Here ya go…
Ch-ch-ch-charges!
Some people are speculating that co-conspirator 6 might be Ginni Thomas. It’s pure speculation at this point, but it wouldn’t shock me.
Don’t do that to me!
I don’t normally like to spread unsubstantiated rumors, but this one tracks and I kinda want it to be true.
Some speculation:
“‘Co-Conspirator 6’ is a weird way to spell Ginni Thomas,” tweeted TV producer Jonathan Goldman, though he added that the unnamed person could also be former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, longtime Republican activist Roger Stone, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon or My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell.
Damn. I just can’t choose. Can I have them all??
Just because the indictment only mentions 6, I don’t think that means there aren’t more. IANL though.
Oh, but these are all candidates for the #6 slot. We definitely need a bigger roster!
I’m pretty sure it’s not Mike Lindell because he just doesn’t have the brainpower to concoct a scheme to fight his way out of a pillowcase, much less to steal the Presidency. It’s also unlikely to be Stephen Miller because he was still an advisor to the President on Jan 6, not a political consultant.
And I don’t think Roger Stone was that well connected in the different states to try to hustle up competent attorneys. He seems like a creature of Washington.
Bannon - possibly, but his network struck me as a bunch of outsiders just as content to run a grift as to run a coup.
These are all gut feelings. But Thomas seems the most plausible given the allegations of reaching out to attorneys in different states. She definitely had that network to work from.
Bannon also wasn’t really in Trump’s inner circle by then. The bridge wasn’t burned, but it wasn’t in great shape.
I had a heck of a work day yesterday so didn’t get to this news story until almost midnight, by which time the coconspirator search was half over and rest running wild.
I will say that the charges are not just painful but written in such simple terms as to be a master class in charging someone. There’s not a lot of wiggle room or interpretation to have in what he wrote. It’s simple, blunt, and going to be really hard to disprove.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.