Thursday, July 8, 2021

Who Is Stewart Rhodes?

Mike Sylwester linked an article and a video in a comment. The links pertain to the January 6 Event and, more specifically, to Person One, aka, Stewart Rhodes. The article appears at Revolver:

Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open

Previously Revolver got itself into some trouble by getting involved in some technical legal conclusions, which they were unprepared to support. This time around it looks like they're being more cautious. Instead of conclusions, they're raising questions--and there are plenty of questions about Stewart Rhodes that need answering.

I won't attempt to offer a summary of everything that's now known about Rhodes. Instead I'll offer some conclusions of my own.

I think it's fair to say that Rhodes was not only the "Kingpin" of the Oath Keepers but he's also the Kingpin of the Zhou regime's entire "insurrection" narrative--Mr. Big. The article links to a government motion that, beginning at page 10, cites the words of Rhodes/Person One extensively. The article also quotes Rhodes' public statements from well before January 6 in which Rhodes appears to be clearly engaging in repeated inflammatory rhetoric that includes suggesting violent confrontations that could lead to an "insurrection":

We will now chronicle Stewart Rhodes’s path from Election Day to so-called “Insurrection Day,” as alleged by the Justice Department.

The first cited event comes from a November 9th video conference on the platform GoToMeeting. According to the Oath Keepers indictment, Rhodes (Person One) said the following to his Oath Keeper followers in the meeting:

We’re going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country. Because if you don’t guys, you’re going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war, and a bloody – you can call it an insurrection or you can call it a war or fight.

The DOJ alleges that Rhodes (Person One) “called upon his followers to go to Washington D.C,” in order to let the President know “the people are behind him” and to prepare for, among other things, fights against Antifa:

PERSON  ONE  told  his  followers  they  needed  to  be  prepared to fight Antifa, which he characterized as a group of individuals with whom “if the fight comes, let the fight come.  Let Antifa – if they go kinetic on us, then we’ll go kinetic back on them.  I’m willing to sacrifice myself for that.  Let the fight start there.  That will give President Trump what he needs, frankly.  If things go kinetic, good.  If they throw bombs at us and shoot us, great, because that brings the  president  his  reason  and  rationale  for  dropping  the Insurrection  Act.

Talk of the “Insurrection Act” is commonplace in Rhodes’ communications with his Oath Keepers followers. What he seemed to convey is that the Oath Keepers should be primed for an insurrection and to stand-by armed, just in case Trump offered some (undefined) signal. This of course is an effective technique (common to agents provocateurs and other informants) to keep followers psychologically primed for violent action without making any explicit and direct command to do so. From the DOJ:

PERSON ONE continued, “I do want some Oath Keepers to stay on the outside, and to stay fully armed and prepared to go in armed, if they have to . . . .  So our posture’s gonna be that we’re posted outside of DC, um, awaiting the President’s orders.  . . . We hope he will give us the orders.  We want him to declare an insurrection, and to call us up as the militia.

One week after Election Day, in a November 10 public post on, Rhodes told his followers to ignore “D.C.’s ridiculous anti-gun laws” should they perceive a signal that President Trump has called them up as a militia:

Our men will be standing by, awaiting the President’s orders to call us up as the militia, which would override D.C.’s ridiculous anti-gun laws (by federal statute, all Americans from age 17-45 are subject to being called up as the militia by the President, and all military veterans are subject to being called up until age 65 because of our training and experience).  – Stay tuned for further details.

Rhodes further primed his followers for the possibility of major conflict, assuring them that “skilled special warfare veterans” will be “standing by armed, just outside D.C., as an emergency QRF” to step in with heavy weaponry, if necessary:

Oath Keepers will also have some of our most skilled special warfare veterans standing by armed, just outside D.C., as an emergency QRF in the event of a worst case scenario in D.C…

Reading this, one sees how Stewart Rhodes’ actions and behavior feed into the very worst narratives about 1/6 — narratives used to smear all patriots who participated in the event, and even all Trump supporters more broadly.

My point in this regard is a very simple one, and it's the one that Revolver raises. In the circumstances of the continuing prosecutions of so many simple people who were even remotely connected to the January 6 Event, it's just about impossible to believe that Rhodes was not acting all along under the control of the FBI, as an operational informant. What I mean is simply this: Given what the government knows about Rhodes' words and actions over a period of two months, and comparing that to what the government knows about the words and actions of people they're actually prosecuting, it's extremely difficult to believe that Rhodes' usefulness as Person One is limited to being a cooperating witness. By comparison with the others, the government appears to totally have the goods on Rhodes. How, then, can it be that he's not in custody and charged for his Kingpin role?

Here's how Revolver frames that issue:

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.

These facts alone, as alleged, are more than legally sufficient to secure an indictment of Stewart Rhodes. We will walk you through the mountains of direct and circumstantial evidence built on top of these allegations, but readers must understand this: the only reason Stewart Rhodes is not in jail *right now* is because of a deliberate decision by the Justice Department to protect him.

Indeed, it is unclear whether the FBI has even sought to search Stewart Rhodes’s residence, personal belongings, or electronic devices, other than a single iPhone allegedly seized on the streets from agents in unmarked FBI vehicles in late April (since returned). For reasons discussed below, there is good reason to suspect the FBI will pursue a tightly controlled and very limited scope of investigation into Stewart Rhodes,. Beyond that narrow scope, they may not want the information they are likely to find.

It's pretty hard to argue against that reasoning. Based on what we know, Rhodes should be the main target of the prosecutions, not a cooperating witness.

And so Revolver asks these questions:

In other words, 1/6 was not the result of an intelligence failure as FBI Director Christopher Wray, the US Senate, and the media tells us. Rather, 1/6 was the result of an intelligence set-up.

The following questions should be shouted from every megaphone, every street corner, and every Congressional lectern until the American people get full and complete answers:

  • Does the FBI now, or has it ever, maintained a formal or informal relationship or point of contact with Stewart Rhodes, whether directly or indirectly, including through intermediaries?
  • Do any other Federal counterintelligence equities, whether in military, intelligence or law enforcement, including but not limited to Army Counterintelligence, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), or otherwise, maintain or have they ever maintained a formal or informal relationship with Stewart Rhodes, whether directly or indirectly, including through intermediaries?
  • 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?
  • Has the FBI even procured a search warrant for Stewart Rhodes’s personal residence and home electronics? If so, on what dates and what specific categories of evidence were sought?
  • If Stewart Rhodes is subsequently arrested after the date of this report (given the pressure these revelations are likely to generate), 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?


  1. Everyone should watch this video:

    Everything Wrong With The Capitol Shooting In 21 Minutes Or Less (Wooz News)


    You cannot watch this video on YouTube. If you go to YouTube and search for it, you will get a misleading list of YouTube videos that might make you think mistakenly that you are watching this particular video.

    This is being done by Google, which owns YouTube.


    When you watch the video, you will understand that Ashli Babbitt was not killed. This incident was a hoax that was designed and performed to inflame the public about the so-called "Insurrection".

    The FBI knows that Babbitt was not killed and knows the identities of all the actors in the hoax.

    Furthermore, some of the actors surely have taken the initiative to complain to the FBI that they were compelled to participate in this hoax. They were told by the FBI to shut up about it and were threatened with lots of trouble if they ever talk about it.


    The FBI's role in this situation was not merely to infiltrate an extremist group. Rather, the FBI also is involved in perpetrating a hoax that Ashli Babbitt was killed in the "Insurrection".


    The FBI's involvement in this situation is stupendously stupid.

    Why has the FBI done this?

    Because the FBI knows that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen.


    The Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives has initiated an investigation of the "Insurrection". The purpose of this House investigation is to hide the facts and to prevent any other, honest investigation.

    The US Intelligence Community is afraid of Tucker Carlson, because he is a brave trouble-maker with a big audience.

    1. I think Ashli Babbit did die. I watched the first 8 minutes of the video.

      The video does high light a lot of other troubling facts. There seems to have been outside agitators at the front, that disappeared. The one glove and changing appearances is very suspicious.

      My gut feeling is:

      1. FBI had infiltrators in the Capital Protesters

      2. Antifa was there

      3. FBI infiltrators, egged on the protesters. Stewart Rhodes's behavior and how he has been treated is hugely suspicious.

      4. Capital Police seemed to let this happen. Lots of creating an opportunity, with insufficient people, even letting people in, to create a caus belli.

      5. Capital Police used flash bangs against the crowd outside, that even further agitated them.

      6. And since then the Left has been using this as a way to demonize anyone disagreeing with them, especially Trump and his supporters.

      7. Interesting how many in the GOP went along with the narrative.

      8. Amazing how almost nobody in the GOP seems to care about how the "insurrectionists" are being treated by our justice system.

    2. @Ray SoCal

      Can I add point #9?

      9. Law enforcement & MSM totally disinterested in who planted the bombs outside the DNC and RNC. Not mentioned at all anywhere by anyone after the initial reporting of it and the video exposure of the supposed suspect walking around at night with a backpack, including Pelosy & Co

    3. I watched the first 8 minutes of the video.

      Watch the entire video.

  2. This line of argument more clearly laid out by revolver was always the most salient part of their first report of unindicted individuals. That they played key roles but appear to be used as evidence against peons and bit players. It seems backwards--the peons should be getting pressure to help indict this guy. It only makes sense if this key player was actually a law enforcement asset.

  3. @mike Agree completely. The question is not who killed Ashli Babbitt, rather the question is who IS Ashli Babbitt. IC all the way. Check out her scant bio ... Feels zactly like our friend Stewart...

    Mark A

    Mark A

    1. Ashli Babbitt was talked into participating in a very stupid hoax organized by the FBI.

  4. I like that revolver article, glad to see it expanded on here!

    I posted the link to it here as well on this blog in a comment on June 30th to the story: NSA Denies That Tucker Was Ever A 'Target'

    As far as Ashli Babbitt not being killed and it being a hoax, what about the reference to her memorial service and burial in this article:

    I am not contesting anything you say about the possible involvement of the FBI etc. in the so called Insurrection.

    That this event (Jan 06) was either possibly staged or encouraged by some dubious participants does not hinge on Ashli Babbitt being killed or not.

    1. Did you watch the video? There were more cameras rolling than insurrectionists. "They" all mill about for several minutes then "storm" the "barricade" (on cue) which appears to be pop out plexiglass, no breaky, no hitty hard. Everybody knows everybody in that corridor. Not even a question. Probably because none of the actors expected a long rolling recording to make it's way to public domain, it was going to be stills and snippets carefully staged. Stupid stupid stupid. I am ashamed for my country. Mark A.

  5. I speculate that the original idea was that Ashli Babbitt was supposed to be merely "wounded" by a gunshot. Afterwards, however, she decided that she did not want to participate further. She did not want to be interviewed, etc.

    Therefore, the story was changed so that she was "killed" by the gunshot. Now she is being paid a lot of money to live under a different identity and stay hidden for a long time.


    Another possibility is that the plan was to bring a patsy into the scene. The patsy would be some Trump-supporter who could be manipulated and who would have a gun loaded with blanks. The story would be that the Trump-supporting patsy "shot" Babbitt.

    IF so, then that patsy plan was not carried out, for some unknown reason. Plan B was that a Capitol guard "shot" Babbitt.


    The "Insurrection" had to include at least one gunshot inside the Capitol. And at least one person had to be "shot".

    Otherwise, the "Insurrection" would seem to be just a peaceful demonstration.

  6. I have considered the possibility that the hoax was not organized by the FBI, but rather by some other group.

    Suppose, for example, that the hoax was organized by someone close to Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps such a group had millions of dollars to pay the participants, some of whom might actually be Capitol security employees. Pelosi -- or someone close to her -- could exercise effective control over that part of the Capitol building.

    In such an alternative scenario, however, the FBI must have figured the hoax out by now. If Babbitt was not killed, then the FBI would have learned that fact.

    At least one of the participants would have taken the initiative to inform the FBI that the incident was a hoax.

    Therefore, I think that the FBI itself is involved in the hoax.


    At this point, the FBI does not seem to have any graceful exit from the situation.

    The FBI's only option is to keep stone-walling as long as possible.

  7. Another possibility is that the hoax was organized by someone based in the Department of Homeland Security. The video shows DHS manuals for conducting exercises.

    I had the impression that the people who made the video were informed by someone who had some inside information about the hoax.

    Even so, I do not think it's plausible that the FBI still does not know that the incident was a hoax. How could the FBI not know that Babbitt was not actually killed?

  8. About Wooz News. From its own website.

    Mass media critic and self-proclaimed motivator of the masses, Wooz brings his sassy, smart and satirical point of view to a range of current and relevant issues in his very own comedy show. The weekly topical series hosted, written, and edited by Wooz, provides wry commentary on contemporary issues of the day, political dishonesty, online viral video clips, society, celebrities, and other parts of popular culture and stereotypes.

    From the ingenious to the absurd and tasteless, messenger of political mockery, Wooz, sheds light on the true hilarity of our political system in this evidence-based comedy series.

  9. In reading the referenced document(s) in whole... If THAT is grounds for inciting "an insurrection" oh boy we're all guilty of it.

  10. The "Insurrection" was stage-managed by the FBI, which directed the Oath Keepers as well as the fake killing of Ashli Babbitt.

    At first, I assumed that the guys seen acting in the video were FBI members. Now, though, I think they were loaned to the FBI by the Department of Homeland Security. I suppose that DHS has some unit that is manned mostly by military veterans and is trained and available for contingencies. Some members of such a DHS unit were used for the fake killing of Babbitt, but they were controlled ultimately by the FBI.

    The video's beginning shows various instructional materials of DHS. There are DHS manuals and DHS videos for conducting training exercises.

    The people who made the video seem to have been informed by a DHS insider who provided the DHS instructional materials, pointed out the DHS participants and even provided DHS code-names.

    I suppose also that the DHS participants did not understand what they were getting themselves into. They were told that they were being used by the FBI to foil an extremist plot. They did not foresee that they actually were being used to inflame the public against Trump-supporters and to ruin Trump's future career.

    I expect that the truth about the fake killing of Babbitt will come out soon. Some participants of the fake killing eventually will talk.

    Maybe some of them already are talking to Tucker Carlson. That might be why the US Intelligence Community is trying to discredit and suppress Carlson.

    1. Succinctly put Mike. Makes a lot more sense than the risable story we are being told by the usual Dem mouthpieces. Mark A.

    2. Another reason to surveil Tucker Carlson might be to identify any of the actors who might be talking to Carlson.

      If most or all of the actors indeed are military veterans on a DHS contingency team, then they can be silenced by threatening them with loss of their military pensions or with other legal troubles.


      Perhaps a few of the DHS actors had been infiltrated into Oath Keepers.

      Oath Keepers received some communications from a supporter in Serbia. That communication might be the hook to justify a FISA warrant that provides a two-hop scope to capture communications of those potentially talkative DHS actors and also of Tucker Carlson.

      My speculation.

  11. My 2 cents on some of the details...

    I'm personally not prepared to launch down the path of Stewart Rhodes being an FBI plant. I say that because I am looking at the words spoken (that we can see fully) vs the cherry picked version and the meaning / intent between them.

    I see "if this, then that" reactionary planning to being attacked by antifa, not "let's over throw the capitol". I see those things being twisted to infer that one means the other. But when you read the full documentation in it's entirety I think any prosecutor would have a very difficult time chalking up the stated publications as "a plan" to incite anything.

    We don't have a publication of the signal app messages do we don't know what is or is not being said there. We only know what is implied and I don't believe 1/10 of the governments story.

    Example of my current take... The term "go in" being loosely applied to infer entering the capitol... But in reality it references QRF as a backup response to a violent ANTIFA attack and then, only if given a legal avenue to actually use that QRF as a safety backup for their members.

    Is that prudent planning for OPSEC or a murderous violent plot against our government? I'd think a good defense attorney would shred that.

    To be fair, I also think Revolver and some of these other news outlets are tabloid level insanity. Many of which have directly spun and invited the "Insurrection act" conversation themselves. So are they government outlets seeking to spin up followers? By the implied messaging standard in the Revolver article, I'd have to say yes.

    For the record, my option, the entire "Insurrection act" conversation was completely stupid and would have been an absolute politically disasterous path for Trump to take. It was never an option.

    Additionally, Jan 6th was an obvious set up... that's not arm chair quarterbacking, I said that well in advance of it happening. Don't go, not a good idea, and if you must go heap CYA on top of CYA!

    I LOVE good conspiracies but I'm not going to add up what's being presented vs known "in full" (or as full as we can know) that Ashley was part of a plot to be fake murdered, renamed, relocated. We're all entitled to our opinions there, like many things time will give us a better picture but don't pigeon hole yourself into having to go full "QAnon" with it.

    1. **I see "if this, then that" reactionary planning to being attacked by antifa, not "let's over throw the capitol".**

      That is EXACTLY what you'd expect a "plant" to be saying.

      **any prosecutor would have a very difficult time chalking up the stated publications as "a plan" to incite anything.**

      And yet they're getting guilty pleas that they can use to feed the official insurrection narrative.

  12. "That is EXACTLY what you'd expect a "plant" to be saying."

    Is it though? I would expect a plant to seek escalation from "if this, then that". In this case what's being discussed is clearly a safe withdraw plan.

    I'm guilty of exactly the same thinking, so are countless others on many subjects.

    So am I a Manchurian candidate or a analytical thinker? Note, I'm not trying to be confrontational in asking, that to me is just tactical withdrawal 101.

    I'm noting the "context" of what was said vs what is implied. ANTIFA was threatening to burn the city and everyone in it down at the time.

    "And yet they're getting guilty pleas that they can use to feed the official insurrection narrative."...

    I'm not sure if we have seen any of the related OK cases come through yet? Many individuals are going to cop plea deals in this out of fear. They have no means of fighting back the might of a government.

    So are we faulting Rhoades for messaging that is still live on their site and clearly being taken out of context? Or are we faulting over zealous prosecution and government misconduct?

    As stated, we can't speak for all of the communication, we don't have it. But the links we do have are clearly not being represented correctly.

    1. The "plant" NEVER suggests to commit a criminal crime, because then he would be part of it, and the instigator. The people being set up have to have their own intent, not be following the LE "plant". That's always the issue in those types of cases.


      Federal court

      Federal courts apply a subjective test for claims of entrapment. In federal criminal prosecutions, if a defendant proves entrapment the defendant may not be convicted of the underlying crime. A valid entrapment defense has two related elements:

      1. government inducement of the crime, and

      2. the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct.

      The federal entrapment defense is based upon statutory construction, the federal courts' interpretation of the will of Congress in passing the criminal statutes. As this is not a constitutional prohibition, Congress may change or override this interpretation by passing a law.

    3. Mark, Thank you for explaining, I do see and understand your point and appreciate your patience.

      My personal struggle in this is that I could have written those documents under the pretext of prudent planning exactly as worded.

      I guess maybe the variance I need to focus on would be my initial gut instinct (then and now) which was... Don't set foot in DC, it's a trap.

      I also couldn't deny that I would have put much more focus on anonymity and personal security to avoid fall back response to begin with.

      Like most of our discussions, time will (usually) give us the answers. I would be very disappointed if OK ended up being another tool of instutional destruction. There are a lot of very good individuals in that org.

    4. @devilman, did you watch the video? Leave aside Wooz's commentary, Seems to me either the footage is real, (it appears to be footage taken by Jayden X, or it's VERY subtly and expertly doctored. I say doctored because those are identifiable people in the footage,real people who have separately been identified as being at the capitol on Jan 6th. And presumably an investigator could verify ALL of the people in the footage, IF the investigator wanted to. But if the video footage were doctored to convince us of it's reality, why present it so circumspectly, why not doctor it a little more convincingly and present it uncommented? If it's not doctored, and I don't think it's doctored, then the whole thing was staged. So our question is - who's footage is that and how did Wooz get it? Mark A

    5. @ Mark A,

      No I didn't watch, the Ashley B conspiracy isn't something in going to / willing to dive into.

      Like I said I am a sucker for a good conspiracy, there are many that hold water over time (Seth Rich, DS, etc) but there is also a cottage industry built on selling them worth millions (hundreds of millions in some cases) in site and ad traffic.

      QAnon, white hats, Insurrection act, Mike Flynn DOD take over, "the kraken" spins, etc.

      You don't sell ideas, you present ideas that people sell themselves on.

      My personal objectivity says that girl is dead and there's a reason her family is in court with a civil case over it. That reason isn't because her death was faked.

    6. "there's a reason her family is in court with a civil case over it. That reason isn't because her death was faked."

      My view, too.

  13. Unless the DS aims for a repeat, of what looks like the ginned-up "insurrection", that Rhodes etc. may've pulled off on 6 Jan., it doesn't look smart for them to cart Biden to Philly, given the attn. this visit draws to the vote audit issue.
    There may be some other trick on the menu, but I can't guess it now.