Steve Baker - TPC
News • Politics • Writing
Steve's Unedited Tweet-Storm from Day 10 of Oath Keepers Trial
post photo preview
Jason Dolan and Ken Harrelson entering Capitol Rorunda

Once again . . . this no literary masterpiece, just the stream of Tweets as the trial progressed today. (Please forgive the many typos.)


Day 10 of Oath Keepers Trial


Mehta takes the bench at 9:03 am . . . he asked everyone to come in early this morning so they could talk about the fact one of the jurors has been diagnosed with COVID. The juror is asymptomatic, but the rest of them could have been exposed during lunch yesterday. Jurors are being tested everyday. Mehta will recommend to the jurors that they continue with the trial, and continue wearing masks at all times. Despite the fact “Juror 13” has been dismissed - due to missing trial days during 5-day quarantine - there are still 15 jurors left. They are going to be doing ‘rapid tests’ on all jurors this morning, before proceeding. Mehta has now left the courtroom to brief the jurors. Court will likely be in recess past the usual start time of 9:30am.




Judge Mehta returns to courtroom at 10:28. Jury seated. Cross exam of Special Agent Hilgeman by Woodward resumes. He is readdressing the podcast which was only slightly excerpted yesterday. <ugh . . . inaudible for us hear in media room>




Woodward is done, and Atty Crisp takes over cross. Discussion of email to which his client, Watkins was involved. Then, gets Agent to admit she had no evidence the Watkins brought any weapons into DC.


Crisp takes Agent back through several of the chat/text messages she’d previously presented. Focusing on a particular text that had seemingly been edited by government, and didn’t show full text. Crisp has her read both . . . Crisp is done, and government begins redirect. (They have a lot of sh-t to attempt to clean up.)




On redirect, US Atty trying to show that ‘mistakes’ happen when they are harvesting Signal chats. Now trying to direct FBI to conjecture how LEGALLY owned weapons could be used ILLEGALLY. (I had to bury my head and hold my mouth shut.) WHY ISN’T DEFENSE OBJECTING?!?!?!?




I’m back in the courtroom after my interview on TNN Live . . . just in time for Mehta to announce the morning break. 


Catching up on what I missed . . . 


Us Atty makes point that OKs not legally licensed to perform per security details in DC.


While Rhodes did not take weapons to QRF at Comfort Inn, he did store some of his weapons at his own hotel in Vienna, VA.


Prosecution asked Agent if weapons have to be USED in order to be relevant to a case. Agent responds, “Absolutely not.” They are relevant to state of mind (thought crime) and conspiracy.


Gov. showed messages to Rhodes applauding his open letter to Trump, (which called upon the president to evoke the Insurrection Act,)


Showed message from Rhodes, an “Urgent Alert” telling them to be sure they bring nothing illegal into DC. That Proud Boys leader Tarrio had already been arrested, and that ‘they’ were likely setting trap.


Played recorded podcast audio where Ed Vallejo had said: “…and if they’re told to f—k you, that’s going to be the declaration of a guerrilla war.”


Recess over . . . re direct continues . . . 




US Atty: “What was purpose of QRF?”

Agent: “To support the overall plan to prevent President Biden from taking over.”


No further questions . . . <sidebar> . . . Agent Hilgeman dismissed




Next witness called by prosecution . . . <long delay waiting for witness> . . . <really long delay> . . . 


Mehta asks: “Do you know where your witness is?” <sidebar> . . . <still we wait>


Witness arrives . . . Captain Ronald Ortega of US Capitol Police (15 years service) - Typical questions about his duties, position, job description. Asked to explain all the various divisions and specialities in USCP.


Now being asked to explain USCP “less than lethal” division - which is specially trained to deal with rioters and unruly crowds.


Overhead of Capitol building being shown, and describing directions, dome, inaugural stage, etc. (the boring stuff they need to get out of the way.)




Interior layout of 1st floor of Capitol shown. Now second floor. More descriptions of each section of Capitol.


USAtty: “On a normal day, what kind of security would a visitor have to go through?”

Captain: “Screening, x-rays, magnetometer . . . “


Captain: “The Capitol is actually never open to the public - you have to have a reason to be there - but on J6 building was closed because of COVID and special session of Congress that day.”


Now showing overhead photo of entire Capitol complex and where the ‘bike rack’ barricades were set up on J6. Discussing the various levels of security ‘perimeters’ set up that day.


Shows photo of first bike racks picked up and pushed against officers, with “Area Closed” sign. Those signs were around entire perimeter.




Captain arrived for duty at 5:30am, and witnessed already gathering crowds. He was assigned to the Senate division. He went to Capitol at 1pm because of report of breach of perimeter. He eventually moved to the West side of building where initial rioting was taking place. he describes what is one of the largest crowds he’d ever seen there. He observed “his officers” being attacked by crowd.


Describes rioters who had begun coming up through the scaffolding, where he was hit in face with some sort of ‘orange liquid,’ and began doing battle with rioters.


“We were severely outnumbered . . . we were eventually breached on upper west terrace, and had to relocate to the east front.”


Asked about locations of CCTV cameras in and around the Capitol. (no audio on those cameras) Asked about USCP radio comms, and various channels they have on their system.




<sidebar> . . . 


Lunch break called by Mehta . . . will resume at 1:30pm. 


After jury and witness dismissed for lunch, Mehta asks about video length about to be presented into evidence by prosecution. (He’s certainly not been favorable to long videos from defense being presented.) They are watching video — which we can’t see, because it has not been yet approved as evidence — but Mehta is asking questions about times that the various defendants arrived into the various Capitol locations.


Gov. is arguing that the defense will say “barriers were down” when they arrived. They want to prove otherwise. (they can’t. I’ve seen the vids. defense will shred them on this argument.) Mehta really doesn’t like LONG videos. Ironically . . . he’s spending more time forcing the gov to argue why they are needed, than the likely overall length of the video. they are now reviewing the video again, but are interrupted by both Fischer and Crisp by objection arguments. <watching video again> interrupted by gov atty.


PERSONAL NOTE: The defense should allow ALL video to be shown. None of these defendants participated in any breach of barricades, police officers, doors, windows, etc. . . . and certainly never saw a single “Area closed” sign. They had already been removed and hidden by agents provocateur. (Lots of video of that activity.)


Mehta continues to watch video and ask Gov about relevance of certain sections. Gov continues to  point out particular importance to their case of various sections of video.


There’s an argument between Gov, defense, and Mehta about the notification timing of video evidence. Crisp gets indignant with Mehta. Geyer now walks to podium and addresses Mehta with another counter video which he wished to submit into evidence that shows his client Harrelson was nowhere near barricades and breaches happened long before OKs arrived. Mehta begins resisting his evidence . . . Geyer pushes back, and asks to continue. Mehta bristles . . but allows Geyer to continue. Mehta asks what his objection is to the gov’s case. “I’m not objecting . . . I just want to be able to use this video to counter gov’s presentation.”


Geyer steps away from podium, and Gov continues showing their video to Mehta.


Mehta openly states that the defendants in this case are not involved in ANY of those breaches or kicking doors down. He is now saying the GOV is not going to be able to prove OKs breached those doors . . . BY THE VIDEO EVIDENCE . . . and telling them to cut the video down. GOV keeps trying to push . . . but Mehta says all that peripheral video is prejudicial and irrelevant to establishing OKs led or were involved in breach. He’s actually chastising prosecution for trying to present inflammatory and prejudicial evidence irrelevant to what and where.


NESTLER is arguing with Mehta, saying he believed the OKs were going to come around to the west tunnel battle and engage. Also saying the defense had this montage for weeks, and how frustrating it is that they have to cut the video up at last minute.


Mehta: “I have no reason to believe OKs had any idea what was happening on lower west terrace.”


Nestler argues that Caldwell was on west side communicating with OKs on eastside. Mehta tells him if he can show relevant communications, he might reconsider, but basically instructed them to spend lunch cutting video up.


Mehta just revealed an incredible display of knowledge of the evidence yet to be presented, and the actual circumstances on the ground at all times, all sides of the Capitol. on J6. (I’m duly impressed.) While he is NOT happy with the defenses last-minute objection to the Gov’s video evidence, he actually issued the prosecution their first well-deserved bitch-slapping, for attempting to prejudice the jury against the defendants with scenes of violence and perimeter breaches for which they DID NOT PARTAKE, and likely had NO KNOWLEDGE of.


Mehta sends everyone to lunch.




NOTE: In the media room it is often difficult for us to understand what kicks off certain sidebars. If attorneys are not speaking directly into microphones, we cannot hear objections. Then, we are given a loud “whitenoise” in media room, preventing us from hearing the sidebar discussions. We also miss “overruled” or “sustained”, because Judge makes his ruling before white noise is turned off. It then takes me awhile to catch up to the context of the discussions. During the open evidence debates, unless attorneys are speaking in mics, Have the same problem catching up to context of discussion. In my previous thread, I was under the impression Mehta was initially objecting to length of video to be presented by government. (As is his penchant.) But, he was dealing with LATE defense objections about prejudicial video to come. he was not happy with the defense, in that they’d had access to this evidence for several weeks, and could have dealt with this much earlier. Then, Mehta turned his ire toward the prosecution as he viewed their video evidence, and the overwhelming amount of content that was prejudicial and had nothing to do with either the OKs presence in those areas, or their known activities.




Back In session at 1:33pm . . . <no housekeeping> . . . jury seated, and Captain Ortega back on stand . . . 


GovAtty: “Have you ever seen a breach at other Capitol protests?”

Captain: “No.”


Gov. makes introduction of videos and audio files, to be entered into evidence by stipulation . . . 


Video begins with questions and commentary. Now showing protest activity at Peace Circle from Capitol CCTV footage. Currently looking at west front of Capitol. Crowd gathering at exterior ’snow fence’ barrier. 


GovAtty: “Are rioters allowed at this plaza?”

Captain: “They are not.”


<they said ‘west’ but we are clearly looking at EAST side video>


Now showing video of police retreating up east side stairs toward Columbus Doors. Switching back to West side scaffolding footage.


Now showing the initial breach of building of west Senate Wing doors and windows at 2:12pm from interior CCTV.






Showing more video of west plaza battle line. Images shown of Senate carriage door breach. Crypt room images shown with protestors entering. Showing interior CCTV of protestors who entered from west side approaching east side Columbus doors, then those doors being opened, and east side protestors entering. More exterior west side video from 2:33pm.


NOTE:  So far, none of this video depicts OK presence or activity.


Back to interior CCTV of Columbus door. At 2:40pm shows first entry of OKs - (after hundreds of people already in Capitol.)


Now presenting USCP radio audio of “Shots Fired” at 2:44pm.


Captain testifies this was a terrifying moment for him, because he didn’t know whether his officers had been shot, or if a member of Congress was fired upon.


More video of interior CCTV of Columbus doors area, at 3:28pm. Then  more video outside of east side at 4:20, showing rioters still on site enlarge numbers. 


No further questions . . . Bright - for Rhodes - begins cross . . . Very short cross. Inconsequential.


Fischer - for Caldwell - takes over cross . . . Asking Captain to verify perimeter access on normal days, vs. J6. 


Fischer: “You’d agree the Capitol is colloquially called The People’s House?”

Captain: “I’ve heard that saying before.”


Fischer asking Captain about if he knew that after initial breach, the evidence of the existences of bike racks, police, and signs had been removed. Captain says he “doesn’t know.”


Fischer asks Captain if he’s aware that tear gas had been released inside the Capitol. Captain says he’s doesn’t know. (NOTE: I can tell you, as first hand witness, there WAS.)


Fischer is done . . . Woodward - for Meggs - takes over cross . . . 




Woodward begins showing Captain video and getting clarification of areas inside or outside restricted perimeter where crowds are walking. Most appear to have no restriction markings or fencing. Now showing areas with fencing and bike racks. (more videos being shown to Captain and admitted into evidence that we have not yet seen.) Videos are being shown of OKs circled, and either having not entered restricted areas, or only entering areas long after barriers were removed and hidden.


No further questions . . . Geyer - for Harrelson - takes over cross. Begins showing videos to be presented into evidence. Videos submitted from Capitol CCTV cameras.




Geyer begins asking Captain to verify times when “provocateurs” moved around to east, from west, and began pressing barriers on that side. Geyer shows Captain videos of Harrelson escorting VIP security detail toward Capitol.


Geyer asks Captain to verify that protestors with bullhorns were gathered early in the morning at Capitol, long before Trump began his speech. Affirmed.


Geyer is having Captain verify where largest concentration of crowds are gathering on east side, as “battle is raging” on west side. Captain acknowledges.


Geyer: “Can you identify the personal security detail in upper panel?”

Geyer: “Can you identify Ken Harrelson in that security detail?”

Captain: “I don’t know who that person is.”


Geyer: “Can you identify where the provocateurs are pressing officers against barricades, and which aren’t?” 

Captain: “Yes”


Geyer: “Can you see the PSD group is not with the larger crowd pressing barricades, and identify where they are in relation to the video sync?”


<Mehta calls sidebar>


Mehta: “You may continue.”


Captain: “I can’t confirm from camera position who is in that area.”


Geyer now presents video of bike rack areas during breach, and racks being hidden. Captain unable to say who the identity is of persons moving racks.


(Geyer’s video presentation is of four different camera angles all time-synched, in four quadrants of screen. Sometimes makes it difficult to interpret because of smaller screen size on witness stand.)


Geyer: “Can you identify Ken Harrelson in that video?”

<objection . . . overruled>

Captain: “I do not know who that is.”


Geyer: “Are you an expert on crowd size?”

Captain: “No, I am not, but I can tell you it was the largest protest crowd I’ve ever seen at the Capitol, and on the west side the number was as large as at any inauguration I have seen.”


Geyer is done . . . redirect begins. . . . short and inconsequential.


Captain Ortega is dismissed, and Mehta calls for afternoon break - jury dismissed.


Linder - for Rhodes - begins discussion about the next witness, (Jason Dolan), who is an Oath Keeper who has already entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to conspiracy to obstruct. Linder and Nestler remain at podium together trading arguments about what parts of Dolan’s testimony, statements, etc. should be allowed. Fischer stands and objects to presentation of Dolan’s agreement to take a polygraph . . . when it appears he has not actually taken one. Nestler argues that his ‘agreement’ alone should be admissible.




Back from Break . . . AUSA Nestler: “United States calls Jason Dolan.”


Florida resident. Served close to 20 years in Marines. Retired as Staff Sgt. Five times deployed overseas. Infantry Platoon Sgt. Answers question about current employment, injuries, hip replacement, etc.


Says he quit job after hip replacement and spent his time killing pain drinking beer and vodka. Mostly spent time watching videos on his phone about the 2020 election. “At the time,” he felt the election had been stolen. He supported Trump in election. (“At the time.”) He was pissed at the time of loss, was angry, and hadn’t completed the process of thinking about what he could do about his frustrations about election.


He was looking for “some way to vent.” A friend told hm about the OKs. He liked they were made up of mostly former military and LEOs. Felt most OKs were similarly disappointed in election results. Eventually Kelly Meggs became the leader of FL chapter of OKs - who he eventually met. (Identifies Meggs as defendant in courtroom.)


He eventually came to recognize Ken Harrelson as leader of the “green team” of FL OKs, eventually met him, and identifies Harrelson in courtroom.


He eventually downloaded Signal and selected a ‘call-sign’ for his Signal identity. Much questioning and discussion about various OK chats he participated in, how often, how many people . . . and whether or not Rhodes had ever participated in FL OK chats. Dolan confirms he had.


Now begins reading of more pre-J6 announcement Signal chats in which Dolan participated. Asked to clarify his thinking about what he was willing to do if the courts did not remedy the election. These chats are mostly “god and country and constitution” patriotic rah-rah chats.


Dolan then reads one of own messages in which he said, “If i’m lucky I get a prison sentence, tagged with treason, or a bullet from the very people I would protect.” Explains that was his mindset at the time. All legal avenues he saw about the election at the time were being stopped or blocked. Thinking he needed to mentally prepare himself to fight against an illegitimate government. “Fight” - not rhetorical. Literal.


More questions and message slides allow Nestler to further explore Dolan’s mindset about possibility of fighting against an illegitimate government.


AUSA: “What do you mean about ‘People who are wiling to stand against tyranny.’”

Dolan: More explanation of his considerations about what it would take to defend the constitution, etc., including how many it would take if an armed conflict happened.


Dolan: Even if you have 100, 1,000 . . . or 200,000 people, an ‘unconsolidated’ group stands no chance against any centralized government.


AUSA: “What were you willing to do to stand up against tyranny?”

Dolan: Explains he was still trying to figure out what was in his own mind, based upon how the controversy was transpiring.


Nestler shows message from Rhodes calling upon Trump “to do his duty . . . if he doesn’t, we will do ours.” Then asks Dolan to explain what he thought of that, what that meant to him. Dolan says he was prepared to take up arms to fight the government.


AUSA: “Did you take arms to DC?”

Dolan “Yes.”


Gov. presents and shows Dolan’s AR-15 to jury. <objection>


<NOTE: there have been objections and sidebars throughout this testimony. because of ‘whitenoise’ in media room , it’s often tough to tell who, what and why>


They bring Dolan’s rifle back up to show jury, once again. Then bring his handgun. 


Both Nestler and Dolan kept saying these firearms were brought to “DC.”  Dolan made specific point to correct that for the record. “DC area,” but never took weapons to DC proper, only to hotel in VA. Dolan then once again mistakenly referred to taking weapons to “DC.” 


Dolan clarifies his understanding that if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, it would be “pro-Trump forces” vs. “Pro-Biden forces.” He understood from Rhodes’ rhetoric that Trump invoking IA would legalize the calling up of militia groups to fight for Trump. He explains he’s never looked up the legality or how the IA actually works.


Nestler more often that not presses Dolan into rambling about the same concepts over and over again, and Dolan is not the most eloquent of witnesses. Insurrection act this . . . election certified that . . . QRF when . . . rambling, rambling. Nestler is basically one-track on getting Dolan to admit that the OKs were going to go to war against the federal government if the Insurrection Act had been invoked. 


Nestler wants Dolan to theorize what would have happened if IA invoked. Dolan explains he thought it would be government against split government forces.


AUSA: “What were you prepared to do if Trump didn’t invoke IA?”

Dolan: “I’d do whatever the other OKs would do, but I was prepared to stop the certification of the election.”


-Nestler asks who Dolan picked up for the ride to DC? 

-Dolan answers, Harrelson and Terry Cummings (previous government witness.) His first time to meet Harrelson.


Then, details of travel arrangements, where they stayed in NC on 4th, then went straight to hotel in VA. Nestler presses Dolan to talk about messages encouraging bringing firearms, and what he saw other OKs bringing into hotel from parking deck. Then shows luggage cart loaded with rifle cases - which we’ve previously seen.


Now discussion about how firearms would be delivered to QRF if called for. Then, question about where Dolan and others went on Friday evening after dropping luggage and guns off at VA hotel. Nestler shows a photo from Dolan’s own phone which he took of the Capitol with barricades shown in the frame. Now asking about the morning of the 6th . . . what they were bringing . . . including tactical gear. Harrelson then got a call from Meggs telling them they didn’t have to bring their heavy gear to White House.


After attending the rally, Dolan and Harrelson, and couple other OKs started exporting “Stop the Steal” VIPs to Capitol. Nestler has him acknowledge he’d received a text during the walk about the Capitol being breached, and that VP Pence had not blocked the certification. “Wasn’t just me, I was pissed. You could feel the crowd change. They were pissed.”


“For me, it seemed like with 100,000 people there, if anything was going to happen to stop election, that was the moment.”


Gov plays video of Dolan and Harrelson walking toward stairs on east side of Capitol. Then shows second video isolating on Dolan waiting on police line to collapse before going to top of stairs. He said he looked down, and eventually saw Harrelson come up the stairs. Eventually Meggs and other OKs came up steps as crowd was singing National Anthem. Then, crowd started chanting “Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers.” Made him feel good to be recognized.


Both Dolan and Harrison were recording videos on their phones. Gov. now begins to play video from Harrelson’s phone. (About 3 minutes.) Shows that the Columbus doors were open long before OKs arrived, that as many as 100 people preceded OKs through the doors, where they met up with hundreds who’d came in from West side. The move into Rotunda with crowd chanting what sounds like “Treason.” Various other OKs show up in video.


Nestler returns video to portion where “Treason” was being chanting. Gov. shows a freeze frame photo from another angle at that moment, which appears to show both Dolan and Harrelson were chanting “Treason.”


Dolan explains that he joined into the chant of “Treason” because he believed Congress members might be able to hear his anger. “I wanted them to be afraid of me,” and be “scared into doing the right thing.”


Now we turn to the ‘mention’ of an encounter with a particular police officer who was guarding the stairs. (Interestingly, they did NOT get into any ‘discussion’ of that encounter.) A photo was presented, from his phone, that he’d deleted from his phone - showing Meggs and Harrelson. The discussion was first about how he felt about the police. “Were they targets” “No . . . they were obstacles.” Then, conversation changed to all the things he deleted from his phone, how, and why . . . because of fear of arrest after he saw so many others being arrested for being there that day. He even did a ‘factory reset’ on his phone.


After they left the Capitol Building, they met up with several other OKs, including Rhodes. (first time to meet him.) Identifies Rhodes in the courtroom. Shows more video of OKs outside Capitol, including other defendants in this courtroom.


AUSA: “How did you feel NOW about your actions?”

Dolan: “I feel like I was naive, and thankful Trump had not invoked the insurrection act. Because there would have been a lot of violence . . . I feel pretty stupid about the whole thing.”


Nestler then presents Dolan’s plea agreement to the court, to which he pled guilty to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. He anticipates to receive 5-7 years in prison - from Judge Mehta - who heard and accepted his plea deal.


-Court called into recess at 5:04pm . . . 



community logo
Join the Steve Baker - TPC Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
What else you may like…
Live Streamed on April 10, 2023 10:00 PM ET
TPC INSIDER Live Stream - Tonight 10pm-ET

Hey guys!

It's been a while. Let's jump on a Live Stream tonight. Supporter-only call. I'll get you updated on all the latest. There are some interesting developments over the last couple of days!

See ya tonight, at 10 pm Eastern Time.


The Left Have Lost Their Minds Today

But even NC's GOP Sen. Tillis called Tucker's story last night, "Bullsh-t."

This short video shows how successfully pervasive was the #Jan6 disinformation narrative. From my appearance on Good Morning Britain, last year:

“The building is now pretty much back to normal. You can’t see any scratches or bullet marks.” -Lorna Shaddick (GMB)

Bullet marks? 🙄

If GOP lawmakers are also so brain-damaged by the left's successful propaganda, you know a DC jury has no chance of rendering a fair and impartial verdict for J6 defendants.

(BTW . . . A 15-minute interview cut down to less than 15 seconds. Not much allowance for context. Ha!)

Live Streamed on January 30, 2023 3:00 PM ET
TPC Live Stream

It's been a while, and there's so much to go over. I'm going to do a quick overview of my thoughts on recent headlines and give you an update on my current Capitol Police investigation series. (Obviously, if you can't join me live, the stream will be archived and available anytime.)

My Appearance on TNN Live from Tuesday

With so much else happening, I forgot to upload this for you on Tuesday. We get into the Tucker stuff and a few other things. I think you'll enjoy this conversation.

My Appearance on TNN Live from Tuesday
My Tuesday Appearance on TNN Live

Dan Newman and I discuss the release of all that J6 video to Tucker Carlson, as well as my phone call from Tucker's producers and their interest in me possibly working with them on this rather daunting project.

My Tuesday Appearance on TNN Live
In Case You Missed It . . .

Here's my interview with Dan Newman, from yesterday's TNN Live. I'm keeping this one as a Locals exclusive. You'll understand why, after listening. I got a tad 'excited.' 😏

In Case You Missed It . . .

These alliances built on lies, false virtues, and . . . dare I say, Pride . . . will always eventually turn on each other. (It is fun to watch, though.)

“Our recent marketing for this year’s event, which featured a white fist, was an unfortunate mistake, not an intentional act,” Reed explained. “Nonetheless, we recognize the harm it may have caused and sincerely apologize. We extend our gratitude to everyone who held us accountable for our error and helped us learn from it.”

post photo preview
Norway bans child sex changes, joins Finland, Sweden, and UK in rejecting gender ideology

"An existing body of research shows that most kids with gender dysphoria grow to be comfortable in their bodies upon undergoing puberty and that those wishing to transition suddenly post-puberty may be experiencing a social contagion."

When Scandinavian countries reject this kind of deviancy, that's worth paying attention to. (Just sayin'.)

post photo preview
For Politics and News Content Creators, the Usefulness of Facebook is About Over
My per-post reach on FB used to be 750%, on average, of my total number of Followers. Now, it’s about 6% on average.

Periodically I fall down the Facebook analytics rabbit hole. Typically, when I see or suspect a new trend in the total distribution of my posts on the platform. In this case, I’d been noticing a significant downward trend on my Steve Baker - The Pragmatic Constitutionalist Facebook Page, in just the last month.

Interestingly, I recently received a new “Rising Creator” acknowledgment from Facebook, (on May 16), in which they said I’d been meeting their “integrity guidelines.” Since then, I’ve received no fact-check or misinformation penalties. Yet, my total reach and “impressions” per post trend have been going down.

“Impressions” are the number of times any post to a Facebook Page has “entered a person's screen.” Essentially, this is the key metric by which to observe the extent the algorithms are allowing posts to be distributed to Page Followers, and secondarily, to others through “shares.”

Following is a detailed list of how many impressions there were on each of my posts for the last month, including the type of post those impressions came from. (May 3rd through June 3rd.) There were many other posts that I made by sharing content from other Facebook pages, but FB does not provide “impression” and other “insights” from content shared from other pages. There were 49 of these direct posts in the last month.

After viewing this list, you’ll see that I’ve broken down the average impression attained from each type of post. (Math and social media nerds will find this interesting, and other Page owners may find this information valuable.)

It should be noted that back when my FB Page only had half of its current number of Followers, the average reach per post was approximately 150,000 views. Today, it is only just over 2,500 per post. (Seriously . . . my per-post reach used to be 750%, on average, of my total number of Followers. Now, it’s about 6% on average.) This severe “throttling” of Page and Post reach began just after the 2016 election, then accelerated during the early days of the pandemic and the severe “fact-checking” regime. Even though FB says my Page now meets their “integrity guidelines,” they are again continuing to squash the reach even further — for unknown reasons. You’ll see that in my synopsis below this list.


Impressions - Type of Post (49 posts, going backward from June 3 to May 3):

104 - The American Mind link

3,613 - Text only, with a link in the comment section

495 - Rumble link

227 - Epoch Times link

822 - Text, with photo

496 - Christianity Today link

799 - Vice link

508 - Daily Caller link

1,487 - Text only, with a link in the comment section

352 - TPC Locals link

3,445 - Text only, with a link in the comment section

1,058 - Text only, with a link in the comment section

909 - TPC Locals link

1,153 - Text, with photo

642 - TPC Locals link

935 - Text, with photo

9,704 - Text, with photo

1,602 - Photo only

1,580 - Text, with photo

4,775 - Photo only

550 - TNN Live link

4,073 - Photo only

5,567 - Text, with photo

730 - TPC Locals link

900 - TPC Locals link

4,483 - Photo only

1,376 - Text, with photo, and link in comments

2,282 - Photo only

668 - Rumble link

859 - TPC Locals link

1,373 - Text, with photo, and link in comments

751 - TPC Locals link

3,561 - Photo only

7,358 - Text, with photo

873 - Twitter link

1,130 - TPC Locals link

574 - Washington Times links

7,391 - Text, with photo, and link in comments

2,333 - Photo only

7,058 - Photo only

6,744 - Text only, with a link in the comment section

909 - TPC Locals link

4,662 - Text, with photo

3,139 - Photo only

1,715 - NBC News link

1,931 - Text, with photo

5,216 - Text, with photo

10,544 - Text only

875 - TNN Live link

*49 total posts garnered 124,331 impressions (2,537 average per post)

My suspicions of recently enhanced algorithm throttling are confirmed:

*Last 24 posts - 45,626 reach (1,901 average per post)

*Previous 24 posts - 77,830 reach (3,242 average per post)

This is a 41% drop in impressions per post during the second half of the last month’s posts.


Now, a breakdown of the impressions made by each type of post, in ascending order of the average number of impressions per type:

*Total of 7 right-wing’ media links - 3,334 (476 average per post)

*Total of 2 Rumble links - 1,163 (582 average per post)

*Total of 20 outside links (all types) - 15,066 (753 average per post)

*Total of 9 TPC Locals links (my own blog) - 7,182 (798 average per post)

*Total of 2 ‘left-wing’ media links - 2,514 (1,257 average per post)

*Total of 5 text only, with a link in the comment section - 16,347 (3,269 average per post)

*Total of 3 text, with photo, and link in comments - 10,140 (3,380 average per post)

*Total of 9 photo only - 33,306 (3,701 average per post)

*Total of 10 text, with photo - 38,928 (3,893 average per post)

*Total of 1 text only post- 10,544 (This was a ‘test’ question asking if people were seeing the post, so not likely an indication of anything.)

Summary observations:

*Any post that links to content outside of Facebook is much more severely throttled. Even to the Page owner’s own blog or website. (Page owners have known this for many years.)

*Posts made — with text only or text with a photo — that then include the outside article link in the comment sections, increase the number of impressions by about 4 to 7 times the number of posts that have the same link in the main post field. (That trick still works, but I’ve also noticed FB seems to be catching on to this tactic, and that average is dropping. I typically post the same article or video link both ways.)

*Photos, screenshots, and memes almost always garner significantly more impressions than links of any kind.

*Links to left-wing news agencies get about three times more impressions than do links to right-wing news agencies. (Surprised?)

In closing, it seems the ‘glory days’ of Facebook’s political and news-oriented Pages are over. I know other types of non-political Page content creators — who have far fewer Followers — that still see their individual posts garnering hundreds of thousands, or even millions of impressions. Then, some of the more right-wing news agencies, like The Epoch Times, have millions of Followers and see less traffic than my Page of only 40,000 followers. (That should tell you all you need to know about Facebook’s discriminatory algorithms.)

There are better places to follow my content! 

Please consider joining our Locals community. As a free subscriber, or as a supporting member, you won’t miss anything if you set it up to receive notifications via either email or the phone app. No throttling and your information is never sold by Locals to a 3rd-party. On your browser go to:

Or, download the app to your device and use the handle:


And, of course, I’m now finally super active on Elon’s new Twitter. Same handle:


Those are the only two platforms where I now engage and interact with TPC readers and followers. I hope you join me on both. (I also post to MeWe, Gab, and TruthSocial.)

AND . . . if you know of any other tricks to get around FB’s reach restrictions . . . PLEASE let me know!

Read full Article
post photo preview
Why I Don't Share J6 Stories From Gateway Pundit - But Will Make This One Exception
It's best not to mischaracterize - grossly, subtly, or sensationalistically - how the events that day actually transpired

I don't usually share J6 stories published by The Gateway Pundit. My reasons are simple:

FIRST - They lean to the more sensational -- "if it bleeds it leads" -- side of J6 coverage, and as you know, I believe "our side" deserves a fair hearing of our perspectives from the general public. Their approach to certain stories is typically dismissed, immediately, even when they have all the facts nailed down.

SECOND - They don't always have all their facts nailed down. I'll give you two examples: 

Early on, their reporting on the Capitol's east side Columbus door magnetic locks went like this: "Someone inside the security booth at the US Capitol opened the doors!" They later revised the story to say, "A fire alarm set off from the inside — which did not happen — can also unlock the doors."

Even their update was incorrect, as we could see from interior Capitol CCTV that one of the protestors -- who'd entered from the first west side breach -- did exactly that very thing. He depressed the clearly marked fire alarm bar on the interior side of the east door. The accompanying sign read:

Emergency Exit Only . . . Push Until Alarm Sounds . . . "3 seconds" . . . Door Will Unlock In 15 Seconds

CCTV images of east interior doors at U.S. Capitol Building

That's a simple example of sloppy journalism, but more egregiously -- and on the sensational side -- Gateway Pundit continues to portray the Capitol Police as the J6 faction that initiated the violence that day, "Without Warning."

While it's fair to note that both Capitol Police and DC Metropolitan Police did ultimately deploy "less-than-lethal" munitions, both illegally and irresponsibly at non-violent protestors, the evidence is irrefutable that members of the earliest protestors to arrive at the Capitol were the ones who initiated the violence against the Capitol Police and 'drew first blood.'

If you want the general public to dismiss your journalism out of hand, there's no better way than to mischaracterize -- grossly, subtly, or sensationalistically -- how the events that day actually transpired.

THIRD - Gateway Pundit has used some of my own work in their coverage without attribution. Among other reasons why this is not appropriate, it's simply not cool. (They did attribute the announcement of the Oath Keepers' guilty verdicts to me, last November.)

Okay, that said . . . their recent article by Alicia Powe, entitled, "Attorney Sounds Alarm On Criminal Gag Order Placed on J6 Defendants: ‘It’s The Most Astounding Chill On Free Speech That I’ve Ever Seen", deserves a fair hearing, and accurately reflects much of my own analysis of what's been happening in the January 6 trials.

Specifically, these federal court cases are establishing a frightening precedent against the use of political speech. Especially reflected in the disparity of sentencing of J6 defendants. Simply put, for whatever crimes those charged individuals may or may not have committed, the severity of their sentences is most often increased by the words they used before, during, and after their alleged offenses.

I'll not expound further, as I'm currently writing a story on this very topic, using the specifics of the first Oath Keepers trial and last week's sentencing hearings as the basis of my thesis. I only ask that you read this recent Gateway Pundit piece as background and a setup to my coming story. It's a fair and accurate report of what the DOJ is doing in these cases.

Even in my own experience -- when I was threatened with prosecution for my journalism on January 6 -- the Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of my case warned my attorney that a judge would not look favorably upon the media offensive I launched in the days following their expressed intention to file charges against me. (More on that, in my coming story. And no . . . they have not charged me with any crimes . . . yet.)

NOTE: The Gateway Pundit is welcome to reach out to me for comment.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Tweetstorm Rollout for Sentencing Hearings of Oath Keepers Jessica Watkins and Kenneth Harrelson
Judge Mehta: “Mr. Harreslon, I don’t think you are what the government has suggested.”

As previously stated . . . when posting these Tweetstorm rollouts, they are “As Is” . . . “warts and all.” I’m not a professional courtroom reporter, and given my blazing 20-words-per-hour typing speed, (ha), I’m not even attempting to to give verbatim transcriptions. These are overviews and paraphrases, for the most part.


Jessica Watkins Sentencing Hearing - May 26, 2023

Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins (Source: Government Exhibit)

I'll be live tweeting the sentencing hearings for Oath Keepers Jessica Watkins and Ken Harrelson today. While my tweets are less technical summarizations, you should also follow a couple of the real pros: @rparloff and  @Brandi_Buchman, for a more complete picture.


Judge Mehta enters the courtroom at 9:37 am to begin the hearing for the sentencing of Jessica Watkins.

Mehta begins by discussing the scheduling and order of the day, then begins the summary of the pertinent details of Watkins’ conviction, guideline enhancements, the charges, her behaviors that day, and following J6.

Watkins was not convicted of ‘Seditious Conspiracy,’ but was of the other two conspiracy charges.

DOJ Attorney Alexandra Hughes rises to request a “significant” length of imprisonment for Watkins, based on her behavior and inflammatory rhetoric on J6. Hughes reviews the fact she was active in recruiting others to join both her own militia but also the OKs. 

Watkins and the others she recruited brought weapons - which they left in Virginia - so DOJ asks for a “leadership enhancement” of her sentencing. They also ask for an enhancement based on the fact she deleted messages, chats, and apps from her phone following J6.

Watkins’ words on J6 were not only aggressive, inflammatory, (and exaggerated) - but she also was involved in that shoving scrum with MPD officers, so the DOJ also asks for the terrorism enhancement. (Watkins took full responsibility for those words and actions in the trial.)

Atty Jonathan Crisp rises to speak for Watkins, explaining that her words and actions ultimately had nothing to do - in context - with stopping the certification of the government. He also explains that she originally answered the call to join the OKs in DC as a “medic.”


Crisp reminds the court that Watkins was cooperative with the authorities in her arrest. That she voluntarily turned herself in. There was no manhunt. Multiple proffers were made in her cooperation. 

He argues against the enhancements based on her cooperation, and especially against the terrorism enhancement, based on the lack of evidence that she had any such ideals or actions.

Mehta again summarizes certain of Watkins’ behaviors that justify her and her coconspirators’ enhancements pertaining to leadership, as well as her participation in planning calls with Rhodes, and her rhetoric which shows her state of mind and preparedness for violence.

Mehta, similarly as in yesterday’s hearings, recites and reminds of many of Watkins’ most inflammatory rhetoric against the change of government to the Biden administration. He also reviews her recruitment efforts to her own militia and OKs.

Mehta continues the review, including her participation in leadership planning and scheduling chats directly for J6 - including QRF, hotels, transport of weapons, etc. Then he goes into her specific leadership conduct on J6 itself.


Mehta agrees with the sentencing enhancement for obstruction, property damage, and physical injuries to officers. He also agrees with the enhancement for the interference of justice. Planning and preparation enhancement applies.

Mehta says she doesn’t rise to the level of either Rhodes or Meggs, but her leadership enhancement is justified by a preponderance of the evidence, given her actions directing her “sub-group.”

Because she deleted messages and apps, knowing she’d be investigated, she earned the enhancement for the interference of the administration of justice. She earned - by her intention to influence by force & intimidation - more enhancements.

Mehta references Crisp’s argument about her cooperation and admittance of her guilt in her personal actions during the trial. He states that she did not admit to a majority of the counts against her - including the conspiracy charges - and as a matter of law, the departure request doesn’t apply.

Mehta says he will take into account her cooperation during her arrest, but her military record will not be considered - considering she left under circumstances that were “no fault of her own.” And, there was nothing extraordinary about her service.

The guideline calculation for which he will be considering her sentencing will be 168 to 210 months. (14 to 17.5 years)

Mehta announces a short break.


Judge Mehta returns to the bench at 10:45 am and intros the government’s allocution. DOJ Atty Hughes begins by describing Watkins’ efforts to push against the police line in the hallway toward the Senate chamber. 

Hughes claims she has never taken full responsibility for that particular action - that she used her full body and pushed against those officers - resulting in the physical and emotional damage to Officer Owen and others.

Hughes reviews commentary Watkins’ has made since J6, and that she has said police officers were responsible for much of what happened, and even responsible for most of their own injuries.

Hughes says Watkins is a danger to society. 

Mehta asks Hughes how he should think about Watkin’s life story (her transgenderism - though not specifically stated) and how that should mitigate his final sentencing. Did her life’s troubles lead to her actions on J6?

Hughes pushes back and says she deserves sympathy, but not to the extent she should be treated differently in sentencing. In fact, she advocates the court uses her to send a warning against any such societal justifications for ‘fantastical’ behaviors and crimes.

Watkins rises on her own behalf. She immediately begins crying. Mehta tells her to take her time. She expresses her regrets for her actions and says her right to seek redress for grievances is never a justification for violence.

She said she wasn’t aware of the violence taking place on the west side, and that she actively tried to stop vandalism - and sees the irony of trying to stop crimes while she was herself committing a crime. “I shouldn’t have been there.”

For a long time, she was in denial of her culpability, but her atty (Crisp) was himself a military colonel and helped her understand her responsibility for her actions.

She continues to state that she “now” completely understands the reasons for her justifiable convictions. She speaks highly of her jurors and says she has nothing but respect for them and their decisions.

Watkins says she had no intention to stop the certification of the election, but that she desperately wanted Congress to “audit” the 2020 election, and that she “still” does.

Watkins explains her comments about officers hurting themselves were a direct reference to MPD Sgt. Thau’s body cam video, which shows a gas canister fired by a cop into a group of other cops, causing them to retch and throw up in response.

She concluded with an emotional and unqualified apology for all her actions.

Atty Crisp begins his final remarks, reminding the court of her earliest cooperation in turning herself in, handing over electronic devices, and taking personal responsibility for her actions. 

He asks the court to understand that he wouldn’t allow her to admit to the conspiracy charges during the trial and that it would present complications in her other charges.

As to her transgenderism, he talks about the tremendous strides she has made in life contending and dealing with that challenge. She was rejected by her parents. She rejected herself. She was rejected by the Army. She was rejected by her colleagues. 

All of this certainly affected her decisions and makes. Crisp asks for “justice with compassion,” and a significant downgrade of the sentencing being contemplated. He asks for a sentence of 60 months.

Mehta then asks Crisp to explain the phone call Hughes referenced where Watkins seemed to show a lack of empathy toward the officers who were injured. Crisp says she’s reacting to being a demonized “poster child” to the entire J6 affair.

Crisp explains that she’s also dealing with her own level of PTSD, and she’s having to deal with the pressures of being a “J6 poster child.”

Mehta announces a 10-minute break to collect his thoughts.


(Note: Many of the reporters in the media room are anticipating a downgrade of Watkins’ sentencing. Generally agreeing she will receive a 7-year sentence.)


Metha returns to the bench at 11:32 am and says the guidelines can be mitigated by other considerations. He reminds us that the seriousness of the conspiracy charges set this case apart from other cases with more violent behavior but without conspiracy considerations.

Mehta begins to review the defense characterizations of her less-than-violent behavior compared to other J6 defendants. She didn’t breach any barriers, etc. But, then cites the SCOTUS case which speaks to the seriousness of criminal conspiracy.

Mehta again says she’s not a Rhodes or Meggs, but that her role is more than that of just a “foot soldier.” And that she bears greater responsibility for the others she brought into the conspiracy.

He explains that her role was more aggressive and more purposeful than most of the others, and she led others to follow her purpose. She also celebrated her actions immediately following those actions.

Mehta reviews her life story and congratulates her on her ability to navigate and overcome her personal difficulties. He says he’s “happy” she found someone who supports and loves her. (Montana Siniff.) 

He believes she can ultimately be held up as a role model in the trans community, but he has a hard time understanding some of her continued lack of empathy for other circumstances. 

Mehta says this process is always difficult but is “particularly difficult” in her case.

Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins of Ohio has been sentenced to 102 months. (8.5 years)


Kenneth Harrelson Sentencing Hearing - May 26, 2023

Oath Keeper Kenneth Harrelson (Source: DC Metro Police)

(I began by retweeting Jordan Fischer of WUSA @JordanOnRecord):

Judge Mehta has now given the five longest Jan. 6 sentences:

18 years - Stewart Rhodes

14 years - Peter Schwartz  

12 years - Kelly Meggs 

10 years - Thomas Webster

8.5 years - Jessica Watkins


The sentencing hearing for Ken Harrelson of the Oath Keepers is set to begin in a few minutes. This photo is of Ken and 3 other OKs forming a protective line between the rioters and Officer Harry Dunn. Something Dunn first told the FBI did take place, but then later changed his story to say it never happened.

Kenneth Harrelson and three other Oath Keepers form a line between Capitol Police
Officer Harry Dunn and rioters.

Judge Mehta takes the bench at 1:44 pm for the sentencing hearing of Kenneth Harrelson and immediately begins the preview of how things will proceed. 

Mehta says he’s not going to very much of the sentencing reports and guidelines, and that Harrelson is obviously not at the same level as Rhodes and Meggs in the hierarchy of the OKs. But they will discuss what ‘ground team leader’ means.

They will also discuss the allegation that Harrelson disposed of gins after J6.

Nestler rises to state he believes was a part of the conspiracy along with other OKs, and that he attended firearms training with other OKs back in Sept. of ’20. He brings up that Harrelson deleted Signal chat messages on the evening of J6.

Nestler still wants to make Harrelson complicit in the seditious conspiracy, even though the jury acquitted him of that. Mehta interrupts to ask Nestler how it’s possible that Harrelson could delete Signal messages, and they do not still show up on other people’s phones.

Nestler can only conjecture that Harreslon had some knowledge of how to wipe those messages clean on both ends. (BUT, we learned in the trial that some of his very few messages WERE visible on others’ phones.) 

The point is, Nestler is still trying to implicate Harrelson in the conspiracy - without evidence - despite the fact they could never prove that in the trial, and that Harrelson never showed up on those chats until January 3.

Nestler states that Harrelson’s intent was demonstrated when he was “screaming Treason” when he entered the building. Mehta continues to push back against Neslter’s allegations.  

Nestler again misrepresents WHEN Harrelson was added to the DC Op Jan 6 Signal message, by OMISSION of that fact.

Mehta says he disagrees that chanting “treason” is evidence of intent to commit violence or physical injury, and Nestler continues to debate that his actions were intimidating and threatening conduct. Claiming he was “pushing past police officers at the door.”

Nestler then repeats the claim that Harrelson touched the body armor of Officer Salke and that in itself was a threat. He also believes Harrelson’s participation in bringing guns to the QRF was also threatening.

Nestler again makes the false claim that Harrelson was a “leader” because he “told others what they needed to wear.\

Mehta again pushes back. (He has not done this level of pushback in any of the other three hearings.) He is asking Nestler what of Harrelson’s actions prove he was a “leader.” Nestler continues to allege his leadership is evidenced by some of Harrelson’s communications.

Nestler then says Harrelson hid his AR-15 after he got home, and continued to be in communication with Meggs and other OKs in the weeks after J6, showing no contrition by this behavior.

Atty Brad Geyer rises and says he will save most of his comments for his allocution statements, later. Geyer says Harrelson did have administrative privileges on the GoToMeeting app, but did not participate because the one in question was on his birthday.

When Meggs called Harrelson on J3, Meggs did tell him he’d be the “ground team leader.” Geyer makes the point that Dolan was the one who drove to DC and that Dolan was a retired Staff Sgt., meaning Harrelson would have deferred to him - not the other way, as alleged.

Geyer says that regardless of what the Court thinks about the legitimacy of the security details, Harrelson was sincerely engaged in that operation, as video evidence proved in the trial. (The government contended the security details were a “diversion” from their actual conspiracy.)

Geyer reminds the Court that DC jurors can’t understand how many gun ranges are in Florida, and the types of activities that take place there, and the Court shouldn’t consider that day at the range as something nefarious.

Geyer explains how the person chanting “Treason” on a megaphone was doing so at a time when Harrelson had his mouth open, and it can’t be assumed Harrelson was participating. 

Then the CCTV shows multiple scenes of Harrelson engaging in non-threatening, non-violent, tourist-like behavior while taking videos with his phone.

Geyer believes the allegations of Harrelson’s “leadership” are weak at best, and is strengthened by the fact Harrelson’s name rarely came up in the trial itself - sometimes, not for weeks.

Geyer discusses Harrelson’s apolitical nature and lack of sophistication about how our government works.

Mehta calls for a short break “to look at a few things.”


Mehta returns to the bench at 2:39 pm and begins a review of factual findings about the specific convictions.

Mehta says Harrelson is responsible for the actions of the others as participants in the conspiracy. Harrelson is also responsible for his participation in the QRF and understood the nature of how it was to be used if they were called into action.

Mehta brings up the firearms training in Florida and his travel from Florida with his own rifle and others’ firearms. 

Mehta says he recalls the video of the ‘pat down’ of Ofc. Salke, and that Harrelson then described how ineffective that body armor would be . . . and that Harrelson made other comments about how much better prepared they could have been with their own gear.

Mehta says this confirms his participation in the broader conspiracy. And even though he didn’t engage in any violence, he was prepared to do so if the opportunity presented. He also says he believes Harrelson could see the violence at the east door.

Mehta says he believes it is Harrelson’s voice chanting “treason” on the phone video. He believes he hid his weapon when he got home because he knew he’d later be subject to investigation. 

He says he thinks Harrelson shared the purpose of the others to interrupt the proceedings. Even says he doesn’t understand why the jury didn’t convict him of the seditious conspiracy charge, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mehta doesn’t think Harrelson had any degree of leadership with respect to the conspiracy - regardless of his position in the OKs in itself. There’s not any evidence that Harrelson directed or controlled anyone on J6. Not enough for a 3-level enhancement.

“The terrorism enhancement is applicable because of what he has been convicted of.” He’s only going to add a single point, and his behavior makes him less culpable than some of the others. The interference of the administration of justice does apply.

Total of 97 to 121 months qualified under the guidelines.

Nestler begins his allocution by saying Harrelson was the point person with regard to weapons and materials. Mehta asks if this was presented at trial. Nestler says, “No.” But Mehta allows him to proceed.

Nestler again brings up the guns. Against brings up the chanting of “treason,” and states that Harrelson meant to sentence Congress Persons to “death” by that chant. 

Nestler brings up Ofc. Dunn’s testimony that he was intimidated and scared by the OKs presence.

Ken Harrelson rises to speak for himself. States that he didn’t have any intention to go to DC, and didn’t have any political intentions related to that trip. He wouldn’t have brought his gun to Virginia if he knew what he knew now.

He was promised free lodging and free food. It was so disorganized on the 5th, he wanted to leave and wished he had. He got in the wrong car with the wrong people and went to the wrong place.

As to Dunn - that was the first time he’d heard anything about violence. He did not see Salke being attacked, and would never attack another officer. “I thought I was helping them.” Through tears, he apologized to Dunn and Salke for not helping them more.

He says he is responsible for his foolish actions that have ruined his life and that of his family. He broke down in tears as he finally thanked his family for supporting him, and telling him that he loves them.

Geyer takes the podium and has to take time to collect himself. He thanks the Court and the clerks for their hard work. Thanks the US Marshals. He even thanks the Lewisburg prison, to which Harrelson was transferred after nearly two years in the DC Gulag. 

Geyer says Harrelson only met his “junkie” mother one time, at the age of 19. Angel lost the family home in Hurricane Katrina, and they met in one of Ken’s Army disaster relief projects. He hasn’t been allowed to see the face of his kids since being in prison. 

“I understand the pressure the Court is under, and I’m left with praying for a miracle here.”

If ever there was a reason for a downward departure, (of sentencing), the mentoring of his son resulted in him going into the Army, and his daughter is in the JROTC. He doesn’t hate the government’s institution.

Geyer discusses the interaction with Ofc. Harry Dunn and the emergence of a new video showing Ken with both arms extended, holding the crowd back from Dunn. Then, he discusses the prayer they engaged in while in the Rotunda. 

That was Ken’s first time in DC, and he was overwhelmed by the majesty of the Rotunda. Geyer is attempting to show a video, (tech problems), which shows that Ken and other OKs took time to pray in the rotunda.

Then he presented the new video where Ken firsts encountered Dunn, then spins around and holds his hands out to keep the crowd away from Dunn. Geyer reminds the court of trial evidence that shows Ken’s surprise when the east barricades were breached.

Geyer begins comparing other cases where others were far more violent, were wearing body armor and gas masks, (unlike Ken), and those who even took guns into the District. People who struck officers got as little as 41 months, 30 months, 32 months, and 24 months.

By contrast, in Harrelson’s mind, he believes he was coming to Ofc. Dunn’s defense. Geyer says he has no sentencing recommendation, and just asks Mehta to please do what is necessary to get Ken back home to his family. “He will exceed your expectations.”

Mehta calls for a short recess.


Mehta returns to the bench at 4:04 pm and reiterates the guidelines are 97 to 121 months. He addresses Geyer’s comparison of those who received far shorter sentences while engaging in worse, more violent behavior. But, the nature of conspiracy is far more serious. 

Mehta reminds he was convicted of only one of the conspiracy counts. Says Harrelson is a different person today, and can’t possibly read his mind either then or now.

But, “Mr. Harreslon, I don’t think you are what the government has suggested.”

Mehta says he didn’t see any of those types of communications as the rest of OKs, and thinks it’s more likely Ken wasn’t even paying attention to all those other messages. he still has a problem with the pat-down of Ofc. Salke, but still doesn’t think he’s like the others.

Mehta reviews his having successfully overcome a hard childhood and life, honorable service in the military, and the fact he has raised children to be proud of.

Mehta continues to say he believes Ken was just not comparable to the others and still feels he has suffered sufficiently.

Kenneth Harrelson of the Florida Oath Keepers has been sentenced to 48 months. (4 years.)

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals