Former Oath Keepers Spokesperson Testifies Of Anti Government Militia Violence

[PoliTalker]

"Van Tatenhove testified on July 12 that despite wanting to portray themselves as a “community preparedness team” or “veterans support group”, the Oath Keepers are a militia who used military tactics as they attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.

“The best illustration for what the Oath Keepers are happened Jan. 6 when we saw that stacked military formation going up the stairs of the Capitol,” Van Tatenhove said.

He left the group after witnessing racism and culminating in him overhearing some members denying the Holocaust, he testified on July 12. He said he probably should have left sooner.

Much of Van Tatenhove’s testimony focused on Rhodes who, according to Van Tatenhove, sees himself as a paramilitary leader.

He said that in the lead up to Jan. 6, Rhodes wanted Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that empowers the president to call up militias to tamp down rebellions, because Rhodes believed this would grant him and the Oath Keepers “legitimacy” as a paramilitary organization.

“[Rhodes] is a militia leader. He had these grand visions of being a paramilitary leader,” Van Tatenhove said. “And the Insurrection Act would have given him a path forward with that."

"Tatenhove said he believes Jan. 6 could have been more violent and that the country must reckon with the fact that such a threat still exists."

"“I have three daughters. I have a granddaughter. I fear for the world that they will inherit if we do not start holding these people to account,” Van Tatenhove said.

Rhodes has also offered to testify to the Jan. 6 committee if he can do so live and in-person, instead of from jail, where he is awaiting trial. The committee has not responded to his request."

Who is Jason Van Tatenhove and why is he testifying in the Jan. 6 hearings?

 

[PoliTalker]

Tatenhove said the Oath Keepers is little more than the violent ambitions of Stewart Rhodes, who wanted to be a para militia leader.

Rhodes has pleading not guilty to seditious conspiracy after he directed the Oath Keepers to arm themselves and attack the Capitol in stack formation.

 

[PoliTalker]

"The Oath Keepers are a dangerous militia that is in large part fed by the ego and drive of Stuart Rhodes," Tatenhove said.

"For he is commander and chief, we're going to have to do it ourselves later in a much more dangerous bloody war," Rhodes yelled through megaphone in December.

 

[PoliTalker]

Did they really think all they had to do was disrupt Congress and that would do it?

It never occurred to them that kind of stalling only buys a bit of time?

Like they could disrupt this largely ceremonial procedure and the president-elect would no longer take office?

Would have been amusing if Trump refused to leave and Biden got sworn in.

First time Biden went into the dining room he must have wondered why it smelled like ketchup.

 

[Into the Night]

"Van Tatenhove testified on July 12 that despite wanting to portray themselves as a “community preparedness team” or “veterans support group”, the Oath Keepers are a militia who used military tactics as they attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.

“The best illustration for what the Oath Keepers are happened Jan. 6 when we saw that stacked military formation going up the stairs of the Capitol,” Van Tatenhove said.

He left the group after witnessing racism and culminating in him overhearing some members denying the Holocaust, he testified on July 12. He said he probably should have left sooner.

Much of Van Tatenhove’s testimony focused on Rhodes who, according to Van Tatenhove, sees himself as a paramilitary leader.

He said that in the lead up to Jan. 6, Rhodes wanted Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that empowers the president to call up militias to tamp down rebellions, because Rhodes believed this would grant him and the Oath Keepers “legitimacy” as a paramilitary organization.

“[Rhodes] is a militia leader. He had these grand visions of being a paramilitary leader,” Van Tatenhove said. “And the Insurrection Act would have given him a path forward with that."

"Tatenhove said he believes Jan. 6 could have been more violent and that the country must reckon with the fact that such a threat still exists."

"“I have three daughters. I have a granddaughter. I fear for the world that they will inherit if we do not start holding these people to account,” Van Tatenhove said.

Rhodes has also offered to testify to the Jan. 6 committee if he can do so live and in-person, instead of from jail, where he is awaiting trial. The committee has not responded to his request."

Who is Jason Van Tatenhove and why is he testifying in the Jan. 6 hearings?

Not a militia dude.

 

[PoliTalker]

America has a hate problem.

I don't really get what these messed up minds want. You can't force an election loss to be a win with force.

If you don't win an election the thing to do is examine why and try to improve your platform for next time.

Election loss denial, trying to take power by force will never end well.

Taking power by force is wrong. You need a better message. You have to actually get more votes. It is a battle for minds, not arms.

Imagining non existent massive fraud is a dead end street.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Did they really think all they had to do was disrupt Congress and that would do it?

It never occurred to them that kind of stalling only buys a bit of time?

Like they could disrupt this largely ceremonial procedure and the president-elect would no longer take office?

Would have been amusing if Trump refused to leave and Biden got sworn in.

First time Biden went into the dining room he must have wondered why it smelled like ketchup.

They were seeking redress for grievances. That's in the Constitution.

 

[BidenPresident]

They were seeking redress for grievances. That's in the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution say violently overthrowing the government is justified?

 

[Matt Dillon]

America has a hate problem.

I don't really get what these messed up minds want. You can't force an election loss to be a win with force.

If you don't win an election the thing to do is examine why and try to improve your platform for next time.

Election loss denial, trying to take power by force will never end well.

Taking power by force is wrong. You need a better message. You have to actually get more votes. It is a battle for minds, not arms.

Imagining non existent massive fraud is a dead end street.

If somebody wanted to do something by force, trying to talk to the Senate is not the way to do it.

You morons painting the 1/6 riot as a coup are gonna get your asses handed to ya, because it wasn't.

 

[BidenPresident]

If somebody wanted to do something by force, trying to talk to the Senate is not the way to do it.

You morons painting the 1/6 riot as a coup are gonna get your asses handed to ya, because it wasn't.

Why were they armed?

 

[Sawyerloggingon]

America has a hate problem.

I don't really get what these messed up minds want. You can't force an election loss to be a win with force.

If you don't win an election the thing to do is examine why and try to improve your platform for next time.

Election loss denial, trying to take power by force will never end well.

Taking power by force is wrong. You need a better message. You have to actually get more votes. It is a battle for minds, not arms.

Imagining non existent massive fraud is a dead end street.

The hate emanates from the left and 99% of the protesters were doing nothing but protesting. 1% may have had other ideas and much like Putin using a small group of Nazi's in Ukraine as an excuse to invade, democrats use this 1% to tarnish all Trump supporters.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Why were they armed?

They were not. The only gunfire came from a Capitol policeman.

 

[BidenPresident]

They were not. The only gunfire came from a Capitol policeman.

False.

 

[Matt Dillon]

False.

Proof-?

 

[BidenPresident]

Proof-?

Already convict one person for carrying a weapon.

 

[evince]

They were seeking redress for grievances. That's in the Constitution.

Which ones?

They are want to be violent racists who seek nothing but idiocy

 

[evince]

They were not. The only gunfire came from a Capitol policeman.

The evidence has been presented idiot


The cops confiscated most of these weapons that day you stupid uninformed Russian bot hole

 

[evince]

If somebody wanted to do something by force, trying to talk to the Senate is not the way to do it.

You morons painting the 1/6 riot as a coup are gonna get your asses handed to ya, because it wasn't.

People have been charged, tried and convicted for this crime you zip lock bag full of shit and bile


Your lies effect nothing

 

[evince]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defendants-guns/




It’s in all the court records idiot

 

[Matt Dillon]

The evidence has been presented idiot


The cops confiscated most of these weapons that day you stupid uninformed Russian bot hole

Oh? Linky-loo, deshy Poo?

Oh! I see you edited and provided one, thanks!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defendants-guns/

However, nothing in that article proves that the accused were armed in D.C. that day.

It has nothing to that effect in it whatsoever. Try reading for context next time.

"A spokesman for the D.C. police said there was no indication that any arrests were made or weapons confiscated on the basis of the people cited in radio transmissions played by the committee."

They are grasping at straws. It's not your fault you jumped to that conclusion because them motherfuckers (The "committee" and WaPo reporters) led you to right by the nose.

However, the D.C. police have a different story.