Mr. Van Taitonhoff, in the run-up to January 6th, Stuart Rhodes publicly implored President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act,

the 1807 law that allows the president to call up militias to put down a rebellion against United States.

And I want to get your thoughts about this in the context of your prior relationship with Stuart Rhodes.

I understand that you had conversations with Rhodes about the Insurrection Act.

Why was he so fixated on that?

And what did he think it would enable the oathkeepers to do?

Well, I think it gave him a sense of legitimacy, that it was a path forward to move forward

with his goals and agendas.

I think we need to quit mincing words and just talk about truths, and what it was going

to be was an armed revolution I mean people died that

day law enforcement officers died this day there was a gallows set up in front of

the Capitol this could have been the spark that started a new Civil War and no

one would have won there that would have been good for no one. He was always

looking for ways to legitimize what he was doing, whether by wrapping it in the trappings

of it's not a militia, it's a community preparedness team. We're not a militia. We're an educational outreach group.

It's a veteran support group.

But again, we've got to stop with this dishonesty

and the mincing of words and just call things for what they are.

You know, he's a militia leader.

He had these grand visions of being a paramilitary leader, and the

Insurrection Act would have given him a path forward with that. You know, the fact that the

president was communicating, whether directly or indirectly, messaging, you know, kind of that gave him the nod.

...