Mediaboss Marketing

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Virginia As the plaintiffs in the landmark federal lawsuit against two dozen neo-Nazis and other white supremacists who organized the Unite the Right rally called their final witnesses, they zeroed in on the alleged calls for violence in the run-up to the event, presenting organizers own message threads as evidence.

Plaintiffs attorney Karen Dunn on Tuesday called to the stand Jason Kessler, a white nationalist, member of the Proud Boys, and one of the primary Unite the Right organizers. The attorney spent hours Tuesday confirming and walking Kessler through his extensive communications with other white nationalists and neo-Nazis in the months, weeks, and days leading up to Aug. 11 and 12, 2017. Those communications over social messaging platforms including Facebook and Discord, as well as by phone and text message made clear that Kessler was looking to draw like-minded people from across the US to Charlottesville. In one post, he promised it would be the biggest Alt-Right event of the year.

He also referred to the rally in fighting terms, saying it would go down in history as the Battle of Charlottesville. Many of his messages discussed violence and provoking antiracist counterprotesters as a means to not only foment a race war, but also get media attention.

We need a new way to tip off antifa when we want them to show up somewhere, read one message that Kessler wrote to other white nationalists. We definitely want to play these people into our hands Saturday in Charlottesville.

In that same online discussion, Kessler spoke about the need to hide weapons while in public and his expectation that at least some attendees would be packing firearms.

Can you guys conceal carry? I dont want to scare antifa off from throwing the first punch. Big scary guns...will keep Antifa away. I want them to start something, Kessler wrote. Lots of armed military vets in attendance so we arent going to be lacking for firepower.

The planning of violence is key to the case of nine plaintiffs, who are suing for damages to compensate for the injuries they sustained in August 2017 as well as to punish the rally organizers. Brought on the plaintiffs behalf by the civil rights nonprofit Integrity First for America, the lawsuit is using the 150-year-old Ku Klux Klan Act to try to hold some or all of 24 of the most notorious white nationalist figures and organizations in the US accountable for alleged racially motivated violence.

Over the course of three weeks, the plaintiffs have laid out their case that the rally planning amounted to a conspiracy; they have testified about the physical and psychological injuries they experienced and still struggle with; and they have used a mountain of digital evidence to show the extent to which the group of white supremacists went to allegedly get the fight they were after.

The jury is expected to hear from defense witnesses as early as Tuesday. So far, defense statements at trial have ranged from bizarre rants to hate speech. Unable to afford lawyers, some of the white supremacists are representing themselves, using their time in court to broadcast their extremist ideologies as well as grievances with their fellow defendants.

Neo-Nazi podcaster Christopher Cantwell, who is defending himself in the trial, also took the stand Monday. The plaintiffs played episodes of his podcast that aired before Unite the Right, including one in which he interviewed Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer of the neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer. In the interview, Auernheimer calls for a race war and praises neo-Nazi mass murderer Dylann Roof.

I fucking like you Youre awesome," Cantwell tells Weev after listening to him rant.

Social media posts by Cantwell in which he used racist and violent language were also shown to the jury. One read, America wont be free until the last kike is strangled with the entrails of the last Democrat.

The plaintiffs also played a clip from a Vice News interview in 2017, in which Cantwell shows off the arsenal of firearms he had brought to Unite the Right.

In the process of presenting their case, the plaintiffs have also indirectly exposed how the ties among the white nationalists have frayed since the lawsuit was filed against them. During cross-examinations when some of the pro se defendants those who are representing themselves have interrogated their codefendants, things have turned heated.

In one testy exchange Monday, white nationalist Richard Spencer asked Kessler on the stand about Kesslers public criticism of him.

So when did you determine that I was a sociopathic narcissist?" Spencer asked Kessler, a term the latter had used in a 2019 tweet.

You were just despicable to everyone you ever came in contact with... You were like a robot, like a serial killer, Kessler answered.

Kessler, his voice raised at Spencer, continued, saying that Spencer had accused him of being a Jew because I wouldnt Sieg Heil with you, referring to the Nazi salute.

Spencer, glancing nervously at the jury and then down at his notes, responded before ending his questioning a moment later: Thats that's enough, Jason.

View post:
I Want Them To Start Something: White Supremacists Allegedly Strategized How To Provoke Counterprotesters Ahead Of The Unite The Right Rally -...

If I was planning a coup detat and the overthrow of the government of the United States of America, Id not really go out of my way to blab about what I knew, before or after the event.

If what they say is true about Steve Bannon, a man best thought of as Donald Trumps Svengali, then I too wouldnt be cooperating that much with the authorities about what I did or did not know about the protests (to put things euphemistically) at the Capitol on 6 January.

Whether it was a pro-Trump rally where things got a bit out of hand or an attempt to seize control of the levers of government and to frustrate the ratification of a democratic election is what is in question at the the various Congressional inquiries now underway. What was Bannon doing in Washington on 6 January? And what did Bannon mean when he predicted, a day before, that all hell would be let loose? We all have our views.

From Bannons point of view, stonewalling must be the best option. Saying as little as possible is a constitutional right, arguably, and no one can actually force him to tell anyone anything. He can use his high-profile platform to argue, if hes minded to engage, that the whole process is illegitimate, being conducted by an unlawfully elected fake assembly, and motivated by a desire to protect a Democrat president elected through fraudulent means. Donald Trump, in this version of reality, is still the president of the United States, and Bannon and his allies only recognise his authority.

Therefore, Bannon might point out, hes under no obligation to hand anything over or give up any information to a body, the US Congress, that is operating under false pretences and has itself usurped the true democratic government of the US the Trump administration. Indeed, silence would add to his aura of power and mystery. It gives him leverage, too what will the establishment offer in return for his information?

The worst and also the best thing that could happen to Bannon is that Congress finds him guilty of contempt, sends him to jail for a year and slaps a $100,000 fine on him. The whole Bannon shtick, absurdly, is that hes the little guy being bullied by a fraudulent, selfish, crooked elite looking, as ever, after their own interests, and terrified of the people and the peoples continuing president, Donald J Trump.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Nothing suits Bannon more than to be seen as the victim, even if his travails are entirely self-inflicted. Nothing would be more satisfying than a one-year spell in prison, where, like some notable figures from the past, he would spend his time writing his memoirs and setting out his political philosophy and patriotic mission.

Congress presently seems set on making Steve Bannon into a sort of conservative Nelson Mandela, a political prisoner banged up for his beliefs, victimised for his defiance of an illegitimate regime. No doubt he will do well out of it.

You wonder, though, what might happen if the Congress ever tried to come after Trump personally theyve already tried to get their hands on personal records and Trump tells them to get lost and they send him to prison too. Trump and Bannon might share a cell, assuming the Justice Department can locate a cell big enough for these two outsize egos. It would be an unusual place to launch the Republicans 2024 presidential bid.

Read this article:
Nothing would suit Steve Bannon more than to be an alt-right martyr in prison - The Independent

Summary

Bannon surrenders on contempt charges. Biden signs $1.2 trillion infrastructure package. Rittenhouse jury deliberations to begin tomorrow. Closing arguments in Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Judge dismisses underage weapons charge. Judge says jurors can consider provocation and lesser charges. Rittenhouse prosecutor say you lose the right to self-defense when you brought the gun. Defense attorney claims every person who was shot was attacking Kyle. Former Trump White House Chief of Staff defying subpoena.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Thanks for watching THE BEAT with Ari Melber. THE REIDOUT with Joy Reid is up next. Hi, Joy.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: How are you doing, Ari? Thank you very much. Have a great evening.

All right, good evening, everyone. We have a lot to get to on this very busy Monday. Former Trump Adviser Steve Bannon surrendered to FBI agents this morning and later appeared in court to face criminal contempt charges for defying a congressional subpoena.

And this afternoon President Biden celebrated a major achievement at the White House surrounded by a group of bipartisan lawmakers. He signed into law a massive infrastructure bill that will invest billions of dollars into roads, and ports, broadband internet, clean water and a lot more. And we`re going to get to both of those developments.

But we begin THE REIDOUT tonight with the closing arguments in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Just minutes ago, jurors were handed the case and the fate of Kyle Rittenhouse`s future now rests in their hands. Earlier today, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger delivered the dramatic closing arguments for the prosecution. He argued that Rittenhouse was in a state of liven carrying a gun he shouldn`t have and pretending to guard an empty business he had no connection to and even lied about being an EMT. He argued that Rittenhouse was no hero.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS BINGER, KENOSHA COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Now you`ve heard the everyday and it`s time to search for the truth. So, consider, for example, whether or not it`s heroic or honorable to provoke and shoot unarmed people. Consider it, whether it makes someone a hero when they lie about being an EMT.

In this entire sequence of events from the shooting of Jacob Blake on Sunday, August 23rd, 2020 all the way after that, everything this community went through, the only person who shot and killed anyone was the defendant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: After shooting Joseph Rosenbaum several times, Rittenhouse took off running as the crowd grappled with the prospect of an active shooter, Rittenhouse lied to the crowd and told them that Mr. Rosenbaum had pulled a gun.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BINGER: The defendant flees, callously disregarding the body of the man that he just shot and killed. And as he`s running off, he`s lying to the crowd about what just happened. This is exhibit number 12.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Earlier in the day, the prosecution asked the judge to let the jury consider lesser charges if they move to acquit on the original counts. The judge agreed. Rittenhouse`s attorney unleashed a viscous rebuttal calling the prosecution`s case garbage and a rush to judgment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK RICHARDS, RITTENHOUSE ATTORNEY: This is a political case.

The District Attorney`s Office is marching forward with this case because they need somebody to be responsible. They need somebody to put and say we did it, he`s the person who brought terror to Kenosha. Kyle Rittenhouse is not that individual. The rioters, the demonstrators who turned into rioters, those are the individuals who bring us forth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: This has been one of the strangest trials in recent history, just to be honest, with Bruce Schroeder`s odd behavior taking center stage. Just moment before the jury, was set to hear the closing arguments, he dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, a misdemeanor that had appear to be among the likeliest of a charges to net a conviction for prosecutors. And here is one of the instructions that he gave jurors on the question of self-defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE BRUCE SCHROEDER, KENOSHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN: When you address the charged crime, if in your discussions you conclude that the elements are present and the defendant was not acting lawfully in self-defense, then you need not go further. You can return your verdict of guilt based upon that conclusion. If in your discussions as to any individual count of those with multiple possible verdicts in your initial discussion if you decide that the defendant acted lawfully in self-defense, you`re done and you can return to that guilty verdict without considering the lesser offenses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Now, through this trial, the judge has issued rulings that seemed to favor the defense. He yelled at the prosecutor and forbade the state from referring to the people killed by Kyle Rittenhouse as victims, ruling the terms is too, quote, loaded. He also made a joke about Asian food and his phone rang during a trial playing a (INAUDIBLE) that`s been heard a Trump rallies because that is just the kind of trial that this has been.

[19:05:00]

And with this trial now nearing its end, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers said that 500 National Guard members will be prepared for duty in Kenosha if local law enforcement requests them.

Joining me now, Paul Butler, former Federal Prosecutor and Georgetown Law Professor, and Katie Phang, Trial Attorney and MSNBC Legal Contributor.

And I just have to ask you, Paul, because I watched a lot of trials going back to the O.J. trial when I was just watching it as an interested observer, not a journalist, I`ve never seen anything like this, especially the instructions to the jury that became this whole other sort of mini-trial without the jurors present. Can you please try to explain to us what happened there had and what this judge was doing and whether it was normal?

PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I`m glad you didn`t ask me to explain the judge`s instructions because I could not do that. I`ve tried a bunch of cases as a prosecutor. I`ve taught criminal law school for years. I didn`t understand half of what the judge was saying.

REID: I didn`t either. Okay, good. At least it wasn`t me. I thought maybe I just didn`t go to law school to understand it.

Katie, could you make any better sense of it? Because -- so the thing is that I don`t understand. Having -- you know, I`ve been in a grand jury. Normally, lesser includeds are the way prosecutors kind of guarantee conviction, because if they can`t get you on the top charge, there are all these lesser included things that they could actually -- the jury could then consider, say, maybe I don`t think you murder the person but I think you did reckless endangerment or manslaughter. He essentially said wipe it all out if you think he acted in self-defense in the charge. Did that strike you as strange?

KATIE PHANG, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: It did. And, you know, what we`ve noticed is that, he doesn`t like to read stuff and he really should because there is a reason why the jury instructions have been printed out for everyone to be able to see. The way that he has these random rambling dissertations from the bench trying to explain key concepts of law is really where this trial has gone totally awry.

But with regards to the lesser included, you can`t just make the summary statement from the bench that if you find it it was self-defense and it completely eradicates all the lesser includeds and the fact he`s allowed lesser included should be given to the jury. I think that there`s been inconsistent behavior, conduct and rulings from the bench, even recently we just saw some stuff that was going during closing arguments.

But I think that the jury is sufficiently confused and that`s what gets scary when you`re a prosecutor. If you got a jury that`s confused, sometimes the easy out is to just let it go. And that is the real fear that the prosecution has at this time.

REID: Absolutely. And, Paul, especially when you`re talking about a teenager who -- he`s going -- there`s 18 jurors right now in the pool. It will go to 12. Just the math tells you this could be an all-white jury. There is only one black person in the pool. So, he might get an all-white jury of people to whom, to them, he looks like their son, right? And so now the question is what do you believe is more logical?

This was -- let me play a little bit of what the prosecutor said. This is Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, and he talked about who provoked the initial reaction with Joseph Rosenbaum. This is cut one. Listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BINGER: They know you can`t claim self-defense against an unarmed man like this. You lose the right to self-defense when you`re the one who brought the gun, when you`re the one creating the danger.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: And then he shows all this video that I thought was actually very powerful in showing that Rittenhouse shoots Mr. Rosenbaum and then he runs and then the crowd starts pursuing him thinking he`s an active shooter. And so there are people there who have their own guns because they`re thinking I`m going to approach this danger. He`s the active shooter. People ask him, did you shoot someone? Did you shoot someone? And then he reacts to that with the second two people.

Think about the mindset this person has just killed one person. And then when two other people approach him, he shoots one of their arm almost off and he shoots the third and kills him.

And so what the prosecutor I thought pretty effectively argued is that he`s the only one who is dangerous in this situation. The other people are not attacking him. He`s the danger. Did that strike you as a strong argument?

BUTLER: It did. You know, the judge, as we noted, has been extremely tough on the prosecution but he finally cut them a break with this provocation instruction. If the jury finds that Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor, then he can`t claim self-defense. So, in closing, the prosecutor spent a lot of time arguing that it was Rittenhouse who started the fight and that it was really his victims who had the right to self-defense, not the defendant.

So, the jury will decide based on the witness testimony and video. It`s all open to interpretation. One witness said that this first victim, Rosenbaum, threatened to kill Rittenhouse but the prosecutor said today that never happened.

Another government witness said that Rosenbaum lunged for the gun but the prosecution witnesses said -- another prosecution witness said that Rosenbaum was a babbling idiot who was harmless.

[19:10:08]

So, during jury deliberations, the jury will have to decide who it believes.

But, Joy, I agree with what you said in the beginning, that this was a good day for the prosecution. If it had tried the whole case as strongly as it delivered its closing, then Mr. Rittenhouse would soon be on his way to state prison.

REID: You know, that reminds me of, Paul, you know what I`m saying, the Zimmerman trial was like that. The whole time I think where do the prosecutors go to school? And then in the end, they delivered these wonderful closings but they had already done so poorly going in. And, anyway, we`ll see how, if it turns out differently.

Katie, let me let you talk about what the defense was doing. Because they seem to be trying this as a political case trying to appeal to any sort of Fox News viewers on the jury, let`s just be blunt, who might think when the looting starts, the shooting starts is a good thing to say, you know what I mean? And if they characterized the people who were shot as the bad guys and you think this guy is a hero like the people at that other network do, that`s your jurors.

So, let`s play a little bit -- this is Mark Richards, is the name of the attorney, and this is what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK RICHARDS, RITTENHOUSE ATTORNEY: If they want to be the heroes and they want to beat somebody and do what they`re going to do to them, they better be right, and they weren`t. Kyle Rittenhouse shot Mr. Rosenbaum because he was attacking Kyle. Every person who was shot was attacking Kyle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Okay. I`m going to ask what you make of that argument, Katie.

PHANG: Okay. Let`s be clear. You don`t have to have a judgment about whether or not the protests were good or bad. What they did on the defense is they basically wanted to inflame the jury to think that it was totally fine for Kyle Rittenhouse to come in on his white horse, this knight on the white horse to save that community of Kenosha, which he had no business being there in the first place, right?

So, putting aside whether or not you want to have a qualitative value judgment about what was going on in terms of those protests, Kyle Rittenhouse`s behavior had to be reasonable that evening in question. And he was not physically harmed. You have two dead people, multiple injured others. And the reality is, it was hands, feet, a skateboard. Hands, feet and a skateboard versus an AR-15, that`s what that was.

The thing that we heard in the rebuttal close I think that really made sense and that would counter what the defense was attempting to do today was the fact that they called Rittenhouse a chaos tourist. Kind of reminds you a little bit about the January 6th insurrection, right? This idea that you had people that showed up armed to do harm, and that is exactly what Kyle Rittenhouse did as a chaos tourist. He showed up, he didn`t mean to improve the community, and you know what, if the jury listens to the law and applies the facts and the evidence to the law, then they should be able to come back with at least one conviction. Because, remember, each victim is separate count. It`s not all of the victims under one count. And so the prosecution actually has more than one bite of the apple to be able to convict Kyle Rittenhouse.

REID: Yes. And last word to you on this, Paul, because here is the sort of elephant in the room. You know, all of the people involved in this are white, you know, and the thing I noticed was not said and I saw it on the paper but never said out loud by the prosecutor was Black Lives Matter was involved. He left that characterization aside.

And so in this case, I hate to say it, if the victims were black, I would be 100 percent sure how this case would ended, I would be, at least in my own mind. But in this case, it`s complicated a little bit because the people who he shot were members of the community who also somebody could maybe relate to. Do you think that that ends up mattering because race is off the table here in terms of this jury?

BUTLER: So, this was a protest about Black Lives Matter situation in which African-American person was killed by a white officer or was shot by a white officer. The through line between the Rittenhouse case and the Georgia case of Ahmaud Arbery`s killers is guns. How many Americans are walking around strapped down with firearms trying to act like cops, paying more attention to black people, trying to guard people`s property or police protests march. And these people knowingly put themselves in harm`s way and when they do that, they then say they feel threatened and use their guns to kill.

And the concern, Joy, is that the defendants are allowed to get away with this we should expect to see more cases of armed vigilantism just like this.

REID: And as you, this sort of -- yes, this is the society they`re trying to create, this sort of violent tourism, wherever you want to go and you be the police, that is what everyone should fear. Paul Butler, Katie Phang, thank you all both very much.

[19:15:01]

Up next on THE REIDOUT, Steve Bannon surrenders to face charges of contempt of Congress as Trump`s inner circle in just closer to accountability for January 6th.

Plus, President Biden signs the government`s massive investment in infrastructure but Republicans want to punish -- they want to punish the handful of their party members who supported it, you know, punishing for getting bridges for their own community.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg joins me on this historic day for the Biden administration.

And tonight`s absolute worst, they`re actually trying to destroy democracy. Now, one of Trump`s tough guy wants the government to dictate how you worship.

THE REIDOUT continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REID: The wheels of justice may turn slowly but they are turning when it comes to the select committee investigation of January 6th. Steve Bannon surrendered the federal authorities this morning after being criminally indicted on Friday on charges of contempt of Congress. And no surprise, he gave us a self-aggrandizing press conference portraying himself as a MAGA martyr while defiantly pointing the finger at everyone but himself.

[19:20:05]

A year in prison might go a long way toward deflating that ego and also and also getting him some different-colored shirts to layer.

Of course, Bannon isn`t the only Trump ally at risk of criminal charges for defying Congress. Trump`s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows appears to be following in his footsteps, refusing to comply with a subpoena from the select committee. And, like Bannon, he neglected to even show up for his scheduled deposition last Friday.

And now Congressman Adam Schiff is making it clear that Meadows is next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I`m confident we will move very quickly with respect to Mr. Meadows also. But we want to make sure that we have the strongest possible case to present to the Justice Department and for the Justice Department to present to a grand jury.

When, ultimately, witnesses decide, as Meadows has, that they`re not even going to bother showing up, that they have that much contempt for the law, then it pretty much forces our hand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Now, the almost two dozen other Trump allies under scrutiny by the committee have a choice to make. They can either comply with their subpoenas or risk the same fate as Mr. I Made Breitbart the Home of White Nationalism, AKA, the alt-right.

This comes as outgoing Republican Congressman Anthony Gonzalez sounds the alarm that January 6 was just a dry run for an actual coup in 2024.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ANTHONY GONZALEZ (R-OH): It looks to me -- and I think any objective observer would come to this conclusion -- that he has evaluated what went wrong on January 6. Why is it that he wasn`t able to steal the election? Who stood in his way?

Every single American institution is just run by people. And you need the right people to make the right decision in the most difficult times. He`s going systematically through the country and trying to remove those people and install people who are going to do exactly what he wants them to do, who believe the big lie, who will go along with anything he says.

Do the institutions hold again? Do they hold with a different set of people in place? I hope so. But you can`t guarantee it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: The truth is, the big lie is still sweeping the GOP. In fact, more Republicans now believe that nonsense theory that Trump will be magically reinstated by the end of this year; 28 percent of Republicans believe that now, up from just, well, an equally bad 22 percent last month.

It`s a reminder of why the work of the January 6 committee is so important.

Joining me now, Kurt Bardella, adviser to the DNC and DCCC And former spokesman for the House Oversight Committee, and Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser and MSNBC political contributor.

And, Kurt, you worked on that Oversight Committee.

You know, it`s fairly clear, there are already the soft rumblings of threats, that, if Kevin McCarthy is the next speaker, they will disband this committee. I think anyone should understand that.

But dream with me, if you will. What would they theoretically do? Wouldn`t -- isn`t it clear that what Republicans would do is suddenly believe in subpoenas and start making up things to investigate about Democrats should they get control of the House?

KURT BARDELLA, DCCC ADVISER: Joy, if Republicans regain control of the House, they will continue what they started during the Barack Obama years and issue a tsunami of subpoenas, a tsunami of hearings, an avalanche of depositions, invented accusations, invented controversies, just like they did to Barack Obama`s entire presidency.

Every Cabinet secretary, every relative, every single person that has any association to this current administration will come under target. We have seen that anyone involved in Trump world will not hesitate to abuse their power, use their office, use their leverage, use their authority to do whatever they want to Trump`s enemies, to perceive enemies.

They made enemies list when they were in the administration. They will advance that. They will do everything that they can to target and go after every single person that they perceive to be a threat to them. And, really, what that means, a threat to them are people willing to stand up for democracy, people willing to defend democracy, defend checks and balances, respect our institutions, try to hold up the pillars that keep our society going.

Steve Bannon has said all along that his intention is to act as a Leninist and to tear down and destroy the structures of our institutions and establishment. He announced that in 2017. What we are seeing now happen with Donald Trump, with the Republican Party, with Steve Bannon`s defiance is a deliberate effort to make good on that threat that he made.

And that`s what the Republican Party is all about right now. And that is why it is crucial that we hang on to the majorities in Congress, because, if we lose them, if we give these Republicans an inch, if we give them a return to power, they will never let it go ever again.

Visit link:
Transcript: The ReidOut, 11/15/21 - MSNBC

Alex Jones guilty by default in Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit | News | denvergazette.com

You have permission to edit this article.

Conspiracy theorist and alt-right talk show host Alex Jones was found guilty of defamation by default in the latest lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook families.

A judge in Connecticut ruled that because Jones was unwilling to turn over the requested records to the courts, he was found guilty by default, according to the New York Times. These records would have included business and financial documents for his company, InfoWars, among other things.

This ruling is a follow-up to previous rulings in Texas that granted the families of Sandy Hook relief after the talk show host described the 2012 shooting as a "false flag" operation.

While Jones claims he no longer believes Sandy Hook is a false flag, the lawsuit alleges his change of opinion is irrelevant because the damage of the accusations was already done.

This story is still developing.

Original Location: Alex Jones guilty by default in Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit

Washington Examiner Videos

' + this.content + '

Follow this link:
Alex Jones guilty by default in Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit - Denver Gazette

EUREKA, MONT.

Looking back at the Capitol riot, Tasha Adams ponders her time as an Oath Keepers wife and asks: What if I had not supported him?

Him is her estranged husband, Stewart Rhodes, founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government group whose members stand accused by federal authorities of having played a crucial role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. During nearly 23 years of marriage, Adams says she devoted herself to Rhodes aspirations. She worked as an exotic dancer to help put him through college, assisted in writing his papers and encouraged him to successfully apply to Yale Law School. When he was looking for direction in life a cause Adams helped him start the Oath Keepers.

Over the next few years, Adams became disillusioned by the far-right organization and her marriage. The Oath Keepers, she says, increasingly promoted conspiracy theories while engaging in extremist activities and rhetoric that demonstrated racial and ethnic biases. Meanwhile, her husband became emotionally and physically abusive, she says. In 2018, hoping to put Rhodes and the organization behind her, she left him and filed for divorce.

With congressional committees and federal investigators examining the threat posed by domestic extremists and their contribution to the insurrection, Adams has been conducting an exploration of her own life and culpability in the forming of the Oath Keepers. Her journey provides behind-the-scenes insights into how a Las Vegas car valet transformed into the leader of an organization that sought to overturn a presidential election.

Column One

A showcase for compelling storytelling from the Los Angeles Times.

If I hadnt helped him start it, I mean, there would probably still have been an insurrection, Adams, 49, says in an interview in this old logging town, not far from where she lives. But what would it have looked like? That is what Im trying to figure out.

Adams has not been shy about sharing her experiences tweeting critically about Rhodes and his organization, while launching an online crowdsourcing campaign to fund her divorce. Last month, she spoke at length with investigators for the special House committee examining the Capitol riot.

Eureka, the town not far from where Tasha Adams lives, is known as an old logging town.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

Dissecting what transpired in any relationship can be a fraught endeavor. This story is based on Adams recollections, as well as reviews of court records and interviews with two of her adult children, Dakota Vonn Adams and Sedona Rhodes, who confirmed their mothers account. More than a dozen current and former officers and board members of the Oath Keepers did not respond to requests for comment.

Rhodes did not respond to repeated phone calls and text messages. The 56-year-old has not been charged in the insurrection. He has said the Oath Keepers were in town to provide security for advisors to then-President Trump and supporters and did not intend to enter the building.

Adams, who speaks in rapid-fire sentences that frequently end in quips, starts each day by firing up a laptop on her kitchen countertop, scanning for news about the Oath Keepers.

She has read how 18 Oath Keepers have been indicted on conspiracy charges for forcing their way into the Capitol, and she has studied prosecutors damning portrait of Rhodes. They allege in court papers that Rhodes urged Oath Keepers to come to Washington to fight for Trump.

He was on the Capitol grounds during the insurrection, prosecutors say, and provided live updates to his members storming the building. Theres no indication that he entered the Capitol during the riot. Rhodes described the rioters as patriots and later compared the insurrection to the Boston Tea Party, prosecutors say.

Adams met Rhodes when she was an 18-year-old dance instructor at an Arthur Murray studio in Las Vegas, and he was a 25-year-old student.

She was the daughter of strict white Mormon parents who ran a window manufacturing business. Rhodes was an intense and worldly former Army paratrooper who maintained his military physique and parked cars for a living. He told her of growing up in a multi-ethnic Christian family, spending summers picking fruit alongside relatives. Rhodes has described himself as a quarter Mexican and part Native American, invoking that heritage at times to deflect against allegations that the Oath Keepers are sympathetic to racists.

Adams says she was drawn to Rhodes life experience because it was so different from mine.

An archival photograph of Tasha Adams during her honeymoon with Stewart Rhodes rests on a table.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

They had been dating four months when Rhodes accidentally dropped a .22-caliber handgun and shot himself in the face, blinding himself in the left eye. She says she felt obligated to assist him.

I was suddenly taking care of a man with a hole in his head, Adams says.

With Adams contemplating becoming a professional ballroom dancer, the couple struggled to make rent; she says Rhodes began to press her to find a more lucrative trade.

Every day, Adams recalls, he was like, You should be a stripper and make more money. She took up exotic dancing, earning $100 a night.

They married in 1994, and she worked at a high-end strip club until she had their first child, Dakota. Each night, Adams says, she helped Rhodes with his assignments at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and nurtured his dreams of becoming a lawyer.

I wanted a house with a treehouse for Dakota. I thought, man, I struck the jackpot, she says, describing her emotion upon Rhodes acceptance by Yale. Im married to a future Yale Law School graduate!

But Rhodes turned down high-paying internships his first year and took a nonpaying summer gig at a conservative think tank. He was more interested in causes than money, says Adams, adding, I knew then I was never going to get the treehouse. She says Rhodes charted a similar course after graduating in 2004, working mostly in smaller practices or as a freelance writer of legal briefs.

Rhodes had always been interested in politics, Adams says, and they both subscribed to libertarianism, a philosophy that promotes free markets and limited government. They fervently supported one of its staunchest adherents, then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

While volunteering for Pauls 2008 presidential campaign, Rhodes and Adams met veterans and former police officers who were drawn to the candidates libertarian views. Thats when Rhodes decided to form the Oath Keepers, a group focused on recruiting veterans, military personnel and police officers and encouraging them to remain true to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution and to disobey orders they consider illegal.

Adams says she liked the idea and believed in the groups focus. Its goals aligned with her libertarian views of limited government, and she saw it as a good way for her husband to tap his charisma to earn a living. She says she envisioned Oath Keepers as a a cigar club of like-minded libertarians.

I thought it was something he could do well, she says. What a great name, right? I thought, wow, we are going to sell a lot of T-shirts and motorcycle jackets.

By the time Rhodes launched the Oath Keepers in March 2009 two months after President Obama took office Adams says she realized the group was not going to be a cigar club, nor a libertarian version of the ACLU.

In a blog post that month, Rhodes wrote that his groups principal mission was to prevent the destruction of American liberty by preventing a full-blown totalitarian dictatorship from coming to power. Our Motto is Not on our watch!

Adams says she accepted Rhodes vision for the Oath Keepers because he seemed to mostly be pushing the boundaries of free speech and advocating for limited government.

For its first couple of years, the Oath Keepers operated on a tight budget. Adams says she handled its mailing lists and ran its website, keeping it updated with links to events, missives from Rhodes and links to news stories about the group.

According to pages captured by the Internet Archive, much of the site was dedicated to testimonials from members, many current and former military personnel, who expressed enthusiasm about joining the organization and its mission. I find no higher calling than to join forces with the Oath Keepers, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow Americans in our own defense, wrote a member who identified himself as an Air Force officer in June 2009.

In November 2009, a person who identified himself as an Army veteran posted: Its time to stand up for liberty and truth above all else. To Reclaim the Republic for the people, by the people, of the people from the hands of tyranny. The poster added he was particularly concerned about puppet politicians, the Central Banking gangsters, the U.N. ...

With the rise of the tea party movement, the organization grew rapidly. At its height in 2015, the Oath Keepers had about 35,000 members, Adams says. Anti-hate groups have pegged its top membership at no more than 5,000.

Adams says she stepped away from the group in 2010 or 2011 and focused on raising her children. She and Rhodes would eventually have six. In her spare time, Adams blogged a bit, describing herself as a homeschooling, breastfeeding, homebirthing, libertarian, freedom fighting, gun-toting really cool mom.

On the blog, she described her husband as being cute and sexy and extolled his rise from being a down-on-his-luck car valet to leader of the Oath Keepers.

Adams cringes when she reads such posts. I was creating the world I wanted it to be, she says, not the one it was.

At the Oath Keepers height, in 2015, Adams says, the organization had about 35,000 members.

(Tailry Irvine / For The Times)

In 2013, Rhodes announced that the Oath Keepers would create teams, prepared with military-style training, to respond to the implosion of society. Until that point, such training had been prohibited, Adams says, because Rhodes didnt want his group to be considered a militia.

There is a stigma attached to militias, she says. And he wanted to avoid that.

Suddenly, she says, Oath Keepers were running around playing army.

The Oath Keepers in 2014 and 2015 assisted ranchers and miners in Nevada and Oregon in armed disputes with federal authorities. Rhodes also deployed Oath Keepers in 2014 to Ferguson, Mo., to patrol and protect businesses during protests unleashed by the shooting of a Black 18-year-old, Michael Brown, by a white police officer.

Rhodes was criticized by anti-hate groups for that action, and he was chastised by a local Oath Keepers leader for engaging in a racial double standard by failing to assist Black residents accusing law enforcement of abuses. Adams says she raised similar concerns with Rhodes, particularly after the Oath Keepers had defended white ranchers and miners.

Members of the Oath Keepers have generally avoided the kind of inflammatory rhetoric utilized by white supremacists. The groups bylaws prohibit anyone from joining who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon their race, nationality, creed, or color.

But experts say such circumspection belies how the Oath Keepers actions, and statements by members, have assisted in the spread of racist language and hate.

Members of Oath Keepers think of themselves as rejecting racism, yet they and allied groups have served as de facto security for neo-Confederate and alt-right groups, Sam Jackson, a professor at the University at Albany-SUNY wrote in his eponymous book about the Oath Keepers. In other words, like most of the contemporary patriot/militia movement, the [Oath Keepers] is not organized around a perceived racial identity, but neither is it as free of racism and bigotry as it likes to claim.

Jackson noted that Rhodes has wielded his Mexican heritage to push back on claims that he or the Oath Keepers are in league with racists, even as his group has disseminated videos that display bigotry toward undocumented migrants and Mexicans. Rhodes has compared Latino and Black Lives Matter activists to jihadist terrorists and well funded Marxist and racist agitators. He has said that illegal immigration was an invasion and described as dirtbags the mostly Black NFL players who protested racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem.

Adams says she once believed that anti-hate groups were exaggerating the dangers the Oath Keepers posed because Rhodes convinced her the criticism was unfounded and a ploy to raise money.

After Ferguson and the armed standoffs, however, Adams says her views changed. While Rhodes and leaders did not tolerate discriminatory language I never heard him say anything like the N-word, she says, and he would get rid of anyone who did the estranged wife believes her husband and other Oath Keepers nevertheless exhibited racial and ethnic biases in several, frequently subtle ways. She cited their refusal to back Black residents protesting police abuse in Ferguson, their harsh rhetoric about immigrants and their vision for America. They described America as if they were looking out at a crowd at a baseball game, she says, and seeing a sea of white faces with rosy cheeks.

She adds that the Anti-Defamation League is correct in describing the Oath Keepers as a large right-wing anti-government extremist group. And the Southern Poverty Law Center is accurate, she says, in claiming the Oath Keepers is based on a set of baseless conspiracy theories about the federal government working to destroy Americans liberties.

Stewart Rhodes, founder of the citizen militia group known as the Oath Keepers, speaks during a rally outside the White House in 2017.

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

Among the conspiracy theories that Rhodes advocated on the Oath Keepers website and in frequent appearances on conservative TV and radio shows: A U.S. military exercise in 2015 might be a prelude to a coup, baseless claims about voter fraud in the 2016 election and a deep state takeover of the U.S. government. Later, after the 2020 election, he fully embraced and promoted unfounded conspiracies that the election had been stolen and supported Trumps efforts to stay in office.

Adams says she tried to temper Rhodes conspiratorial rhetoric because it didnt serve any purpose except make him look crazy.

By 2016, Adams says, Rhodes had become an ardent supporter of Trump, putting aside early doubts: Stewart thought Trump was too pro-government and pro-spending. Adams added that her estranged husbands attraction to the former president is obvious in hindsight: They are very similar in that they both push conspiracy theories. Its like watching a demagogue be attracted to a demagogue.

It was not possible to independently verify Adams descriptions of her role in the Oath Keepers. Jackson, the author and professor, says she did not come up in his research of the group. I would be surprised if they were coequals, the professor says, referring to Adams and her husband. He declined to speculate further on Adams role in the organization, saying he did not delve into Oath Keepers private lives because they could be difficult to untangle.

Living in remote areas of Montana, Adams says she had no friends, and her life revolved around keeping her husband happy and raising and schooling her children.

Those who know Adams say they rarely saw her outside the presence of Rhodes. Marcy Kuntz, Adams midwife for three births starting in 2006, recalls that Adams didnt speak much about herself, except to apologize for failing to pay bills on time. She was always accompanied on appointments by her husband.

Kuntz delivered the babies at Adams homes, which were generally located deep in the Montana woods. The house was busy, with all the kids, Kuntz says, and I got the sense that her and her childrens world was in that house. They didnt get out much.

She seemed like a very private person, adds Kuntz, who has spoken to Adams a few times in the years since she separated from Rhodes. You could tell she supported what Stewart did as his wife, as a wife supports a husband. ...

In retrospect, it is clear he was very controlling. She kept it all to herself for so long.

Adams and two of her adult children say that by 2015 a year after her sixth child was born they were becoming increasingly disenchanted with Rhodes as a husband and father. He was gone for long stretches, leaving her to raise their children in an isolated part of Montana, said Adams, Dakota and Sedona.

When Rhodes was home, he belittled and berated his wife and kids, kept tabs on their whereabouts and engaged in physical abuse, according to Adams and the two children, as well as allegations included in court records filed by Adams.

In a 2018 application for a restraining order, Adams alleged Rhodes grabbed their then 13-year-old daughter by the throat. Whenever he is unhappy with my behavior (say I want to leave the house he doesnt like me to leave), he will draw his handgun (which he always wears), rack the slide, wave it around, and then point it at his own head, she wrote in the application, which was denied by a judge. It is not clear why the judge declined to grant the order.

According to Dakota and Sedona, their father didnt just promote conspiracy theories he brought them home. One night the power and phones went out, Dakota says, and his father became convinced the FBI had cut the lines, presaging a raid.

Tasha Adams, seen in the reflection of a window, ponders her time as an Oath Keepers wife and asks herself what would have happened if she had not supported her husband.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

It took us 45 minutes to pack the vehicles, says Dakota, 24. If the FBI was really coming, would they have given us that much time? We drove off and about an hour later, he was like, I guess they arent coming. So we turned around and went home to bed.

Sedona, 22, says her father once ordered the children to dig a tunnel so the family might escape if authorities raided the house. It had a plywood roof, and he had the little kids go through it to get used to it, Sedona says.

Adams and her children say it took years of enduring such behavior for her to see the truth.

Your reality gets warped. He controlled our reality, says Dakota, who succeeded on Nov. 8 in legally changing his name from Dakota Stewart Rhodes because he disdains his father.

His mother was also concerned that Rhodes could use his legal expertise and connections to keep the children. She says she put those fears aside in 2018 and filed for divorce. Rhodes moved out of the house, and appears to live out of state. The divorce case, which was filed under seal, remains unresolved, in part, because Adams says she is in debt to her lawyers.

Earning a living selling used clothes on the internet, Adams has been pecking away at a memoir and says she has been thinking about getting a college degree in extremist studies. Her goal, she says, is to teach about the dangers posed by extremist groups and their leaders.

Among the questions she thinks she can answer for students: How has Rhodes managed to avoid arrest while other Oath Keepers were indicted in the riot on conspiracy charges? In dissecting her life as an Oath Keepers wife and following coverage of the federal prosecutions, Adams says she has a theory: He is very good at getting others to take the risks.

Read more from the original source:
She helped her husband start a far-right militia group. Now the Oath Keeper's wife says she has regrets - Los Angeles Times