Posted on 10/10/2021 5:10:15 PM PDT by RandFan
The Oath Keepers are the highest-profile and most extensively prosecuted militia group associated with the events of January 6. So far, the government has charged a total of 18 Oath Keepers with conspiring to obstruct Congress’s certification of the 2020 Presidential Election. This is a serious conspiracy charge that could potentially lead to decades of prison time.
Oddly enough, Oath Keepers founder and leader Stewart Rhodes himself has not been charged with anything, despite the fact that the government cites Rhodes’ own statements and actions as largely constitutive of the conspiracy for which so many of his underlings face charges. Revolver News has previously covered this extensively in a major piece of investigative journalism.
Apart from any charges of conspiracy, there is no doubt that, based on his actions on January 6, Stewart Rhodes could technically be prosecuted for trespassing on US Capitol grounds.
Just last Thursday, in fact, approximately 20 FBI vehicles swooped in on the home of Oath Keepers associate Jeremy Brown, searched his belongings for five and a half hours, and took all of his phones and electronics. The Feds justified their entire raid on Brown on a minor alleged “trespassing” offense.
Stewart Rhodes is on record and on video committing the exact same trespassing offense—a fact that has also been stipulated in court.
All of this raises serious questions that the government and its press lackeys have yet to answer.
Why has the government avoided indicting Rhodes on an easy lay-up trespassing charge? Why are they protecting him from indictment on more serious conspiracy charges? And if, after 9 months of “investigation,” the feds eventually hit Rhodes with a minor charge like trespassing, rather than the more serious conspiracy charge so many of his underlings face, what would that imply?
(Excerpt) Read more at revolver.news ...
Stewart Rhodes is an FBI informant.
That seems the most likely explanation; but more than a “snitch,” an instigator.
G
Wait, I’ve seen her husband interviewed on Tucker.
The whole thing, including “ashley” was a farce.
The Hollywood staged
“ shooting” of
“ ashley”
Was the Premier Plot Line Part
of the whole false flag production.
It was designed to be the trigger
of national violence and crack down.
Crept no one fell for that overworn
tailpipe bananna.
When that didn’t pan out...
Plan B
( cuz there’s always a plan b with lying commies
and or traitors)
Which was the denial of charging the “ gunman”
with premeditated murder or manslaughter
or negligent homicide or anything.
Even that banana failed.
Everything in that video
came across like a bad SNL cold open.
And why are you asking what I’m suggesting
about “what” was a farce?
I gave multiple examples of
“ missing” details about “ ashley”
that point to her authenticity being highly suspect
and a total farse.
I could, and previously have, gone into
great detail of how many things added up
to a total con job.
I think you asked cuz it angers you that
I don’t beleive that woman is dead.
That’s okay though.
I don’t mind.
Sounds like you’re the one that’s angry. This is the first I saw it. I don’t follow your posts. Believe it or not the world doesn’t revolve around your posts.
Wait, I’ve seen her husband interviewed on Tucker.
/\
\/
I saw him on warroom.
Came across as a very nervous uncomftable bald faced liar to me.
The guys on warroom didn’t seem very warm and sympathetic to him either.
Jack and darren and Natalie will smoke him and Ashley out eventually I think.
/-)
I don’t follow your posts
Obviously,
you didn’t even follow
the content of the post
you asked about for-q-clinton.
;-)
The officer who shot Babbitt is Michael Byrd. Is that a birth name?
healy61 to cuz1961
The officer who shot Babbitt is Michael Byrd. Is that a birth name?
/\
I honestly don’t know.
I just call him
” that scumbag”.
/-)
.
After reading about this for years, I think it's more pervasive than that. With many of these supposedly "radical" groups, enough of the leadership and the most active members are FBI assets, that the federal government for all intents and purposes 'manages' the group. The government can literally generate a criminal conspiracy or "plot" on demand, if they need an arrest/news coverage for policy or budget purposes.
Apparently it's old news to the handful of real "white supremacists" in the country - the dominant federal presence within the organized groups was reportedly the reason the "lone wolf" strategy started being emphasized, way back in the 1980s or 1990s. I guess the 'real deal' extremists figured, if you (or the guy down the street) aren't in a group, you're less likely to get arrested on any kind of charge, real or phony......
1.Sounds like you’re the one that’s angry.
\/
You missed this then
that proves that a wrong assumption:
” That’s okay though.
I don’t mind.”
/\
2. This is the first I saw it.
\/
Saw what ?
The post ?
Ok, that has nothing to do
with your previous wrong assumption
so why say that ?
\/
3.I don’t follow your posts.
/\
? Never said you should /-)
/\
4. Believe it or not the world
doesn’t revolve around your posts.
\/
Why would you think I think that ?
You asked about my post, I replied.
/\
You sound like you’re a profiler,
Framing my post as
1. Angry
2. Unreasonable
3. Paranoid
4. Narcissist
You profiling me bro ?
Bro , don’t profile me.
/-)
Or is that part of your meatworld job ?
And before you jump to more
unfounded assumptions again,,
,, just asking a friendly question.
You seem to be curious about
my post,
or you wouldn’t have posted to me,
I’m just curious about yours too
/-)
.
How about because he’s an attorney. 🙄
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.