How many of the convicted DC rioters is Jack Smith flipping

[edhopper]

in his DC trial against TFG.

Just wondering if all that "Low hanging fruit" really made the case against Tr**p

[Chainfire]

1. It doesn't seem to me that the rioters would have much to do with Smith's case.

Believing that Trump sent you to riot is not proving that Trump sent you to riot. I suspect that he has much bigger fish to fry.

[edhopper]

3. But, but, but

we have been repeatedly told that they were going after Tr**p from the bottom up?
Wasn't Garland's slow pace to get all the little fish first?

[gab13by13]

6. My memory is still OK

Yup, I remember the pyramid strategy.

Meh, thank goodness the J6 committee picked up the slack.

[TwilightZone]

10. "we have been repeatedly told"

By whom? Jack Smith?

[edhopper]

12. A few frequent posters

on this board.

[TwilightZone]

15. Meaningless

If you're looking to random people on the internet for information and to form your opinions, you need to reevaluate your sources.

[RockRaven]

2. None?

[gab13by13]

4. Yeah, I remember the pyramid strategy.

I was told that’s how prosecutors work, they must start at the bottom and work up to big fish.

Short answer- none.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Some of the rioters have cooperation agreements re: other rioters, however...

Little has been revealed about Mark Meadows’ cooperation agreement with Smith, nor the one with Owen Shroyer, colleague of Alex Jones who was in the “War Room” on January 5/6.

Shroyer was interviewed just a few weeks after Garland was sworn in.

I’m guessing these co conspirators, and more, will be on the witness list for Chutkan’s J6 trial, once it starts.

[edhopper]

9. And none of these

are small fry for the "bottom up" strategy we kept hearing about.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Many of the small fry who plead out have requirements to cooperate

As part of their sentencing agreements.

Any of the insurrectionists with connections to Alex Jones, Ali Alexander and Roger Stone would be valuable, since those three are critical links between the insurrectionists and Trump’s inner circle, as well Ginny Thomas and the Stop The Steal organizers.

The small fry may also be called upon to testify to the influence Trump in inciting their insurrection.

At this point, we just don’t know very much, which is as it should be, until things get to the discovery stage in the J6 trial and witness lists are released. ( I think they were just beginning to exchange docs and videos when things were paused for the immunity review).

Once SCOTUS rules Trump has no immunity, then I would expect more info about this as the trial date draws near.

[TwilightZone]

20. Right.

The rioters are unlikely to have any direct links to Trump, unless there's some big story we have yet to hear. They are much more likely to have links to people like Jones and Stone, especially Stone via the Proud Boys, etc., who would then have links to Trump.

"The small fry may also be called upon to testify to the influence Trump in inciting their insurrection."

I'm not sure that "Trump made me do it" is a compelling enough argument for it to warrant them testifying unless there's something more direct than his social media posts and statements at rallies.

[gab13by13]

23. OK FT, I respect your opinions

but you are losing it with me if you are saying that DOJ is going after Ginni Thomas, C'mon man.

They were not exchanging docs, DOJ didn't give the J6 committee anything, why would they? DOJ was begging the J6 committee to turn over all its information, remember?

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. My comment had nothing to do with the J6 committee

I was referring to the exchange of evidence between prosecutors and defendant’s counsel that occurs during discovery.

I believe they had started exchanging documentary and video evidence, but hadn’t yet disclosed any depositions or witness lists, which would have revealed the identities of any folks who had flipped on Trump, whether big or small fry.

Which is what this whole thread is about, not the J6 committee.

[onenote]

42. Quite a bit of information has been provided to the defense in discovery.

This is the most recent report filed by the Special Counsel. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.291.0.pdf

The order that has a lot of folks very upset centers on the defense's request to unredact information in one of the defense filings -- that information includes the identify of witnesses and copies of witness statements that the government produced to Trump. As Smith pointed out in his motion for reconsideration of the order regarding redaction of that information,"The defendants here were not legally entitled to a list of the Government’s witnesses, or to their statements or grand jury transcripts, prior to trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2), (3); 18 U.S.C. § 3500...The Government has nevertheless produced those materials, and more, far in advance of trial, in minimally redacted form—but only because the materials were subject to a protective order that allows the defendants to prepare for trial while limiting the risks of unwarranted disclosure"

[gab13by13]

16. A heck of a lot was revealed by Mark Meadows

Remember, it was the J6 committee who subpoenaed him, not DOJ. Meadows turned over a lot of documents before someone told him to stop. Remember the J6 committee took the lead, even sent a criminal referral to DOJ for Meadows.
Remember DOJ wanted the J6 committee to turn over its info.
Heaphy, the lead investigator for the J6 committee stated numerous times that DOJ was slow to act.
Remember how DOJ was shocked by Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

31. No.

I remember the media telling us the DOJ was "shocked" and "shamed" into action. And...shazam! Months worth of evidence just fell from the sky, like dew drops.

Jeez!

[Autumn]

7. The insurrectionists would have nothing to do with Smiths case.

They were nothing more than useful idiots. Trump and his cohorts in Congress needed them to make sure America knew what the Dems were doing in certifying Biden's election was a crime. Useful idiots and Congress members who were in on it then and since then will get off scot-free.

[TwilightZone]

8. What evidence do you think they can provide?

They're a bunch of yahoos who showed up, fought with cops, broke into the Capitol, and broke stuff.

"Trump told me to do it" is meaningless without proof of some actual connection. A few social media posts imploring them to show up on January 6th aren't a connection.

[edhopper]

11. Well

when some of us wondered why Garland was not going after Tr**p, we were told he was going after the low hanging fruit for a bottom up strategy.
Funny how your logic is so apparent about this.

[TwilightZone]

13. "we were told "

By whom? Jack Smith? Random people on the internet?

This place just keeps getting funnier.

[edhopper]

14. I am picking

door #2

[TwilightZone]

17. I think I see the problem.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. The leaders who were convicted of seditious conspiracy had connections

To Stone, Jones and Alexander, who in turn were linked to Trump’s inner circle and the Stop the Steal organizers.

We don’t know what we don’t know.

[TwilightZone]

21. Agreed, but if we're talking about the rioters...

there's unlikely to be a direct link to Trump, because he seems to have delegated organization to the others, or others took the initiative, like Stone. If there's a link to Trump, I think it would be through one of the others.

"We don’t know what we don’t know."

Agreed.

[gab13by13]

24. I agree that maybe some unwashed Magats flipped

on Stone, Bannon, Jones, Alexander, but with that said, those people who you listed will never flip on Trump.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. Alexander has offered to cooperate

And Meadows and Shroyer already have.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

32. THANK YOU.

For your diligent voice of reason!

[bigtree]

36. not so fast. They would likely have info about the ones with ties to the WH

...what would you know about the state of evidence linking the riot leaders to the Trump clan, with the possibility Trump was involved?

Why would ANYONE outside of the prosecution and ongoing investigation know the details of DOJ or SC investigations?

But, of course there is 'low hanging fruit' as the op calls them, but there are also big fish:

Enrique Tarrio, former chair of the Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years …

Stewart Rhodes: the leader of the Oath Keepers, 18 years.…

Joe Biggs: Joe Biggs, a Florida leader of the Proud Boys 17 years,

Zach Rehl: 15 years.

You've just blown right past the reports of both PB and OK ties to the Trump WH like it's just some abstraction.

NBC:

While both members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been charged with conspiring to storm the U.S. Capitol, the Oath Keepers played a security role that gave them direct access to prominent figures in then-President Donald Trump’s orbit, like longtime adviser Roger Stone. As members of the Oath Keepers were offering security for figures like Stone, prosecutors allege, Rhodes and members of the organization plotted to set up heavily armed “quick reaction forces” outside of D.C. that they hoped Trump would call upon to keep himself in power.

Kinnison’s relationship with the Oath Keepers as well as his communications with Rhodes and others, which have not been previously reported, shed light on the central organizational role the group played in the events surrounding Jan. 6. Redacted chats released by a defense lawyer last month in connection with the broader Oath Keepers case show that Rhodes added Kinnison — who he referred to as a “CA Oath Keeper who is in with a four-man team” — to a Signal chat. Kinnison, according to his indictment, was in the four-man group Rhodes referred to, traveling to D.C. in an SUV rented from Enterprise with three of his co-defendants: Erik Scott Warner, Felipe “Tony” Martinez, and Ronald Mele.

On the evening of Jan. 6, a member of the organization told a court in recent weeks, Rhodes attempted to get into touch with Trump himself, imploring a Trump intermediary to call upon militias and stop the transfer of power. “I just want to fight,” Rhodes told others after unsuccessfully trying to get connected to Trump, according to William Todd Wilson, a head of a county offshoot of the Oath Keepers in North Carolina. (Rhodes’ legal team was not aware of the alleged call before media reports on Wilson’s guilty plea, but have said Rhodes did not have a way to talk to Trump.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-evidence-reveals-coordination-oath-keepers-three-percenters-jan-6-rcna30355

[TwilightZone]

38. The question was about flipping on *Trump*.

There's unlikely to be a direct link to Trump from the rioters, the proclamations of DUers notwithstanding, because he seems to have delegated organization to others, or others took the initiative, like Stone.

There is likely to be a direct link to people like Roger Stone from the rioters, especially from the Proud Boys and other groups.

That's not "flipping on Trump", because it's not implicating Trump. It's implicating whoever was involved in the organizing of the insurrection. To some degree, that's already happened with the people who were charged with seditious conspiracy. The organizers would then need to be linked to Trump.

It's unlikely the rioters could provide anything that wasn't already public knowledge, i.e. Trump's social media posts. If they could, we almost certainly would have heard about it by now as part of a plea agreement.

[bigtree]

41. why does it have to be 'flipping on Trump' to have value

..in linking him to their activities.

You have no idea what communications and other evidence they've obtained from the perps and how those fit into their prosecution.

This is such a ridiculously narrow view of how this prosecution or any other works. They don't do it in front of you before the trial, every lead they obtain isn't necessarily definitive alone but can be key, nonetheless - and this one isn't nearly over.

You really must have stopped reading at the edge of your own interest. I'm not able to take the time it requires to explain to you just how much you're leaving out. I don't have the energy or interest.

[Silent Type]

22. Unless they have a video of trump drawing the entry points with a Sharpie or spouting orders.

they don’t have chit to contribute.

Agreeing to cooperate means little if you ain’t got the goods.

[gab13by13]

25. The video may be in the locked closet at Mar-el-Loco

that the FBI neglected to check? 😊

[Silent Type]

27. It might be. Hope to hell someone finds it before Election Day.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

30. Prosecutors are not going to cut deals with anyone who "ain't got the goods."

Seriously.

[Silent Type]

34. They did in Georgia because prosecutors weren't ready for trial in October.

Let ‘em off with no jail time and a small fine.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

29. How could we know? And WHY should we know?

Jack Smith is fighting Cannon to keep witness names secret because of Slobby and his rabid psycho MAGAts threats of violence. So maybe prosecutors should spell out exactly who has said what, and see how long it takes for something violent to happen.

Watch those goal posts move, all over the place.

There are the real "low hanger" idiots who just wanted a day out to beat up some cops with like minded idiots.

Then there are Roger Stone and his "body guards," the ghouls guarding the weapons off stage, the guy who wasn't even there and got charged with (and maybe convicted of, I'm not scouring the internet) conspiracy. And on and on... I know the DOJ list has been posted here, multiple times. Ignoring it does not change reality.

But maybe those indictments appeared out of nowhere, evidence, schmevidence. Witnesses, schwitnesses. Who needs all that oogy stuff. Just lock 'em all up!! NOW!!

[edhopper]

33. Let me know

When Stone is indicted.

[bigtree]

35. checking my crystal ball...

...I've already pm'ed a few internet legal clarivoyants who work for the (unaffiliated) DOJ's volunteer advisory blog who regularly divine otherwise secret details about DOJ and SC investigations and post them here and there?

I'm still waiting for a mental message from them.

[bigtree]

37. jesus, what a cynical thread. You forgot the riot leaders

Oath Keepers sharing with January 6 investigators their efforts to find election fraud, communications with Trump allies

As the Justice Department and the House Select Committee press their investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, the central role of the Oath Keepers is coming into sharper focus. The Oath Keepers, headed by Stewart Rhodes, have links to many of the primary figures being investigated in connection with the Capitol breach and the lead-up to the attack.

Kellye SoRelle, a lawyer working with the Oath Keepers, told CNN that she has met with the FBI several times and handed over phones. 

She declined to say more about what she’s shared with investigators, but her ties to the group have come up in court filings, including a virtual meeting a week after the 2020 presidential election when Oath Keepers talk about heading to Washington, DC, and SoRelle briefs them about the campaign’s legal fight.

Investigators also have learned about encrypted messages on the app Signal leading up to January 6, in which the Oath Keepers were messaging high-profile, right-wing political organizers, according to four people familiar with its existence. The Justice Department recently provided records of the chat to defense attorneys in the sedition case, some of the people said.

In court last week, prosecutors also disclosed how the Oath Keepers’ leader Stewart Rhodes called an unnamed person on speakerphone from a hotel suite on the evening of January 6, asking to speak directly to Trump and urging the person to tell Trump to call upon groups like the Oath Keepers to “forcefully oppose the transfer of power.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-evidence-reveals-coordination-oath-keepers-three-percenters-jan-6-rcna30355

..,you'll likely get the answer when they move forward with the trial.

I say 'likely' because you have to actually pay attention.

[TwilightZone]

39. If the rioters had the goods on Trump...

we almost certainly would have heard about it by now as part of a plea agreement. Hundreds of rioters have already been prosecuted and sentenced. Not one has made a direct link to Trump.

Ya think the people who've already been prosecuted took prison sentences on purpose so they could hold back information for later?

It's not cynical to actually answer the question posed by the OP instead of making assertions based on a bunch of unrelated tangents.

[bigtree]

40. that's just so shortsighted

...not only do you have no idea about what witnesses contributed to what lead, it's not even come to court.

And as you should well know, the narrow indictment on election interference isn't necessarily, or even likely the end of the SC prosecutions. It's widely reported that the SC has pared down this prosecution, and has not ruled out any other effort to hold the co-conspirators accountable.

Instead of relating this case though your own perspective, make SOME effort to explain the case as reported, and deal with the fact that no one outside of the SC investigation and prosecution knows squat.

No one at DOJ or the SC's office has said this begins and ends with Trump's one charge. Indeed, the SC has said he maintains the right to bring superceding charges.

No one outside of that case can speak definitively about what evidence DOJ or Smith have, or what they intend to do with it. You definitely can't tell what they intend just by looking at the prosecution they're trying to rush before the election, ostensibly by putting any other effort on hold.

The fact that this vacuum allows people to declare this or that is included, or this or that is being prosecuted or not doesn't mean squat until the SC indicates he's through. He hasn't, and he isn't.

But declaring that the PB and OK's that have testified in court and those who have given depositions aren't important or significant to the prosecution effort isn't supported by ANYTHING but this cynicism.

Read the reports. Go look for more. Don't just do this cynical dance around what's right in front of us and dismiss anything that doesn't comport with your own narrow view of the prosecution.

I'd take a more expansive view than being so definitively pessimistic, especially looking at how aggressive Jack Smith has been throughout.