Walking down a new path to find the people who fund insurrection... Cutting Off Financing for the Next Capitol Insurrection https://www.lawfareblog.com/cutting-financing-next-capitol-insurrection The attack at the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, wasn’t cheap. The insurrectionists spent considerable sums to travel to Washington, D.C., purchase weapons and gear, hold events, and, afterward, pay their legal fees. The rally at the Ellipse that immediately preceded the riot at the Capitol cost roughly $500,000, including fees for a concert stage, $100,000 for grass covering, and security structures. The main groups involved in the insurrection continue to operate in the United States and use their funds to stage more events, pay legal fees arising from the riot (and new issues), and support organizational goals—including continued recruitment. While large individual donors are an important source of funds, access to even relatively small amounts of money, often through crowdfunding platforms, allowed plenty of insurrectionists to travel and participate in the attack on the Capitol. As a result, the Jan. 6 attack should not be viewed as a low-cost attack. Instead, the costs were distributed across many participants and donors, all of whom conspired to create a massively disruptive event and attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government—financing that activity with personal, institutional, and organizational funds. Using a combination of open-source materials, news reporting, and some primary documents, this analysis draws together disparate information about how the individuals, influencers, political operatives, and extremist groups and movements financed their activities leading up to, on, and after Jan 6. These sources show that the methods used by the Jan. 6 insurrectionists to organize and finance their activities are similar to those from the broader violent right-wing ecosystem. Understanding how these finance networks function could be used to prevent or disrupt their access to funding in the future. The Jan. 6 insurrectionists raised money through a variety of different methods but primarily through a combination of individual donors, formal and informal crowdfunding campaigns, and self-funding of travel and related expenses. One of the individual donors to the events surrounding Jan. 6 was Alex Jones, who pledged over $100,000 for various events. Jones also arranged for other donors to fund the roughly $500,000 in costs for the Ellipse rally. The three main groups involved in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol—the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters—mobilized their own funding channels to support their actions. These groups used a combination of strategies to finance their activities, but all three have used crowdfunding to bring in money. While in some cases these groups use formal crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe and GiveSendGo, they also tend to use “informal” or peer-to-peer crowdfunding strategies, soliciting donations directly or through websites owned and controlled by group members. Some chapters of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers continue to use crowdfunding to cover legal fees. These groups also operate fundraising sites, often selling merchandise and in some cases accepting “charitable” donations. Individual attendees who did not have access to these resources relied on other strategies, but they also raised funds to attend the event through both formal (platform-based) and informal (usually livestream or text message) crowdfunding campaigns. Some private websites were also set up by attendees and political operatives to solicit funds, which allowed them to circumvent formal crowdfunding platforms, gave them greater control over raised funds, and made them more difficult to deplatform. Many of the websites set up by organizations and individual attendees used payment processors, including PayPal and Stripe, to receive donations. For instance, payments on a now-defunct Proud Boys website were processed through Square, Chase, and PayPal, allowing them to receive money from 13 different credit cards, as well as bitcoin and other cryptocurrency payments through CoinPayments (a federally registered company in Canada). Some of the groups implicated in the Jan. 6 attack also established charitable or not-for-profit entities to raise funds both before and after the events of Jan. 6. For example, the Three Percenters have raised funds through “charitable” organizations such as the American Defence Force and the American Border Foundation, the latter of which was a registered 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization in the United States until Nov. 15, 2021. The Oath Keepers have also established local chapters as tax-exempt organizations. While most of the funds raised through these organizations were probably not used for the Jan. 6 insurrection, the use of these corporate structures for the groups’ chapters helps them avoid paying taxes and their federal registration creates a veneer of legitimacy. This practice has also been replicated in Canada, where individuals who advocated for the overthrow of the Canadian government and occupied Ottawa have created a series of not-for-profit corporations. While it is common for extremist groups to hide the source and destination of their funds, such as through hiding the names of donors or recipients, these three key groups have made little effort at financial tradecraft. Instead, because they operate within the United States with relative impunity, they have had little need to make any serious efforts to hide their financial activities. While some of these groups’ activities are being curtailed by law enforcement and administrative procedures (such as through arrests relating to Jan. 6 and the closure of tax-exempt organizations), for the most part, these groups continue to operate publicly and openly, with members seeking and holding public office. To prevent the financing of future insurrections and violent far-right extremism, a number of issues should be addressed both globally and in the United States. In facing violent far-right extremism, governments should reexamine their policies around tax-exempt institutions and ensure that organizations that qualify for tax-exempt status operate for the public benefit and are not a cover for extremist activity. This will help to ensure that organizations like those established by the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters to raise funds receive more scrutiny and are ultimately shut down. Payment processors should also be brought more fully into existing anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regimes to prevent their being used by extremist groups to facilitate payments and transfer funds. In many cases, these financial facilitators are exempt from anti-money laundering reporting requirements, a gap in the regime that extremists are currently exploiting. All companies, including payment processors, website hosts, crowdfunding platforms, and financial institutions, should carefully consider the reputational risks of providing financial services to violent extremist groups and review (and implement) their terms of service to prevent this. U.S. policy should also respond to the international dimensions of the funding of these groups. The United States should consider, at the very least, designating the foreign-based affiliates or supporters of U.S. extremist groups, such as the Canadian Proud Boys and the Canadian Three Percenters. It should also work with other governments—such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand—to ensure that they also enforce their terrorist designations and prevent companies domiciled in their jurisdictions from providing financial services to listed terrorist entities. Partner countries should consider listing the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters as terrorist groups under their domestic legislation to better coordinate with actions already taken by Canada, New Zealand, and other countries working to counter violent, far-right extremism and prevent their jurisdictions from being exploited by U.S.-based groups that could seek financial safe haven or fundraising opportunities outside of the United States. These designations have important operational, support, and signaling effects for countering extremist violence. Designating these groups as terrorist entities would criminalize their financing and the provision of financial support, making it far more difficult for them to operate, organize, and plan future attacks. Although there are no easy solutions to prevent the financing of similar movements, events, or attacks, a coordinated, international response that criminalizes extremist violence and efforts to overthrow democratically elected governments can help make the democratic process in the United States—and other democratic countries around the world—far more secure.
Yes, we now you are deeply embedded with those who want to overthrow democracy. All the more reason for your phone to be turned over so these criminals can be convicted. Arizona GOP chair says ‘thousands’ will be implicated if J6 committee looks at her phone: report https://www.rawstory.com/j6-kelli-ward-subpoena/
Jan. 6 committee members say Trump's calling the FBI 'vicious monsters' at a rally may constitute incitement https://news.yahoo.com/jan-6-committee-members-trumps-122637116.html
By now all of Trumps personal and business records are in the hands of partisan DA's and officials Most of his privileged lawyer communications are with his opposition. His "dirty tricks" lawyer has vowed to get him Yet...they are still struggling to find a crime Trumps has got to be the cleanest businessman in the world They even have all his communications with local cities officials.....Like the zoning boards in Chicago whee they "recommend" who to hire for concrete, waste and insurance.....And they cant even find a local official to charge ....or one they choose to charge
Jan 6 committee postpones final hearing because it can't compete with the Weather channel. Jan. 6 panel postpones last hearing due to Hurricane Ian https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/27/jan-6-panel-postpone-hearing-hurricane-ian-00059080
Wondering how the Ginni Thomas testimony went? Just about as expected... 1/6 chairman: Ginni Thomas reiterates false election claims https://apnews.com/article/capitol-...and-politics-3b4102509ef93bc37d24d7c8fd79ba80 Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, stood by the false claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent during an interview Thursday with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, the panel’s chairman said. “It’s a work in progress,” Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters after the more than four-hour interview ended. “At this point, we’re glad she came.” The committee — comprised of seven Democrats and two Republicans — has for months sought an interview with Thomas in an effort to know more about her role in trying to help former President Donald Trump overturn his election defeat. The conservative activist texted with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and contacted lawmakers in Arizona and Wisconsin in the weeks after the election. Thomas answered some of the questions from congressional investigators Thursday as she sought to portray herself as among the many Americans who still believe the baseless claim that the 2020 election was stolen, according to a person familiar with the investigation who was not authorized to discuss it publicly. But she did not provide any evidence or specific reasoning to back up her belief, the person said. “As she has said from the outset, Mrs. Thomas had significant concerns about fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election,” Mark Paoletta, her attorney, said in a statement. “And, as she told the Committee, her minimal and mainstream activity focused on ensuring that reports of fraud and irregularities were investigated.” “Beyond that, she played no role in any events after the 2020 election results,” he added. The testimony from Thomas was one of the last remaining for the panel as it eyes the completion of its work. The panel has already interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses and shown some of that video testimony in its eight hearings over the summer. The extent of her involvement in the Capitol attack is unclear. In the days after The Associated Press and other news organizations called the presidential election for Biden, Thomas emailed two lawmakers in Arizona to urge them to choose “a clean slate of Electors” and “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure.” The AP obtained the emails earlier this year under the state’s open records law. She has said in previous interviews that she attended the initial pro-Trump rally the morning of Jan. 6 but left before Trump spoke and the crowds headed for the Capitol. Thomas, a Trump supporter long active in conservative causes, has repeatedly maintained that her political activities posed no conflict of interest with the work of her husband. “Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America. But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work,” Thomas told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview published in March. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenting voice when the Supreme Court ruled in January to allow a congressional committee access to presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts and handwritten notes relating to the events of Jan. 6. Ginni Thomas has been openly critical of the committee’s work, including signing onto a letter to House Republicans calling for the expulsion of Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois from the GOP conference for joining the Jan. 6 congressional committee.
America has a huge problem in its justice system if it can not see the conflict of interest and if it can not see nor understand how these attitudes impact judicial decisions. Then again, maybe it's understood and few care just as long as they're not on the other end of that judicial bias...enabling the fall of Democracy. wrbtrader
Another seditionist refuses to answer questions. Next step: DOJ Arizona GOP Chair pleaded the Fifth, Jan. 6 committee attorney says https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...eaded-fifth-jan-6-committee-attorney-00060254 Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions from the Jan. 6 select committee, a lawyer for the panel revealed in federal court Tuesday. “Dr. Ward was deposed by the select committee, and she declined to answer on every substantive question and asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment,” select committee attorney Eric Columbus said during a court hearing before Arizona-based U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa. Columbus did not say when Ward’s deposition took place, though the select panel’s subpoena instructed her to appear on March 8, 2022. Columbus revealed Ward’s posture during a hearing on the committee’s attempt to obtain her phone records from cell phone carrier T-Mobile. Ward sued the panel to block T-Mobile from cooperating, but Humetewa recently rejected her effort. Tuesday’s hearing came amid Ward’s effort to ask Humetewa to delay the impact of her ruling while she seeks a review from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. An attorney for Ward declined to comment. Ward is seeking to block the select committee from obtaining records of her calls between Nov. 3, 2020, and Jan. 20, 2021 — the frenetic final weeks of former President Donald Trump’s term in office as he sought to cling to power. Columbus noted that the panel had received similar records from “hundreds” of other witnesses without incident. But Ward, a medical doctor, has claimed that the select committee could use the records to identify patients she’s treating for sensitive conditions and also seek to chill Republican activists who had been in touch with her during that tumultuous time. Ward attorney Laurin Mills told Humetewa that the select committee’s probe could wind up being “worse than the capitol riot” if its work led to the “criminalization of politics.” Humetewa quickly admonished Mills, noting that the select committee has no criminal authority but is pursuing legislative goals. Mills responded by noting the Justice Department’s “parallel investigation” into efforts by allies of Trump to subvert the 2020 election. It’s not entirely surprising some witnesses would choose to avoid testifying to the select panel given the DOJ’s investigation, which the department revealed in January 2022. Columbus noted that the select committee had no intention to obtain the substance of any texts or calls Ward made during that period — only logs of incoming and outgoing calls and phone numbers, which the panel could then use to determine when key contacts related to the 2020 election occurred. “There is nothing unique about Dr. Ward here,” Columbus said, adding that it’s unsurprising the panel’s probe touched on political players because it’s an “investigation of a very political event, an attempt to overthrow and subvert an election.” Humetewa pressed Columbus about why the committee is only now pressing for Ward’s records, after deferring for months. Columbus said the panel had opted to prioritize its resources and timing on other areas of the investigation first. The select committee subpoenaed Ward in February, seeking her testimony and records about her involvement in Trump’s effort to remain in power. Ward helped assemble a slate of GOP activists to falsely claim to be the state’s certified presidential electors, even though Joe Biden prevailed narrowly in the November 2020 election there. Prosecutors are investigating the effort to send false elector slates to Washington, which was a key element of Trump’s effort to stoke a conflict on Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress met to count electoral votes and certify Biden’s victory. The select committee has subpoenaed dozens of Republicans who acted as Trump’s electors in states where Biden was the certified winner. It’s unclear how many have cooperated with the panel’s inquiry. Several dozen other witnesses have asserted their Fifth Amendment rights rather than testifying to the select committee. They include former national security adviser Mike Flynn, Trump confidant Roger Stone, attorney John Eastman and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. In addition to her work on the pro-Trump Arizona elector slate — in which she was one of 10 members — Ward joined a December 2020 lawsuit aimed at forcing then-Vice President Mike Pence’s hand ahead of the Jan. 6 session of Congress, when Pence was set to preside over the electoral vote count. Ward and her fellow false electors have been subpoenaed in the ongoing Justice Department investigation. But Ward indicated in a court filing last week that all 10 of Arizona’s electors challenged the subpoenas and have not heard back from the Justice Department about their objections. DOJ has taken no steps to enforce the subpoenas as well, she noted.