In the government filing, DOJ prosecutors use the word “coordination” three times as it pertains exclusively to Kelly Meggs.
First instance (DOJ): “On December 19, Defendant Meggs discussed his coordination with other groups who were also planning to be in Washington, D.C., on January 6.”
Here is the evidence from Meggs the DOJ considers “coordination”: “[T]his week I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys. We have decided to work together and shut this shit down” [emphasis added].
Does “organized an alliance” and “work together” for the common purpose of shutting something down sound like mere coordination? Did foreign ministers Ribbentrop and Molotov coordinate or did they negotiate a non-aggression pact?
Second instance (DOJ): “On December 22, Defendant Meggs discussed coordination with the Proud Boys and the number of Oath Keepers who will be in Washington, D.C., on January 6.”
As I analyze in Part 4, what Meggs described was a single-envelopment attack using two attacking forces on two transients. He did not use those words but that is what he is describing.
Here is Meggs’ description of a single envelopment attack using two attacking forces on two transients: “I figure we could splinter off the main group of PB and come up behind them. Fucking crush them for good[.]… We can hang for a while they’ll see one group then we all fall to the back of the pack and peel off. We catch them in the middle...game over[.]”
Third instance (DOJ): “On December 25, Defendant Meggs provided a provisions list—mace, gas mask, baton, plate carrier—and discussed coordination with the Proud Boys.”
Here is the evidence of “coordination” with the Proud Boys: “[W]e have orchestrated a plan with the proud boys. I’ve been communicating with REDACTED the leader” [emphasis added].
What does it mean to “orchestrate” something? In music it means to “arrange or write a piece of music so that it can be played by an orchestra.” It is a final product that is ready to be used. Does the DOJ think Beethoven coordinated all the instruments used in his Symphony Number 9?
To orchestrate can also mean “to plan and organize something carefully and sometimes secretly in order to achieve a desired result.” Again, there is a final product that is ready to be executed.
In both instances, the DOJ misconstrues an “alliance” and “orchestrated” as coordination. That is not correct. It probably leads the DOJ prosecutors astray.
I argue that “organizing an alliance” and “orchestrating a plan” with the national chairman of the Proud Boys means that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys developed and agreed to a joint battle plan. This goes beyond what the DOJ calls “coordination.”
Is it any wonder that the DOJ’s fixation on “coordination” has left lawyers wondering what the plan was? They cannot conceive of the January 6 insurrection attack as a military attack. Even when one of the participants in the process of formulating a joint plan tells the DOJ what the Oath Keepers did, the DOJ prosecutors misinterpret his messages given to a presumably very trusted person or persons on Facebook. And I argue in Part 5, when you put Meggs’ Facebook disclosures in the context and timeline of the entire month of December, in other words not taking Meggs’ disclosures out of context, what Meggs accomplished with the Proud Boys becomes clearer.
And in the third message that the DOJ used the word “coordination” they missed the description of the attack Meggs gave because they themselves have not conceptualized the attack as a military attack. The DOJ has teams of lawyers prosecuting individuals in the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys but have no concept of what the attack even looked like.
In the third message Meggs described a single-envelopment attack using two attacking forces and two transients: “We are gonna March with them for a while then fall back to the back of the crowd and turn off. Then we will have the proud boys get in front of them the cops will between antifa and proud boys. We will come in behind antifa and beat the hell out of them.”
Bear in mind that Meggs has zero military experience. It is probable that he is describing a sanitized version of the joint Proud Boys and Oath Keeper maneuvers based on a battle plan already devised. And I assess that is the case because a street fight with Antifa would represent a complete rupture with previous operations. Of course, assaulting the Capitol building is also a complete rupture with previous Oath Keepers operations but it is also consistent with the training at least some Oath Keepers received in the military. Street fighting is not in the organization’s culture.
I have followed the Oath Keepers since they formed in 2009. In 12 years they have engaged in precisely zero street fights. Meggs’ description of Oath Keepers attacking Antifa forces on the street and “crushing” them is a fantasy, a delusion. But, if you look at the apparent battle plan as it unfolded on January 6—single envelopment, three transients, two attacking forces—Meggs’ sanitized description is closer to that model.
For one thing, the Oath Keepers have never executed such an attack or operation. Operational actions like Bunkerville or Sugar Pine Mine were static operations. The Oath Keepers basically just sat around and told campfire stories. At Bunkerville Rhodes figuratively wet his pants over a delusional drone strike by President Obama. Oath Keepers and other militias stayed away from the Malheur occupation. The Oath Keepers’ meager efforts to stay relevant included “guarding” a few Trump rallies like in Minneapolis. At clashes between white nationalists and Antifa, David Neiwert noted that Oath Keepers “has been mostly a minor presence.” Two years later (2020) David Neiwert noted that “Oath Keepers’ credibility within far-right movement circles is somewhat thin.” The Oath Keepers are not street fighters. It is not what they were formed to do. At street fights they stand on the sidelines aligned with the white nationalists and pretend they are defending everyone’s constitutional rights. That is their schtick.
What Meggs does do, probably thinking that he is maintaining operational security, is state that the target of the attack is Antifa. That is ludicrous. How does fighting Antifa forces in Washington, D.C. keep Trump president and Biden out of the White House? The Oath Keepers talk about Antifa is probably just a thin cover story.
Marcy Wheeler calls it the “‘Antifa foil.’” In Wheeler’s analysis, this is “the excuse to come armed and a means to foment violence.” I would add that it would be the violence providing the pretext for Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act—an action that Stewart Rhodes, Roger Stone, and Michael Flynn had long advocated. Rhodes and Stone are on record favoring this action as early as September 2020. Flynn apparently argued that case directly to Trump in the White House in December.
I would argue that the attack that Meggs describes in his Facebook messages is a sanitized and simplified version of the actual January 6 attack as he understood it.
The next section reveals what the actual January 6 attack looked as a military attack. The plan appears simple. The plan could fit on the back of a napkin, a single sheet of paper, or in one or two Power Point slides. It is complex to pull off. And it unlikely to have developed spontaneously, on the spot, or intuitively from a crowd mind.
The MAGA crowd appears to have been able to make strong tactical moves. On the other hand, we cannot know for certain at this point if there were or were not Proud Boys within the MAGA mob as they made these tactical moves. The behavior of the Proud Boys on Transient 1 was to incite and guide the MAGA mob rather they themselves initiating violence with the USCP and MPD officers.
THE SINGLE ENVELOPMENT THREE TRANSIENT ATTACK
There was no better teacher than John Boyd (pdf via Frans Osinga) when it comes to strategy and tactics. While Boyd is most famous for his Observation-Orientation-Decision-Act Loop (pdf) (OODA Loop), he also produced several briefings for military audiences, including his 193-slides “Patterns of Conflict.” Ian Brown has provided a tremendously helpful 179-page transcript of Boyd’s “Discourse on Winning and Losing,” which Boyd introduces as his “Patterns of Conflict” briefing. The slides and the transcript are synched. My copy of Brown’s transcript and Boyd’s briefing were kindly provided by the U.S. Marine Corps University’s History Division via email. However, both the “Abstract” (aka “A Discourse on Winning and Losing”) and “Patterns of Conflict” (typed version) are available at Project White Horse created by Boyd’s acolyte Dr. Chet Richards.
Early in his “Discourse on Winning and Losing” briefing John Boyd introduces the Sun Tzu concepts of cheng and chi. And what these concepts tell you from an intelligence perspective is that what you may be seeing initially is a deception and you must look for the surprise or what Boyd called more properly a “hard shock.”
As Boyd summarized, “Cheng is the ordinary…the direct…the obvious…the deception” while “Chi is the extraordinary…. the indirect…. the hidden…. the surprise.” One of the purposes of cheng and chi is to play the game of concentration and dispersion which leads to the ability, among other things, to place strength against weakness in the attack.
For the single envelopment, Boyd presented the Battle of Leuctra (see Figure 1). Outnumbered two to one, Epamonidas, the Theban commander, “thinned out his center and right wing…put the stronger troops in here [left flank], so at the point of attack he had strength against weakness…. And…it’s a single envelopment scheme.”
The cheng is the troops in the center and right, while the chi is troops on the left. The Thebans put strength against weakness and then pivoted behind the Spartans to give them a “hard shock.” It is a maneuver designed to “pull apart” an adversary with a rapid, violent transient that overloads their ability to react.
The key to this attack is the unequal distribution of forces. This is exactly the maneuver the Proud Boys do shifting from Transient 1 to Transient 2 after they shed their orange colors and become ambiguous and formless.
Figure 2 shows on a Power Point slide what the entire attack looked like. If the FBI special agents and DOJ prosecutors are looking at what the battle plan probably looked like, it is probably Figure 2 or something similar. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would probably not need a 10-page operation order to pull this off. They would need a rough timetable, assigning different groups different tasks to accomplish, and they would need a communications plan to coincide with the operational plan.
There are two main attacking forces: Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. There is also a third attacking force: the Make America Great Again (MAGA) rioters and spectators. The MAGA rioters serve two purposes: to provide cover and concealment for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and to be incited to attack and maintain the attack on the police on the western side of Capitol building.
There are three transients in Figure 2: (1) the brute force attack led and incited by the Proud Boys from the Peace Monument to the Lower West Terrace to the Upper West Terrace and then into the West Door; however only one known Proud Boy stays on this transient after the Proud Boys have departed up the Northwest Stairs; (2) the flanking maneuver led by the Proud Boys and the MAGA mob from the Lower West Terrace up the Northwest Stairs to the Northwest Courtyard and then breaching the Northwest Doors and Windows; and, (3) the apparently intended joint Proud Boys—Oath Keepers breach of the East Capitol Center door.
There is a red transient arrow (MAGA mob) from the Northwest Door (Transient 2) that was breached by the Proud Boys through the Rotunda to the East Capitol Columbus Doors (Transient 3). The latter door was opened from the inside (pdf) (via DOJ) by an apparent MAGA mob that included Philip Grillo, according to the FBI’s “Statement of Facts” accompanying the criminal complaint. The DOJ/FBI have identified at least four other individuals in that MAGA mob. That MAGA mob was “a large crowd” of unspecified size that may or may not have included or been incited by the Proud Boys. It is difficult to say one way or the other because the Proud Boys were dressed “incognito.” On the other side of the Columbus Doors were Proud Boys led by Joseph Biggs, who was entering for the second time, and the now infamous Oath Keeper “stack.”
The Washington Post estimated that within 78 minutes of the initial breach of the Capitol grounds at 1253H there were “at least 9,400 people” on the west side of the Capitol and “at least 2,000 people” on the west side of the Capitol. On the western side of the Capitol the police forces were outnumbered at least 58 to 1. But of the minimum number of 11,400 people on the Capitol grounds, the Washington Post reported that “about 800 people were part of the human wave that stormed the Capitol complex.”
The June 2021 Senate report (page 26) on the January 6 insurrectionary attack cited a US Capitol Police estimate that “between 25,000 and 30,000 people were at the Ellipse” by 1030H. By about 1220H, a Federal Protective Service officer sent an email stating, “‘POTUS is encouraging the protesters to march to capitol grounds and continue protesting there,’” according to the AP News.
If you make a very conservative estimate of 100 combined Oath Keepers and Proud Boys inside the Capitol building, they represent about 12% of the attackers inside the building (100/800). The greater the number of combined Oath Keepers and Proud Boys inside the building, the higher the percentage of attackers who came to the Capitol to execute a violent plan on behalf of Donald Trump. However, the Washington Post does not provide an estimate how many MAGA rioters remained on Transient 1 and engaged the Metropolitan Police Department in hand-to-hand combat for 155 minutes inside the narrow tunnel on the Lower West Terrace.
The most recent Senate report examining the January 6 attack (page 26) states that at 1100H the USCP “was aware of” “approximately 200 Proud Boys.” The footnote on the same page suggested an AP News story as a second source. According to the AP News, a Federal Protective Service email presented at a 1200H briefing stated that “about 300 Proud Boys were at the U.S. Capitol.”
Only 27 Proud Boys have been indicted or arrested. In other words, we may be aware of only about 9 to 13 percent of the Proud Boys at the Capitol on January 6.
DOJ filings on the Proud Boys mention the Proud Boys’ reconnaissance march from the Washington Monument at 1000H until 1252H only in passing. They give it no weight. They pay virtually no attention to it. They fail to see the significance of the march. They fail to do all those things because they have not analyzed the riot as a military attack.
All the times in Figure 3 are taken from the time segments of Eddie Block’s videos posted at Jan6Evidence website. What is interesting of course is that there is a gap of about 73 minutes between when the Proud Boys had scheduled their all-hands meeting at 1000H and when they arrived at Union Square at around 1113H. Some of the time is transit time. But some of the time is briefing time.
What could the Proud Boys learn on this reconnaissance march?
They were able to survey the physical barricades and the number of USCP officers between the Peace Monument and the West Plaza terraces. They would have also been able to gauge the reaction of the few USCP officers at the second barricade not far from Peace Monument. The Proud Boys leaders would have been able to orient the rank-and-file as to where Transient 1 starts and where Transient 1 will meet the phalanx of USCP officers at the Lower West Plaza. The leaders would also have been able to point out where Transient 2 was located relative to Transit 1. When they moved east along Constitution Avenue and then turned parallel to First Street NE, they would have been able to survey the defenses at Transient 3 on the east side of the Capitol. They would have understood that the MAGA mob on Transient 3 would legally be much closer to the Capitol building than where the MAGA mob started at Transient 1. The Proud Boys then enjoyed some nourishment at the food trucks, returned to the Peace Monument, and induced the MAGA mob to make the initial breach of the Capitol grounds at 1253H—the exact time that the Oath Keepers started to depart Trump’s speech at the Ellipse.
Most importantly, the Proud Boys would have been able to deposit the core of Transient 3—those Proud Boys who were “incognito” and blending into the MAGA mob.
What would the Proud Boys have been able to see on this reconnaissance march?
Figure 4 shows the west side of the Capitol building with labels for the various locations (via Insurgent Hunter). The Proud Boys leadership could have oriented the rank-and-file Proud Boys as to where Transient 1 and Transient 2 were. But the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys planners, if they had found various photos of the Capitol building, would have noticed that the western side of the Capitol favors the defense, not the offense. All the attackers would be channelized into a narrow front at the Lower West Plaza. A phalanx of police, even if outnumbered and retreating, would always occupy the high ground, except for scaffolding to the northwest and southwest, and a media scaffold in the center. The defending police forces could be outflanked only at the northwest and southwest steps.
Figure 5 is the same view without the labels.
Figure 6 shows what the Proud Boys would have seen on Transient 3. The avenue of approach is quite broad. But what the Proud Boys leaders would have seen is that the first police barricade of bicycle racks was quite close to the East Central Plaza steps and Columbus Doors.
That is not an optical illusion. The MAGA crowd would have been able to snuggle in-between the two small lampposts that were blocked only by bicycle racks. The Proud Boys leaders would have also seen that the stairs were narrower than the stairs on the west side. That could limit how many attackers could be on the stairs battling a small number of police.
CONCLUSION
There are three models for understanding the January 6 insurrection attack. The Immaculate Insurrection model is advocated by defense lawyers for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. If they can bamboozle a jury with their rhetorical questions about the non-existence of a plan, lack of a timeline, and lack of an exit strategy, and whatever other buzzwords they yank out of the air, they might be able to pull off a stunning acquittal.
The DOJ’s Six Parallel and Interlocking Conspiracies model is a vast improvement over the Immaculate Insurrection model. It recognizes that the Proud Boys planned, and the Oath Keepers planned. But the six conspiracies are fragmented. The six conspiracies are also contradicted by DOJ’s Proud Boys and Oath Keepers data analyzed in Part 5. According to the secret Ministry of Self Defense (MOSD) cell within the upper leadership of the Proud Boys on January 6, the Proud Boys had “one operational plan” with “a lot of contingencies” and “teams…are going to be put together” (pdf) (via EmptyWheel).
The DOJ’s Six Parallel and Interlocking Conspiracies model does not analyze the January 6 riot as a military attack. DOJ prosecutors, based on the small glimpses we have been given, have a difficult time explaining in federal court what the battle plan for either the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys looks like, let alone for a joint plan.
The Single Envelopment Three Transient Attack model analyzes the January 6 riot or insurrectionist attack as a military attack. Based on data from a wide variety of sources it lays out the apparent battle plan. The attack’s design appears simple. Pulling it off is complex. Maneuvers perceived to be coordinated by two attacking forces would require some means of shared communications for near-real time coordination. There are six correlations between Proud Boys actions and Oath Keepers communications or actions. If you reject that finding, then you accept a serendipity assumption that it happens by random chance—a variant of the Immaculate Insurrection model. The Single Envelopment Three Transient Attack model argues that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers developed a joint plan and jointly executed the plan and had near-real time communications sharing.
For two attacking forces to act in a coordinated fashion on the ground in near real-time requires prior joint planning and a way to react quickly to on-the-ground developments. Thus the model suggests there are indications that the Oath Keepers may have had a contingent embedded inside the Proud Boys’ Tactical Operations Center—an external location the FBI stated existed. Or the Oath Keepers had some method of passively monitoring the Proud Boys’ “New MOSD” Telegram channel.
The design of the battle plan, as laid out in Figure 2 above, also argues that the behavior of the Oath Keepers on Transient 3 makes no tactical sense unless they had planned this attack with the Proud Boys. The Oath Keepers on Transient 3 are inert and demonstrate no initiative. They are certainly not formless or ambiguous. They do not blend in. The Oath Keepers’ transit from the Ellipse to Capitol East is a slow 95 minutes. They miss the first opening of the Columbus Doors at 1425H by the MAGA/Proud Boys mob from the outside at 1425H. They do not arrive at Capitol East until 1428H.
For a paramilitary unit that brags and advertises about the quality of its members and its military training and experience, this is remarkably passive.
The Oath Keepers’ part of the plan borders on incompetence. They only break their half-baked cover story of providing VIP security at the Ellipse at the “same time” that the Proud Boys initiate the breach of the Capitol grounds at the Peace Monument at 1253H. Yet the New York Times has photographic evidence showing a good portion of the crowd marching on Constitution Avenue at 1229H. The AP News quoted a federal police email sent at 1228H, “‘Protesters moving towards the capitol down Pennsylvania, Constitution and Madison in numbers estimated 10-15,000.’”
The Oath Keepers would sit in their seats apparently mesmerized by Trump’s insurrectionary rant for a minimum of at least another 25 minutes. Why did they sit passively listening to Trump when about half of the estimated crowd was already moving towards the Capitol? Why did they wait at least 25 minutes before getting up at the “same time,” according to the New York Times, that the Proud Boys initiate the attack from the Peace Monument? Getting up at the “same time” as the Proud Boys start of the attack strongly suggests that was their indicator or signal to start moving towards Transient 3 on the east side of the Capitol building. The Oath Keepers had not apparently performed a pre-attack reconnaissance of their area of operations.
The design of the attack, the correlations between Proud Boys actions and Oath Keepers communications and actions, and DOJ/FBI evidence of a pre-attack alliance and “orchestration” of a plan with the Proud Boys strongly argue in favor of the Single Envelopment Three Transient Attack model.
No comments:
Post a Comment