Seth Abramson, who has over a quarter-century career in higher education, publishing, criminal investigation, journalism, and the law, alleged in a Twitter account thread several stunning allegations regarding President Trump, challenging the media to deep dive his allegations that there is a link to Trump’s January 6th speech, his opposition to Biden’s January 6 certification in Congress, and the insurrectionist march on the Capitol.
Abramson claims that this comes, “incredibly, with a paper trail—as it appears Trump *paid for* the seditious “Save America March.”
The challenge has been met. This investigation will break down each allegation in an attempt to prove, or disprove, the charges alleged by Abramson, and come to a conclusion about whether Trump was involved in planning and financing the riot.
The First Allegation
Abramson wrote, “1/ First, many don’t realize that while the name of the *rally* was “Stop the Steal,” Trump spoke flanked by banners that read “Save America March”—Save America being the PAC Trump has used since the election to scam voters out of more than $300 million for “election defense.”
As you can see, the January 6, 2020 event proudly displayed banners flanking the stage that indicate that the event was sponsored by the Save America Super PAC, even though the event was advertised all over social media under a different name, “Stop the Steal.” The Facebook page for the aforementioned group is now defunct and was command central for advertising and organizing the event.
The Second Allegation
Abramson wrote, “2/ It appears, therefore, that the link between Trump, his opposition to Biden’s January 6 certification in Congress, and the insurrectionist march on the Capitol is one that comes, incredibly, with a paper trail—as it appears Trump *paid for* the seditious “Save America March.””
Save America Super PAC was formed on November 9, 2020, immediately after the 2020 election, as a super fund to ensure that the candidates that support small government are elected to public office, and to support the election of Donald Trump as President.
The documents filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show that Custodian of Record, and Treasurer of Save America Super PAC, is Bradley T. Crate of Red Curve Solutions.
He self identifies as an accomplished, versatile, and team-oriented Financial Services Consultant with experience in financial planning and analysis, operational efficiency, technology development. A proven track record of building a business from the ground floor up and successfully instituting processes for a highly efficient organization. Demonstrated expertise in instituting cost saving measures and implementing process improvements.
Red Curve Solutions identifies as offering comprehensive treasury, budgeting, and FEC compliance services for political campaigns, party organizations, and PACs for the Republican Party.
Crate was also the treasurer of Trump’s election campaign for the 2016 elections and beyond. During the 2016 campaign Trump administration officials have been cited 13 times for violating the Hatch Act, a New Deal-era law prohibiting government officials from engaging in campaigning. At that time, Crate would not respond to reporters request for interviews.
In 2019, the FEC informed Crate, as the treasurer of Trump’s campaign, that several donors had exceeded the legal contribution limit. An individual may only donate $2,800 to a candidate in that cycle. However, well over a hundred donors appear to have given more than that.
There is no current footprint to the money that Red Curve Solutions managed, and the allocation of funds to the riot, as of yet, but the allegations that its a dirty avenue, exists. In the wake of the riot on January 6, 2020, my bet is that Federal financial investigators are diving in head first.
Calls to Red Curve Solutions office are only answered by a voicemail prompt, and no one has responded at this writing.
The Third Allegation
Abramson wrote, “3/ Seconds into his speech, Trump says, “These people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer…They came from all over our country. I just really want to see what they do.” It’s an astonishing admission he thinks something is going to happen.”
This is an exact quote from his speech, and knowing Trump’s penchant for speaking without a filter, which has been his hallmark for his entire presidency, Abramson’s claim rings true.
This description of Trump is backed up by Ben Zimmer of the Wall Street Journal, when he writes, “When Donald Trump gave a speech announcing his candidacy for president last week, he seemed to utter whatever thoughts popped into his uniquely coiffed head. As Mark Plotkin, a contributor to the Hill newspaper, put it, “To say he has ‘no filter’ would be a gigantic understatement.””
This lends credence to Abramson’s claim that Trump’s statement was an admission that he knew that something was going to happen.
The Fourth Allegation
Abramson wrote, “4/ Trump then seems to catch himself, repeating the phrase “I just really want to see” but now adding “how they [media] cover it [the Save America March].” It’s hard to know, therefore—perhaps deliberately—whether “what they do” means “what media does” or “what the marchers do.””
Trump gaffes are a common subject of ridicule by his critics, but noted is the fact that this is extraordinarily common, and though critics and media may catch them, they don’t seem to hurt his popularity.
In Politico Magazine, the article “The 37 Fatal Gaffes That Didn’t Kill Donald Trump“, written by Michael Kruse and Taylor Gee, states, “He has insulted brown people, black people, Muslim people, Jewish people. He has insulted women. He has insulted the grieving parents of a dead soldier. He has mocked a disabled person and expressed admiration for dictators. He has ham-handedly pandered to a politically critical portion of the population by posting to social media a picture of gringo Tex-Mex captioning it, “I love hispanics!…What mainstream politician has ever said something like that, much less received a boost out of it? The only thing more stunning than Trump’s dismantling of campaign norms has been how consistently he has flirted with disaster.”
Since the gaffe is as common to Trump’s lore as is his hair, and if this has never hurt Trump before in the polls, then his speech writers and aides are not going to be worried about his popularity bombing post gaffe. This lends that they did little to prepare Trump with vocalizing his ideas. So, even in this late of the game of his presidential career, he’s still quite capable of making the same mistakes.
Abramson’s allegation that Trump caught himself revealing the wrong thought, and quickly changed his wording to direct inference in another direction, could well be true. Trump appears to be adept in the art of making a communication mistakes.
The Fifth Allegation
Abramson wrote, “5/ He then falsely says “media and Big Tech” together “rigged” the November 2020 election *and* the Georgia run-off, suggesting—in the context of past Trump remarks—that a combination of pre-vote polling and post-vote vote-manipulation explains GOP losses in those two elections.”
Trump spent the majority of the 2020 presidential campaign insisting that he could only lose if the election was rigged against him.
Nearly every day since his defeat, he and his cronies have worked tirelessly claiming his prediction of fraud was legitimate. It’s become his singsong.
Media bias claims are at the crux of the Republican grudge in America. Trump, however, since 2016, has accused the media of rigging elections by bombarding the electoral voters with misinformation and bias slants, and to this day, he continues those allegations.
A 2003 combined study by UCLA, Stanford, and The University of Chicago called “A Measure of Media Bias” has come to the conclusion that there is a left bias to media. The study even stunned the authors.
“Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.”
In regards to whether this bias affects the voting populace and their decisions on election day, as Trump contends, Harvard University’s Mathew A Baum and Phil Gussin, conducted research entitled, “Issue Bias: How Issue Coverage and Media Bias Affect Voter Perceptions of Elections“.
Baum and Gussin find that, “except when they have strong prior beliefs about the ideological orientation of a media outlet, our subjects rely far more on issue ownership as a heuristic than on the hostile media heuristic. However, when they do have strong prior beliefs regarding outlet ideology, the opposite pattern prevails, with subjects relying on the hostile media heuristic to evaluate news content.”
In other words, if you already are a left leaning liberal, you will view Fox in a more hostile and critical manner. If you aren’t sure of how you believe, you have a more accepting absorption of possible media bias.
For the majority of Americans, media actually does not alter your voting preference, but instead, you simply gravitate toward the media that agrees with your political sensibilities. The rest are more likely to lean toward the outlet that attracts their sentiments the most.
If you then look at whether “big tech” alters the election results by deliberately targeting voters, the results in media are interesting. Left leaning media says there is no proof. Right leaning media says there is proof. So let’s look at research.
The most compelling evidence, offered by the right, of whether “big tech” could rig an election was research conducted in 2015.
Politico Magazine published an article by Robert Epstein, who is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today called “How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election.”
“Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson.”
His research is called “The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Robertson conducted this with Robert Epstein,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This is the research that Republicans have been hanging their hat on for 4 years. It’s been the reason they have called CEO’s of major tech companies to the Senate numerous times to testify.
However, there is an equally compelling criticism of the Epstein study that may lend to a case that his research was not approached with the correct parameters.
The Scientific Advisory Board reviewed an article written by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on August 22, 2019. Grohol has a Master’s degree and doctorate in clinical psychology from Nova Southeastern University. Dr. Grohol sits on the editorial board of the journal Computers in Human Behavior and is a founding board member of the Society for Participatory Medicine, and the founder of Psych Central, who published the article, “Dr. Epstein, Political Bias, & Google Search Results.”
Grohol states, “That’s a huge assertion to make. One would hope that an esteemed researcher such as Dr. Epstein would have the scientific data to back it up. Unfortunately, I don’t see it.”
What Grohol asserts is the our search engines only reflect what the user has shown interest in the past, and grow more subjective with use. This would make the research by Epstein, obsolete, scientifically speaking. Whether search engines are bias a nonfactor.
With everything that has been presented, the truth lies in the abstract. Search engines are bias, but that is their nature and purpose, and there is no actual proof that there is any deliberate, calculating, and willful manipulation that took place by “big tech”.
The Sixth Allegation
Abramson write, “6/ “All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical Left Democrats, which is what they’re doing, and stolen by the fake news media, that’s what they’ve done and what they’re doing. We will never give up.” The verb tenses here are *key*.”
The inference is on the word “will”, and its future tense. This indicates that his intention of supporters fighting the election is a current and future endeavor. This statement is meant to bait and ignite his followers to react and engage in the thought process that their precious constitutional vote has been calculatingly stolen and the fight to return it to ‘right’ will never be abandoned.
This clearly is a rallying call for action.
The Seventh Allegation
Abramson writes, “7/ Remember, Trump excitedly tweeted about this event on December 19—the day it was moved to January 6. Trump scheduled his speech for an hour before the election certification was due to start. His words were *timed* to coincide with the “Save America March” he was paying for.”
Abramson suggests that Trump was aware of the rally move to January 6, and that the timing of his tweet indicates he had prior knowledge.
Because Trump’s Twitter account has been suspended, I have no choice but to rely on a Trump Twitter archive. After combing for the date of December 19, 2020, this is the tweet that references the rally.
He not only knew about the date change, he knew at 1:42:42 a.m. The papers filed to legalize this rally were filed later that day and approved on January 4, 2020. This absolutely proves he knew about the rally prior to his followers.
The Eighth and Ninth Allegation
Abramson writes, “8/ So when Trump speaks in the present tense of the election being “stolen” by Democrats and the media—it’s “what they’re doing”—he means it literally: he’s telling the “Save America March” that he and they are *imminently* facing a “stolen election” due to events at the Capitol.”
He also writes, “9/ He then switches to the future tense: “We will never give up. We will never concede.” He’s directing the Save America March he paid for, which he’ll shortly launch at the Capitol explicitly, to future conduct that’ll encapsulate a shared commitment not to “give up or concede.“”
Again, his revealing use of tense is an indication that the call to his supporters is current and future oriented. There is no mistake to his intention. As I’ve proven before, he shoots from the mouth with his truth first, then, if he catches it, he bumbles through a correct at that point. It’s a Trump pattern, and it fits.
The Tenth and Eleventh Allegation
Abramson writes, “10/ “You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.” He’s telling the crowd that they *can’t* do anything but march on the Capitol (as he will shortly tell them to do), and that they *must* not do anything on January 6 that would “concede” to the vote taking place at the Capitol.”
He also writes, “11/ Trump clearly sees the crowd as an army. He crows about the size of the crowd, claiming it is “hundreds of thousands” strong. That’s important for his “mens rea” (mental state) as a criminal actor: he believes he’s commanding the actions of a *massive* force near the Capitol.”
This, again, is a rally call to his troops. He wants them to remove any concern about what they were about to do, and proceed because it’s the only solution.
Trump is reminding them of an older Colonial time in American history where the punishment for theft was met in the harshest terms. Relating the harsh measures against a the crime of theft is a manipulative psychological ploy to fervor their fuming rage.
Mens rea is the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused. It actually stems from “There can be no crime, large or small, without an evil mind.”
It is not an easy element to prove for a leader, as it is very difficult, in military courts particularly, to establish a leaders culpability, because it’s the subordinates that physically commit the crime. Finding a viable tangible link that a court will accept is a very difficult challenge.
David Blight, the acclaimed historian of the American Civil War and its aftermath, claims this was an issue after the civil war in prosecuting war crimes. He worried about Trump’s impunity from a different point of view.
He tells of the prosecution of war crimes after the Civil War as an example. There was only one leader, Henry Wirz, the commander of the infamous Andersonville prison camp, where many prisoners died of neglect, who was arrested, tried and hung.
Blight explains in The New Yorker article written January 8, 2021, “Trump must be held accountable“, “Jefferson Davis was the only person arrested. And he was released after two years, because he was never fully indicted. He was released in an act of reconciliation, and his bail was paid by rich Northerners, including Cornelius Vanderbilt.” Blight noted that the Vice-President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, was held in a prison in Charlestown, Boston, through the summer of 1865, but afterward “he was just released and sent home, back to Georgia, and then immediately elected to Congress.” In 1866, Stephens gave formal testimony to a government commission in which he reaffirmed his belief in the right to secede.”
Blight concludes that traditionally, in our courts, these crimes have gone unpunished.
This bodes to the adage that Trump has gotten by with a lot of criminal behavior as of date. In his entire career in finance and real estate he has perpetrated crimes that he has never been punished in any punitive way, other than a fine.
Culpable? Yes, I think that’s being established. Punishable? That remains to be seen.
The Twelfth Allegation
Abramson writes, “12/ “Our country has had enough. We *will not* take it *any more*. And that’s what this [the Save America March] is all about.” Trump is *unambiguously* tying his speech to the March, and the March to a dramatic action—not a metaphor or merely symbolic one—that’s about to happen.”
We can prove a deliberate attempt at tying his speech to the future endeavor, not only by his words, but by simply looking at the podium banners. His speech shows repeatedly that he is using it for a rally cry, and his tense that he reiterates over and over means it’s clearly meant for a future event.
The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Allegation
Abramson writes, “13/ “And to use a favorite term that all of you really came up with, we will ‘Stop the Steal.'” Trump connects the march to the rhetoric of Ali Alexander—who we now know coordinated the “Stop the Steal” march on the Capitol with Trump Congressional allies Gosar, Biggs and Brooks.”
He also writes, “14/ In fact, “Stop the Steal” was not a grassroots slogan, but was created by Ali Alexander in conjunction with Trump’s allies, one of whom (Mo Brooks) had just spoken before Trump, exhorting the crowd to start “kicking ass.” But we also must consider the word “stop.” It matters.”
In the CNN article “Extremists intensify calls for violence ahead of Inauguration Day“, it states that “Ali Alexander, a political activist who has organized pro-Trump rallies, including one of the demonstrations that converged on the Capitol lawn Wednesday, accused the left of “trying to push us to war.” In late December, Alexander told followers on Periscope that he and three GOP congressman — Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs of Arizona and Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama — were planning something big.”
“It was to build momentum and pressure and then on the day change hearts and minds of Congress peoples who weren’t yet decided or who saw everyone outside and said, ‘I can’t be on the other side of that mob,'” Ali said, though he did not call for violence.”
The momentum has a website for donations. Stopthesteal.us exists to this day, but overnight, while writing this investigation, the website has altered its face front. On January 10, 2020, it gave you ways to contact your representatives, various rally dates as late as January 9, 2020, and of course donation links. There is no information given on how to contact administrators, or who they are.
On January 11, 2020, stopthesteal.us only shows an email prompt for more information. This story is changing as it unfolds, which could suggest they are trying to cover up the evidence.
It also, as noted in this Mother Jones article, “Meet the Right-Wing Trolls Behind Stop The Steal‘, pointed directly to Alexander.
“Stopthesteal.us domain is registered to Vice and Victory, a possibly defunct political consultancy he’s [Ali Alexander] affiliated with. After clicking the site’s donate button, visitors are prompted with the option to donate money to one of several cryptocurrency addresses associated with Alexander, or given links to his Paypal, CashApp, and Amazon wishlist.”
In a Salon article, it was identified as “a ‘scam PAC'” — a for-profit fundraising vehicle that professes to support a cause but in reality ends up pocketing most of the money for its members, or shuffles it off to contracted firms.”
The Fifteenth Allegation
Abramson writes, “15/ The action Trump is demanding isn’t a “protest”-type action. It’s not a let-your-voice-be-heard action. It is *explicitly* an *intervention*—the “steal” will be “stopped” by the assembled army marching on the Capitol as Trump will shortly direct them. There’s no fuzz on this.”
While Trump does state in his speech, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”, he also uses a tremendous amount of language that manipulates his followers emotionally to take charge of their situation.
Abramson is correct; there is no “fuzz” on this. He incited the crowd on numerously previously noted ways.
The Sixteenth, Seventeenth and Eighteenth Allegations
Abramson writes, “16/ Trump says he’ll “prove” he won the election in a “landslide.” He cites the “real pollsters”—presumably he means internal ones he paid for—who assured him he’d win if he got a certain number of votes. It confirms the media “theft” he refers to has to do with polling/coverage.”
He then writes, “17/ Trump says Biden didn’t get 80 million votes, he got “80 million computer votes”—thus returning to his “media and Big Tech stole the election” theme by implying that the big tech companies he’s been fighting with somehow helped rigged the vote tabulation via criminal hacking.”
He also writes, “18/ He calls the hacking—which he now takes as a given—a “disgrace,” says nothing like it has happened before, and notes that it wouldn’t even happen in “third-world countries.” He makes clear he’s referring to *both* the White House loss (November) and Senate loss (January 5).”
In 2019, pollsters Trump paid for indicated that Biden was beating Trump in key states, so he fired them, according to an NBC News article, “Trump campaign cutting ties with pollsters after internal numbers leaked“.
But in 2020, Trump had such an air of confidence in his comments regarding to what his internal polls were showing, that The Washington Post investigated. They discovered by comparing the current polls with ones from 2016, that the polls Trump were citing used a model of “who’s likely to vote” that closely mirrors the 2016 electorate, which gives you results that are not accurate to 2020.
They assert that it’s no wonder he was so confident. The polls that fueled his boasts were inaccurate and flawed.
Trump has specifically called out the company “Dominion Voting Systems”, who he says threw votes for him away and are responsible for him losing the election. The company offers software and hardware for elections, including computer programs to manage databases and election audits, touch-screen voting machines, ballot scanners and ballot printers.
Dominion told the Washington Post that it serves more than 40 percent of American voters and that its products are used in 28 states.
Although there are offices in the United States, James Hoover and John Poulos, founders and CEO’s, are Canadians, who have no political affiliation to United States politics.
Dominion says its equipment goes through multiple layers of security checks. The company also says that its ballot-marking devices are just as secure as hand-marked paper ballots because they produce a paper record that can be used to audit an election afterward.
But, in 2019, Richard DeMillo, a professor of computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said cyber security was not a sure notion, and he noted several issues of privacy, programming problems, and the machines simply crashing in the middle of someone attempting to vote.
With everything noted, scientists and election administrators all agree that there’s no evidence any such risks have been successfully exploited during the November elections. Trump has not been able to offer any credible evidence as well.
Trump can assert all he wants, but the evidence doesn’t bode well for his accusations. Without proof, his allegations can only be touted as contriving designed language to puff up the rage in his followers.
The Nineteenth Allegation
Abramson writes, “19/ “We will not let them silence your voices.” Interestingly, he is focusing (with “them”) as much on media and big tech as on Democrats, which certainly helps explain the attacks on *journalists*—and their equipment—that accompanied the insurrection that would begin soon after.”
In the Washington Post article, “Journalists were attacked, threatened and detained during the Capitol siege,” they chronicled many incidence of violence toward journalist, including Associated Press photographer John Minchillo.
“Suddenly, their ire turned to him. Several men grabbed Minchillo by his backpack, pulling him down a flight of stairs. Others grasped the lanyard that identified him as media, dragging him through the throngs that wove flags reading “Don’t Tread on Me” and “TRUMP 2020.” “We’ll f—ing kill you!” someone yelled. Then a man shoved him over a ledge.”
He was saved by another Trump supporter who pushed the crowd away and retrieve the photographers camera.
Someone else carved “MURDER THE MEDIA” on a door.
There were nine reports of assaults, multiple reports of equipment damage, threats and harassment, all in connection with Journalists and the disturbances.
Several media representatives said that the rioters chased anyone with a camera out of the building.
For the past four years, the Trump administration has attacked news media, which is within his right, but when he deliberately emboldens mobs to violently attack reporters through a Machiavellian manipulation, he has crossed a line decency, and implicated himself at the helm of criminal acts.
The Twentieth and Twenty First Allegation
Abramson writes, “20/ “We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.” Pronouns matter here. Trump repeatedly says “we”—over and over in his speech, he puts himself in the midst of his army. It matters because he shortly will *falsely* say “we” are going to march on the Capitol now.”
He also writes, “21/ Media reports confirm Trump was told *days* before the Save America March that he couldn’t accompany the rally-goers to the Capitol. So his “we” is consistently rhetorical: he is strengthening his army’s backbone to do the unthinkable by deceitfully saying he’ll go with them.”
Authoritarianism is a hallmark in military leader manipulation. It makes individuals place the primary responsibility of their actions on their authority figures so that those individuals feel emboldened in committing immoral and illegal actions because they no longer feel as if they have consequences for them.
They believed that he was a part of ‘them’, as in his insistence in using the word “we”. In their eyes, their authority figure was leading the way, thus protecting their actions by taking the brunt of the responsibility.
He knew categorically that this was rhetorical. His followers obviously believed that even if he wasn’t physically there, though some probably assumed he would be, he was behind them in the spirit of his call.
He even tweeted, after the riot, a romantic farewell to his “great patriots”, telling them to “go home with love & in peace.” Interesting words after so much destruction, violence and death.
But then Trump did what most suspected would happen. He condemned the violence and threw every last one of them under the bus, to save himself, or so he thought. Deniability only works when you don’t have four long years of evidence behind you, pointing you in the face.
The Twenty Second Allegation
Abramson writes, “22/ Trump now—for the first time—lets his speech be interrupted by an extended chant from his army, and it’s because it’s a chant he approves of and that matches what he wants: “FIGHT FOR TRUMP! FIGHT FOR TRUMP! FIGHT FOR TRUMP!” He grimly soaks it in, letting it carry on awhile.”
The overinflated sense of self is the first hallmark of Trump. As long as he has had a camera on him, the message he relays consistently is his superiority over everyone. No one is better than him in his eyes.
Like hungry lambs, his followers love to feed his ego. Some have stated boldly that they know he’s all ego, but they appreciate the unexcused boast, as if its a relief that someone appreciates their admiration.
This was another avenue at energizing the crowd with emotional fury. On social media, some have reported that there were tears in the eyes of the audience.
The Twenty Fifth and Twenty Sixth Allegation
Abramson writes, “25/ This is—beyond any doubt—the strangest line in the speech. When he says “come up here with us” he *couldn’t* be referring to the stage he’s standing on, as he says he’s referring to “tens of thousands” of military people and cops. So where does he want them to “come up” *to*?”
He also writes, “26/ The obvious answer—indeed, the *only* answer—is that, as he’s about to reveal, he is *well aware* (and was pre-speech) that the Save America March he paid for is a march on the Capitol to “stop” the certification, and that “we”/”us” will be making that march. And therefore...”
The word “us” has to refer in the abstract to the people surrounding him at the time. His administration, his family, and the bevy of surrounding characters that fight blindly to the death of their careers. He’s ascending their goodness and righteousness as a place for others to follow.
“Come up here” seems to refer to his station in the world he feels he belongs. “Join the righteous”, he appears to say to the rally. He wants them to follow him into battle. This is an amalgam of a war and spiritual cry.
The Twenty Fourth, Twenty Seventh, Twenty Eighth, and Thirtieth Allegation
Abramson writes, “24/ “If those tens of thousands of people would be allowed—the military, the Secret Service, the police, law enforcement, you’re doing a great job—but I’d love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them come up please?” Uh…what?
He then writes, “27/ …he is asking “the military, the Secret Service, the police, [and] law enforcement” (his words) to march with “us” to the Capitol. Given the historic security failure we’ll ultimately see at the Capitol, and DoD refusing to release the Guard, and Trump refusing to do so…”
He then writes, “28/ …this line in the speech will naturally cause federal investigators to wonder if elements of Team Trump had been in contact with Capitol Police and (far more likely) Trump’s stooges at DoD about his plan to march on the Capitol. But it gets even worse than this, I’m afraid.”
He also writes, “30/ So why would Trump want *more* military? Well: “If those tens of thousands of people would be allowed—the military, the Secret Service, the police, law enforcement—I’d love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them come up?””
Trump has used the police and military to bolster his followers after cries to defund were met after Black Lives Matters protests. The blue line flag, that is a symbol of police support, flies often next to Trump, Confederate Cross, and the American Flags. The military, his army as President, has been a part of his ego trip with the power he has held.
There is an investigation conducted by the FBI that concluded that white power activist have infiltrated a lot of American various police forces. With a majority of Trump followers openly flashing white power signs and showing that racism is still alive and a cornerstone of their beliefs in wanting “our America back again”, Trump is bolstering this fervor by showing his followers that the police, military and Secret Service are his supporters.
Its all setting an image in the minds of his followers that their mission to destroy government is a righteous endeavor. Sadly, it was obvious that some of the police present were participatory and supportive.
The Twenty Ninth Allegation
Abramson writes, “29/ We now know from several major media reports that Trump wanted to *increase* the military presence at his Save America March as a way to “stop antifa.” Seems… odd, right? There was no intelligence about antifa showing up to his Save America March, only far-right extremists.”
Immediately after the rally, after the condemnation started to rise regarding the destruction and violence failed to gain Trump the presidency, some supporters started claiming on social media that the rally was actually bolsted by Antifa,.
From what informers who monitored Parler are telling, this ‘excuse’ was bantered on the site as a go to in case this was unsuccessful. Historically, Trump has used ‘Antifa’ as a trigger word to work up the emotions of his supporters.
The photos put online that users are saying were undercover Antifa have been reviewed by the FBI. They have found no indication that any of the characters were Antifa, and steadily, those that were identified as the most destructive and violent, have directly been identified associated with Trump.
I personally have seen videos on social media from Trump supporters stating that there were no Antifa at the riot, wanting to claim, what they consider their shining moment, for their own.
Many of who they claim were Antifa, were in fact Proud Boys, who announced their intentions of not dressing in any notable fashion to identify themselves, instead dressing in all black.
Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, the group’s president, wrote in a late-December post on Parler, “We will not be wearing our traditional Black and Yellow. We will be incognito and we will spread across downtown DC in smaller teams. And who knows….we might dress in all BLACK for the occasion.”
The Twenty Third Allegation
Abramson writes, “23/ I just want to pause here to say that, knowing what we know now—5 dead; 50+ injuries; looting; countless assaults; a hostage plot; guns and bombs; an officer crushed in a door; shots fired; elected officials hiding—it is *really* terrifying to watch what Trump is doing here.”
Five people died.
50 brave police officers were injured, while we watched a few officers slapped our country in the face by joining or assisting the rioters. Two Capitol police have been arrested, two are suspended, and 15 are now under investigation.
There were those who entered holding zip ties, ready to take hostages.
There was a rioter identified who admitted on social media ahead of the riot he was going to kill Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA.
A truck was found nearby with eleven home made bombs, an assault rifle, and a hand gun, and its been identified to belong to a rioter.
Lauren Boebert, R-CO, newly elected congresswoman who is a stanch Qanon supporter, tweeted the location of Pelosi during the riot, allegedly to inform the rioters her location so that they could kill her.
Terrifying doesn’t even begin to describe the horror and sadness I feel about this event.
There is no doubt that his words, and the tense that Trump used, indicate that his fight was current and directed toward the near future. He clearly spoke in terms that were meant to bolster and emotionally charge his audience to fight the forces that kept him from maintaining his presidency. Numerous times in my investigation, I was able to point directly to proof that his intentions were a precursor to the outrageous criminal acts to come.
I think the most compelling evidence that Trump gave, to him being intimately involved in the planning of this event, came as we look at the timing of his tweets on Twitter. At 1:42:42 a.m., hours before the FEC paperwork was submitted for the date change, Trump informed his legions of that information.
My investigation has uncovered information, that locates, what I believe, is the key linchpin to this whole question of whether Trump knew and funded the riot.
As I proceeded to make my way through this web of connections, “Women for America First” rose to the surface, connecting the money, the organizing of criminal acts, and the president, in a neat tidy package.
“Women for America First” filed for the event permit on December 19, 2020. They had originally filed for a rally permit for January 23, 2021, after the inauguration, but changed it the day Trump tweeted the new date of January 6, 2021.
“Women for America First” quickly has taken the lead in organizing events, bus tours, and protests challenging the results of the election, which often feature members of the president’s campaign and family.
Being at the helm of these events requires a tremendous amount of ready and available cash.
This PAC is headed by Amy Kremer, and her daughter, Kylie Jane Kremer.
The Kremers also ran the Facebook group “Stop the Steal”, which was taken down by Facebook, identified for being the central location where criminal intentions were not only discussed, but planned by organizers and supporters.
This Facebook group advertised and maintained the same name as the donation website stopthesteal.us, which is associated with aforementioned Ali Alexander, convicted and pardoned Trump criminal Roger Stone, and Patrick Krason, who has a long history of FEC violations.
The Kremers were the central point for event administration and support, and allowed a violent criminal action to be discussed and planned on their site. They connect to everything, from the top organizers to Trump’s hoards of supporters.
Kermers also run the website womenfortrump.com, and it also collects donations.
Their mission contains manipulative phrases often spouted by the far right groups who support Trump.
They consider themselves a suffrage movement, fighting “haters who want to destroy them”. It’s all a triggering ploy to solicit donations and support for their organization.
Amy Kremer has a long history of chasing grassroots money that bolsters her conservative ideology. She, however, has never been successful, until now.
Kremer, a former flight attendant, was one of the original Tea Party organizers, where she learned the value of indispensable money. After this, she seems to flit from one PAC to another, attempting to recreate the money heyday of before.
Kremer was the co-founder of a nonprofit organization called the American Grassroots Coalitions, with Jennifer Hulsey, another Tea Party alum. There is very little footprint of the organization online, indicating its failure to thrive.
In 2016, Kremer started a PAC called TrumPAC to support his campaign, though she couldn’t follow finance rules because she used Trump’s name without FEC permission. Kremer changed it to Great America PAC, but she left after disputes with her co-organizers.
Kremer then joined Roger Stone and his ex-wife to form another pro-Trump super PAC, Women Vote Trump, that announced their goal of $30 million to support the 2016 campaign. As it was $29,973,187 shy of its goal, it went into debt, and the FEC, again, came after her for using Trump’s name.
In 2017, Kremer ran as a Republican in the special election in Georgia’s 6th congressional district, but her entire staff resigned on the same day because she could not pay their salaries.
Kremer, and her daughter then founded “Women for America First”, who, by all indications, after years of never being able to tap into that money train, out of nowhere, is a huge success, with access to the Oval Office.
How does a woman, who has a long string of unsuccessful money raising PACs for the Republican Party, all of the sudden have the money to single-handedly finance this and many events that the President attends?
This investigation has shown that there are numerous banks of cash that her PAC money could flow from, considering the cast of characters that surrounds Kremer. As we know from past PAC scandals, there are many ways to maneuver the flow so that it doesn’t ring any bells at the FEC.
The Kremers organization is where the center of this triangulation meets. They had access to the most powerful actors; with the President at the helm, to the millions of dollars it takes to organize and finance the rioters, and to the intimate knowledge of all the criminal enterprises that the insurrectionists were planning.
With the misogyny that is normally associated with conservative ideology, in the eyes of Trump and his cronies, a women’s organization would appear under the radar for the tremendous power and riches this planning takes. Using that existing and eager supportive system would be the perfect cloak.
In my opinion, Amy Kremer is the conduit to the connection Seth Abramson proposes. My bet is that this is where the Federal investigators will perhaps find their financial smoking gun.
This investigation has proven that a “paper trail” does exists, leading from Trump, to millions, and finally, to the criminal acts of the rioters, and that Kremer is the plausible operative.