The Fascist Bridge Between 'Left' and 'Right' in our Military

 

This blog has long pointed out the fascism from the navigator turned drone pilot who goes by the handle Nsplayr on the BaseOps forum.  He supports the government murdering American citizens without charge or trial and is a cheerleader for unchecked government power.  He is an excellent example of the fusion that occurred between the left and the neo-cons post 9/11 that is emblematic of the Democrat party today.  A party that has long since abandoned old fashioned liberal views like an appreciation for free speech, due process, etc and has replaced it with a selection from the Karl Rove hymnal.  Nsplayr brings with him much of the insanity from the left like the glass Trojan Horse known as critical race theory and equity, while sharing the rabid lust for state power against the American citizenry that so many on the right display.

His recent post above is a good example.  In it he spits out the propaganda narrative about all the bogeyman we are told to fear.  A bogeyman that includes the Proud Boys group that was led by a Hispanic man and does not advocate violence and which has been mercilessly demonized with lies from the usual liars.  We are to believe they are somehow the enemy and criminal and under the same umbrella as those terrorists GWB loved to talk about.  Nsplayr's propaganda similarly includes III Percenters which have also been so demonized along with anarchists.  What are the similarities between those groups?  It's not criminal activity, so what is it?

The answer is those groups all share the American belief that tyrannical, false, authority is not to be respected.  When those groups read the Declaration of Independence (yes, even Anarchists) they don't roll their eyes like Nsplayr does.  Whether it's King George, Adolf, Mussolini, or any other individual or group that demands obedience through the barrel of a gun, all three of those groups not only believe they have no duty to false authority, but they commit the cardinal sin of expressing that view.  Nsplayr does not appreciate people with those views, and them expressing it makes them the enemy and criminal in his fascist world view.

Of course Nsplayr sprinkles in some other groups to sound objective.  No shit revolutionary commies make the list.  You know, those people burning cities and federal buildings on the nightly news.  But only the no shit ones that actually commit crimes.  He does not include the run of the mill communist wearing a dumb t-shirt and expressing stupid ideas at the local coffee shop.  For communists, he limits their identity to the group based on actual criminal activity.  Like a sane person would do.  Except he does not extend this sanity to anarchists running a YouTube channel about self sufficiency and growing a garden, nor does he extend it to the other two groups to delineate their free speech rights which only end during no shit criminal activity.

He mops up his blurb by throwing in foreign and domestic terrorists and the drug cartels.  But the thrust of his propaganda is to lump in Americans, who recognize government has limits like our founding documents and our supreme law and system of government recognizes, with criminals and terrorists.  That was the import of his statement.  Boiled down, it's this.  If you're an American who believes American things, you're the enemy.  Keep that in mind as you witness his comrades destroying AFSOC, lowering standards based on ridiculous equity nonsense and as you watch the top General in our military make phone calls to China to assure them he will help thwart the President of the United States in any military action against China.  I'll express his mindset and operating values one more time for the people in the back.  If you're an American who believes American things, you're the enemy.

But "conservatives" like Adam Kinzinger and so many others in our military have nothing to worry about.  The key is being an American who believes American things.  If you just have conservative bumper stickers and are a proud Republican, you're fine.  For now anyway.

Nsplayr uses the neo-con language of force, violence, swagger, flags and uniforms, to build the bridge across the false political aisle with people who consider themselves conservatives.  He not only speaks their language, he shares their values, when it comes to adoration for government violence.  This bridge isn't all that strange.  Lefties value government laws and restrictions and mandates and intrusion, while sometimes (only when convenient) criticizing law enforcement that is tasked with executing those laws.  People on the right decry government laws and restrictions and mandates and intrusion, while they almost worship armed government agents tasked with executing those laws.  They are two sides of the same coin.

As I have been saying for years in military circles, there is only one party and we're not in it.  The real division is between those who value and respect the limitations placed upon government and the constitutional rights of Americans, and those who do not.  But it's the kind of division that is demonstrated when a small group is occupied by a larger group.  It's not even close to 50/50.  And those who do not value rights and limitations on government (ie Americans who do not believe American things) can justify their un-American mindsets with talking points from the left or the right, but those talking points are essentially all the same.  Two armed agent thugs arguing over which of two innocent Americans they should put in the ground and why doesn't make them substantially different.  They're still two armed thugs targeting an innocent American.

When an American realizes this reality, they see the problem in America is about twice as big as they thought it was, and twice as frightening.

A fun thought experiment.  If leftist fascists are successful at taking over our government levers of violence (as they were in Germany and Italy in the early to mid 1900s where mobs of crazies slowly went from street thugs to political thugs), what kind of view will they have regarding "conservatives" who don't bow the knee?  Perhaps ask the Americans currently politically imprisoned while yet awaiting trial for misdemeanors while they're falsely characterized with extraordinary lies in the state-owned corporate media.  They might be able to offer an opinion.  Crazy fascists historically are not kind to the members of their own groups, but they're far less kind to anybody who doesn't identify with them and profess allegiance to their crazy worldviews.  When "conservatives" realize they're essentially no different from those on the other side of the gun, however, it will make it much easier to kiss the ring.  Many in the military are already very practiced at exactly that, justifying it with political cliche.  It will be an easy walk across that false bridge.

Watching this nation devolve is like watching a black and white film in slow motion, already knowing the ending.  It couldn't be more obvious.

Declining an interview with Lt Col (ret) Wayne Phelps author of "On Killing Remotely"

 

This morning I was contacted by a drone pilot I used to "fly" with.  He asked me if I was interested in doing an interview with Wayne Phelps, author of On Killing Remotely: The Psychology of Killing with Drones.  I politely declined the request for interview but pointed my former comrade to public information about the time I refused a mission to assassinate an American citizen without charge or trial.

I then took to Google to find out more about the author and found the CSPAN video linked above.  I didn't find the discussion particularly interesting with the exception of a claim made by Phelps at 34:21 into the video where he states:

There are some instances, interviews I had, where people actually refused to strike specific targets whether it was because it was a U.S. citizen or...

It's puzzling that Mr. Phelps would indicate that he has interviewed drone pilot(s) who refused to assassinate an American citizen.  I am the only person I know of to refuse such a mission and it was a lonely bullet on my resume to say the least.  I was not interviewed by Phelps and have had no communication with him, so I am very curious about his claim.  I find it extremely hard to believe.

 
ETA:

In the original blog post I indicated that at 34:21 Mr. Phelps had said he found that refusing to assassinate an American was likely to cause trauma and PTSD.  This was an error on my part and on second listen it appears he is suggesting that carrying out an unlawful order is likely to cause that mental disorder.  This blog post has been updated accordingly.

Australia: An Example of the Government They Deserve

As the saying goes, we get the government we deserve.  More accurately, we get the government that most of us deserve, or at least many of us   The rest of us just have to suck it up. When our neighbors don't value our rights and don't question corporate media lies then we can be sure any liberty we enjoy will be short lived.  We have seen this in America and of course we are seeing it in Australia.

About eight years ago I was doing a couple week assignment in Hawaii with the military for an exercise.  That exercise included a couple dozen members of the Australian Air Force.  I really enjoyed chatting with these fellas.  They flew a variety of aircraft from F-18s to C-130s and all had a great sense of humor.  Amidst beer and brats, or lulls during the exercise, I had an opportunity to chat with them at length about a variety of topics including racism in Australia and, of course, gun rights.

I was amazed how every single one of these members of the military of Australia were adamantly against the right of people to keep and bear arms.  Australia, of course, effectively banned firearm ownership in the late nineties.  I brought up the tendency of governments throughout history to abuse the citizenry and the unanimity of the response I got from these blokes was remarkable.  The response was something along the lines of "conspiracy theory" and "tin foil" and "you can trust government" and "that will never happen."  The endearing accent, delivering these incredibly naive talking points, was novel but the programmed responses were anything but and made clear that social media and corporate media were truly global.  I'd heard these same lemming responses from many Americans who also got their dose of "information" from the same propaganda outlets so they weren't noteworthy.  What was remarkable, however, was the sheer conformity of the group's responses.  All of these Aussies, to a man, were on the same page.

It was amazing, and creepy, how uniform and lock step these responses were from every single Australian military officer.  And while on an American base (famous for being bombed by the Japanese no-less) these Aussies were quick to laugh at the idea of Americans and their silly gun rights.  Pew pew pew, open laughter, and caricatures of "cowboys" and such, they didn't hide their contempt for America and the idea of people having the ability to defend themselves against a wayward government.  At least in the American military there would be a debate on the issue.  Not so with the Queen's Air Force.  They were all singing the same authoritarian tune.

Of course not all Aussies are so mindless and programmed.  Some are rational human beings who love liberty and are simply oppressed by their government comprised of people of low character.  I feel bad for rational Aussies who have to suffer through the government so many of their countrymen deserve.  Several of them can be found in the comment section of the video posted above.  It's sad to see and my heart goes out to them.

God save Aussies from the Queen.

Air Force Lt Col Jason P. Williams Getting His Due

I have previously blogged about Lt Col Jason P. Williams (a B-1 Weapon Systems Officer who now teaches AFROTC in Indiana), his fascist un-American professions, and his ties to Antifa operatives.  I have also blogged about similar views (from both the "left" and "right") that have been prevalent over the last decade plus on a military aviation forum frequented by military officers.

It's good to see others on that board are starting to finally sound off in response to these un-American views from others within the ranks.  It's too little, too late, and this made-in-China attitude infests our military institution from top to bottom, but it's good to finally see the lobbers of "tin foil" and "conspiracy theory" insults getting proper responses when they proudly proclaim unconstitutional and un-American viewpoints.

This conversation saved for posterity.

 

 

Perhaps if young Maj Jason P. Williams had gotten such a response when our military was assassinating American citizens, rather than the cheers of solidarity he instead received bolstering his support of this utterly treasonous use of our military, maybe just maybe his vector could have been adjusted properly.  Instead of bringing up the internment of American citizens under FDR now in 2021, perhaps military officers should have raised their voices back when our military was used to arrest American citizens in America indefinitely without due process via an unconstitutional law that was legalized by all three branches of the federal government in 2012?  

But instead there was silence because, unlike the king-like "vaccine" jab decrees, military officers were not themselves affected and their duty to the public wasn't enough to prompt them to speak out for their neighbors who would be affected.  More than mere silence, when I tried to bring up these very topics on that very board, I was booted as a crazy conspiracy theorist and for years caricatured, by those employing the exact same demonization techniques that Antifa has employed, by both those professing to be on the left and by those on the right.

Two sides of the same made-in-China coin.  One puppet master with a different puppet on each hand both made to dazzle an audience of children.  It's good that the audience is starting to wake up, but when that happens this late in the game it's far too late.

As history teaches, accepting rights being violated for others and not speaking out simply assures that overreach will continue until you find it on your own doorstep.  First they came for...

All of this was incredibly predictable.

Military Gives Lt Col Stuart Scheller a Likely Unlawful Gag Order & Arrests Him

According to Lt Col Scheller's Facebook page, he was given the following order:

“Effective immediately upon your receipt below, you are hereby ordered to refrain from posting any and all material, in any form without exception, to any social media.  In this context, the term 'social media' shall be construed very broadly to include any medium by which you may share information with groups of people.  It includes more traditional forms of social media (e.g., Facebook, Youtube, LinkedIn) as well nontraditional methods one might use to circumvent established social media (e.g., mass emails, group text messages, electronic bulleting boards).  You are also prohibited from communicating through third parties or proxies.”

When the Lt Col continued to communicate on "social media" the military arrested him for violating the gag order according to sources such as Task & Purpose.

That gag order, ladies and gentleman, is likely an unlawful order that violates the First Amendment.  Of course it is certainly true that the courts give the military broad leeway to restrict speech and see the arena as separate from the civilian playing field.  That being said, the breadth of this gag order is so overwhelmingly broad that my guess is the courts would rule it was unlawful.  No social media at all?  On any topic?  No mass emails or text messages?  No coordinating in a family reunion thread?  No answering a hypothetical group text message from lawyers or doctors?  No group message from your child's teacher to you and your wife?  The breadth is staggering and clearly covers so much protected free speech that this order, in my view, would be unlikely to be held lawful in a court of law.

It is interesting that the order does not attempt to curb any specific speech or type of speech (for example, political speech or criticism of superiors) and that makes the order content neutral which would be a point for the order being lawful were this a non-military case, since the order didn't attempt to infringe on any particular viewpoint.  This actually plays against the military though.  The military typically is given more leeway to restrict viewpoints and content (as opposed to non-military First Amendment tests) but in this case the military chose not to tailor its order with any rational tailoring that demonstrates any kind of military necessity.  This increases the problem of the military's gag order being overly broad.

The military might argue the order was given due to military necessity and would need to in a court of law.  Perhaps they would argue the broad reach of Lt Col Scheller's criticisms was making military leadership look bad and causing dissension within the ranks.  Of course this argument comes at a time when many if not most Americans have a deservedly poor opinion of military leadership and the Biden Administration.  In the larger context of an embarrassing withdrawal from Afghanistan and news that the top military officer, General Mark Milley, literally committed treason by providing aid and comfort to China and overriding the military chain of command in the event the President sought to strike China (thereby making them an enemy by definition) it is difficult to lay the poor morale of service members at the feet of Lt Col Scheller and his social media.

It is a real sign of the times here in Made-In-China-America that our military has arrested a courageous military officer expressing truthful views out of fear he might endanger good order and discipline, when it has done nothing to General Mark Milley who contacted China and made plans to subvert the potential order of the Commander In Chief.  General Milley is asked by Senator Tom Cotton why he hasn't resigned, and Milley says to do so would be an act of political "defiance" and said that civilian control of the military was absolutely vital.  So says the same traitor general, who worked hand in hand with China to circumvent the President of the United States and our military apparatus, as some odd excuse for not resigning.

Our nation is inverted and its tools of violence are pointed inward at the American people.  Those tools of violence have "made in China" stamped on them.  And so it goes.

January 6th protestors locked up, Julian Assange locked up, Edward Snowden in exile, Kyle Rittenhouse facing charges and now this.  At some point we have to admit that America does not exist anymore.  It has been subverted from the inside by Chinese propaganda and money, made possible by plastic made-in-China Americans such as those found throughout our society and throughout our military.

According to Task & Purpose:

(...the Marine Corps confirmed that Scheller is accused of the following offenses under the UCMJ: Article 88: Contempt toward officials, Article 90: Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer, Article 92: Failure to obey an order, and Article 133: Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.)

The reality of our situation has been evident and logically progressing for quite some time now.  That being said, Lt Col Scheller has my respect and gratitude for his sincere service to the few of us actual Americans who still live in this nation and I hope he can find solid legal counsel.  My thoughts are with him.  And with us all.

General Mark Milley is a Traitor to the United States Who Needs a Traitor's Punishment

 

In a new book, it has been revealed that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, not only took secret action to prevent the President of the United States from exercising his powers as Commander in Chief against China, but also coordinated with the Chinese about how he was hobbling the military power of the United States for China's gain.

That is treason.  Treason is levying war against the United States or providing "aid" or "comfort" to its enemies.  Clearly, if the President of the United States were to exercise war powers against China then General Milley's actions to prevent those actions against China would be aiding an enemy.  It doesn't matter that we're dealing with a hypothetical because General Milley's actions are not hypothetical.

General Mark Milley is a traitor and he should be arrested and tried for treason and then hopefully executed at the direction of a jury.

The cute is over.  China owns many in our federal government and whether we call it a war or not, the reality is we are at war with China and we're losing before most of us even realize it.

General Mark "White Rage" Milley is a traitor to the United States offering up Chinese propaganda about "insurrection" from Americans protesting their government.  He's not just a liar and a fraud, he works for China and labors to dismantle the American military just as political appointees from the banking industry and big pharma find themselves in top positions to neuter federal regulatory power.

General Milley's treason needs to carry consequences.  Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for giving nuclear weapon secrets to the Soviets.  General Mark Milley stopped the nuclear triad, unlawfully, and sheltered China from those weapons should the need arise.  General Milley deserves the same punishment the Rosenbergs received for his even greater treason.

My Lawsuit Against CMSAF Bass Filed by the Center for Individual Rights

I am pleased to announce that the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) has graciously agreed to represent me pro bono in a lawsuit seeking to remedy official censorship of critical views in a public forum.  The lawsuit against the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Joanne Bass, was filed late last week.  Those interested in reading the complaint filed can access the court document here.

For those interested please check out the CIR press release.

I previously blogged about this upcoming lawsuit in a blog post entitled, "Is it Pronounced Fascism or Fascism?"  Additionally, a good discussion of this suit can be found on this episode of the 20 Years Done podcast.

And though it's strange to type this, there is actually a good Reddit thread on the topic where the fascist embarrassment to his uniform, Lt Col Jason P. Williams, showed up to get pwned-man as usual.

We Need More Like Lt Col Stuart Scheller

 

Excellent comments by this (now former) Marine Battalion Commander.   In the video above the Marine expresses our military's greatest failing, which is producing "leaders" who don't care about their country or their oath of office, but merely about promotion and career.  Careerism kills nations.  The Marine is right that the debacle in Afghanistan (to say nothing of Iraq) should have resulted in those in the highest offices of the military vocally speaking out and even resigning over the incredibly damaging corporate-military escapades in the middle east.  And now with yet another incredibly costly failing by the U.S. military, there should be accountability.  But there won't be.

It's unfortunate that men like this Marine will leave the military.  This Marine has resigned his commission just shy of a retirement within his grasp after nearly two decades of war.  And we the American people will be left with idiots and yes men not only in top positions who mirror their corrupt political handlers, but also in the rank and file who mouth their oaths of office and wouldn't know the terms principle or moral courage if it weren't for some poster in a hallway.  Our military has been destroyed, not just by the dumb who have no business in any position of authority, but more often by the intelligent who lack character and are more likely to climb the ladder.

Morons in the ranks are still a danger to the military, they lack foresight necessitating hindsight & make idiotic statements like "I tell ya where the airline went wrong, it hired Chuck Yeager as a pilot!"

Our military will continue to be overly populated, and almost exclusively led, by morons and cowards.  And America cannot survive in such a situation.  And that is why she has been dying and is nearly gone.  That being the case, still good on this Marine.  Thank you for your service, sir, and I'm sorry our nation has not been more deserving of it.

Brandon Bryant Is Correct - Laws Won't Protect You

"The people that are in charge of these companies and these governments that just destroy other people's lives for profit and for money, they deserve to be taken into the middle of the street and publicly executed in front of everybody.  I would line up all these politicians, and if somebody gave me a gun that had infinite bullets, 9mm, and if they were standing in front of me... They all deserve to fucking die, all of them, all of them.  Because look at what they've done, they've destroyed millions of people's lives.  And they're like 'well it's illegal, you know, I'm protected.'  No, fuck, the law is fucking shit."

- Brandon Bryant from a publicly uploaded unedited video

Brandon Bryant's jury trial has commenced in Missoula, Montana.  I have written extensively about what prompted it here and uploaded court documents, and this blog post will just cover the jury trial.  I'll update this blog post throughout the trial.

 

DAY ONE

What's interesting is that Brandon's lawyers' opening statement began with false claims.  

First, Mr. Coolidge falsely stated that Brandon Bryant posted his threatening video in a "private" group.  He calls it Bryant's "private" YouTube channel and four times refers to it as private and twice as a "diary."  Mr. Coolidge's statements are incorrect.  Brandon Bryant posted his video publicly which is why I was able to download it, edit out the irrelevancies, and re-post it.  Bryant made those videos private only after his release from jail.  Publicly live streamed video does not a diary make.

YouTube allows content creators to select their videos to be uploaded as Public, Unlisted (where only people with the link can view the video), or Private (where only they can see the video).  Brandon Bryant not only selected "Public" despite having a private option, but he also "live streamed" his videos so that they could be viewed by the public in real time.

Bryant himself says (in a public video he uploaded, lest there be any confusion) that he makes the videos to get a response from the public.  He states:

And one of my testing grounds for this exact thing have been these videos to see what kind of responses that I've gotten, or would get.

Second, Mr. Coolidge falsely claimed that Brandon Bryant refers to himself as a Staff Sergeant because he is still "active in the military."  That is false.  Bryant is not active duty and has not been for some time.  When Bryant refers to himself as Staff Sergeant he does so falsely.  Here is video (publicly uploaded by Bryant lest there be any confusion) where Bryant admits he is not in the military and does not hold rank.

Third, Mr. Coolidge falsely claims that Brandon Bryant was a pilot in the Air Force.  It boggles the mind that he wouldn't realize his client was not a pilot, so I suspect this inaccurate information was purposeful.  Brandon Bryant here states he was not a pilot (all Air Force pilots are officers, Bryant was enlisted).

Mr. Coolidge explained that Bryant will be taking the stand so I expect these issues will be brought up on cross examination although I have a suspicion the defense will "change its mind" about putting him on the stand.

It is evident that Mr. Bryant's lawyers will attempt to bring in Bryant's false claims of PTSD and try to dazzle the jury with the mountain of lies that Bryant has built up over the years in the hope this will sway the jury.  It is also clear they will try to maintain the false notion that Bryant's video threats were a private diary that was somehow leaked by me (I am named by Bryant's lawyers as is this blog) and was somehow edited to make Bryant look bad.  The truth is I edit Bryant's videos to remove his incoherent babbling (just watch a full video to see what I mean) and focus on the important aspects, but I always link to the full videos for those who wish to see the context for themselves.

Bryant's lawyers will offer up the argument "sure, yeah, he threatened to kill these people but he did so in the diary-like privacy of a publicly live streamed YouTube video on the World Wide Web and so never intended for it to influence their decision making, and he's homeless, a veteran, has PTSD... in short, he's a victim and you should feel bad for him."

Victimology is right up Brandon Bryant's alley and his lawyers appear onboard.

The video below shows a mash up of the many threats that Brandon Bryant has made to kill multiple people (including me) and I have provided links to all the full videos that comprised this mash up.

My editing did not change the context of Bryant's many threats.  Just watching the mash up makes it clear that isn't the case.

It will be fascinating to see if Bryant's lies will be able to save him in a court of evidence and whether Bryant's statement that laws will not protect people from him will ironically ring true.

The defense unsuccessfully tried to keep the full video from being shown to the jury.  They have been objecting and complaining throughout the trial in a very petulant manner, including during the playing of the video to the jury after the judge overruled their objection, in a manner that seems designed to get the jury to think the court is setting up Bryant or against the defense.  This is a dangerous move because it plays into Bryant's mental illness and victimology.

The opening of the full video shows Brandon Bryant turning on the lights and saying to the audience "so that you know that it's me."  This cuts against the claim that Bryant made diary videos privately.  The defense could continue to argue, dishonestly, that Bryant made the videos for a private audience hence his introduction but would it make sense that he'd include me in the "private group" where Bryant shared his videos in the dishonest narrative peddled by the defense?  Even if Bryant's lawyers continue with the false narrative, I don't think it will be very convincing.

Here is the transcript of Mr. Bryant's full unedited video, which he titled "The Dragon of the Winter Moon" publicly live streamed and uploaded to YouTube on or about 19 Dec 2019:

Well, [momentarily turns on light switch] so you know that it’s me…

Test, test.  Three days from now is the Solstice, been a long time coming.  There are many things in my life that I was previously ignorant to that I am now fully aware of. 

When I was younger and I would ask my grandfather some questions, he always asked, he always turned to me a very serious face, and he would say, ‘well what does your heart say, what does your heart say?’  And in my youth I got the instruction of heaven, and in my adult life heaven was bombarded and raided and left broken.  I don't think I could have given the world anything more pure than myself.  Everything was always about put your whole being into it, put your whole self into, sports, everything. 

And I seem to come across in my life more people who want to bring down instead of nurture and I'm witnessed now of those same disgusting, putrid, sacks of shit people, coming in and buying up my backyard and commercializing life to humans.  It's gross.  It's absolutely one of the most disgusting things I've ever experienced in my life.  The entire Missoula City Council has sold out Missoula to the highest bidder and what's gonna happen, if the people who wronged everyone don't step aside, and put their tails between their legs and run, because over the next year all those people who have wronged others, who have discriminated against others because of class, or race, or gender, or creed, or any of that, and forgot to see human beings in themselves, will be eliminated.

And I always wonder if they even knew what the heck they were creating when they created men like me and people like me.  The Japanese Samurai attribute the life of a man to the creation of a katana and should that sword not do its duty then it is discarded and forged anew.  And the essence of my spirit and my soul was pure and given over and over, purely, raised up and brought in a wonderful home. 

I could have been the highest of all beings, had they encouraged it.  But I only wanted to just be a teacher and a family man and to live in harmony with God's grace, not destroy it, not consume it, not belittle it.  Even this whole marijuana prohibition, the only reason that any of this stuff's illegal is because they can't make a profit off of it.  That's parasitical, that's gross, and every single person needs to look within themselves and stand up against it and I'm sick and tired of people like, ‘that's just the way that the world works.’  Fuck that shit!  That’s, that’s, that's stupid!  The way that the world works is in harmony, is in balance, the way that the world works is, is that you give and you take, not you just take take take take take take take take take!

It's like with Melissa.  Macieira.  My lost love.  I gave her everything, pure, spirit, devotion and she fucking dragged my soul across the coals after I had been fucking humiliated by my military service.  I am humiliated that I gave my life and my dedication to a group, an entity, of disgusting, filthy, pedophile murderers.  It's all you are and I, whether in this life or the next, I will dedicate myself to hunting you out and exterminating you.  Doesn't matter.  Doesn’t matter where I see you, doesn't matter at all, I'll be eliminating this wretched fucking filth from the human soul.

I am sick and tired of every day I wake up and I'm not even sure if I'm going to have food. I'm not sure if I'm going to have the house over my head. I'm not sure, after I murdered for these people who are making trillions and trillions and dollars off of this, they violated my fucking soul and the human spirit and then they come and they spit on us, they degrade us and they they gentrify the places where they steal us from, they uproot us from, they mold us and shape us and send you back and then you're just, you’re no longer yourself.  And I know that many veterans feel that but they don't understand it.  They don't understand that they gave themselves openly, willingly, to fight for what was right and good and just and the people that they did that for sacrificed them for material gain. 

And what they don't understand, the people who did this, is that there's something that underlies all of reality, and it upholds the essence of all things.  It is the thing that is within me that got me through my whistle blowing, it was the thing that got me through the military, it was the thing that is before you today.  And I don't think it's a thing.  Some might attribute it to God.  I think that's ignorant.  It’s themselves and what myself is saying is that all you deserve to be eliminated and I will do it, and if you remove me from this life, I get to choose my next incarnation, and I will hunt you down so not even the stones will hide you.  The very atoms will sing out your presence to me and I will eliminate you from the fabric of reality and you will never see another life again.  That is my promise.

If you had been true to me you will escape the fire, but every single one of you who have wronged another human being and have made them more miserable, I wish you to feel everything that you have ever made another person have to suffer through. I don't wish death upon anyone.  Death will come to everyone. I wish you a very long life and I wish you to experience it in all its excruciatingly finite detail because it will be the very last one that you will ever get in this universe or the next. 

This is what I'm preparing my soul to do on this Solstice.  You have taken everything from me.  You have taken my son from me.  You have taken my dignity.  You have wrecked my community, you have wrecked my family, and I will stand as myself, before all of creation, and you will move, and you will submit, and you will die.

The defense objected also to the edited version of the video being shown, despite claiming to the jury in their opening that I somehow maliciously edited the video to change the context.  But now they don't want the jury to see the evidence for their planted false claims and make up their own mind as the triers of fact?  This strikes me as a dishonest showing by the defense given their opening claims that the video was somehow twisted.

The defense isn't completely wrong I don't think, not that I know really anything about Montana law.  It is normally unfair to offer up edited words of a defendant as though it conveys their message.  However, in this case, the State requires this to show an element of their argument given that it was the first video one council member saw (he then testified he saw the full version right after) and because other council members may have only seen the edited version.  This might be a difficult legal issue, it seems to me, if there were ONLY an edited version but given that the jury has benefit of both the full version and the edited version with which to determine the facts, it makes no sense that the edited version would be inadmissible.  That doesn't help the process whatsoever.  I would side with the defense if only the edited version were available but that is not the case.

Day one of Bryant's trial has concluded and the judge will issue his ruling on the admissibility of the edited version (the jury has already seen the full version) in the morning.

The defense obviously wants to keep all video evidence out of the view of the jury for obvious reason.  It will be interesting to see what evidence the prosecutor uses to combat some of the false claims the defense has introduced.  They may be thinking that if the judge doesn't admit some video evidence, that they could simply cross examine Bryant when he's on the stand and ask him "did you say X in a video uploaded to YouTube on Y date?"  Then again, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the defense "change their mind" and not put Bryant on the stand after leading the prosecutor to think otherwise.  That would be pretty breathtaking given that the defense told the jury in their opening remarks that they would hear from Brandon, but given the lack of honesty from the defense so far I would be surprised if they carry through with this.  The defense might argue they meant the jury would hear from Brandon through his police interrogation video or something like that.

If Bryant does take the stand, and I am wrong in my prediction of the defense strategy, it will be interesting to see if the prosecutor brings up whether or not Bryant made these statements from:

a.  video of Brandon Bryant stating in this full and unedited video, and also in this full and unedited video, that while he believes in multiple lives, he believes he is currently in his last life and will no longer be reincarnated -- introducing Bryant's belief and mental state on this point will likely prove useful when the defense mentions in the primary threat video that Bryant used the phrase "in this life or the next."

b.  full and unedited video where Bryant makes it clear that he creates these public YouTube videos for the public in order to get a response rather than as a private diary entry (or made in the "privacy of his camera" as the Defense stated during its opening) and here where he admits that:

 

The only reason I even maintain this page is because I feel like I'm just a voice crying out in the darkness hoping that someone fucking listens.

 

and this video (full and unedited) where he introduces himself in the beginning stating:

 

If you don't know my story, I'll sum it up for you...but before we get into that I want to warn you guys I'm going to be talking about esoteric topics...

c.  this full and unedited video where Bryant states that he is not sure how much of his PTSD is from the military (given that the defense will no doubt bring up Bryant's PTSD)

It will also be interesting to see if the prosecutor crosses Bryant about:

d.  Bryant's GI Bill benefits providing a generous housing allowance & how Bryant has been living with his mother for years and how Bryant gets a VA disability from his claimed PTSD (since the defense will likely make the false claim that Bryant is homeless which he is most certainly not, but it's a part of his false 'homeless veteran' narrative he has crafted over the years)

e.  discussion of threatening to kill multiple individuals and repeatedly claiming that politicians should be murdered in multiple videos

f.  Bryant claiming on NBC that he wanted to kill the people he killed in the drone program in this news interview and video of Bryant in another news segment explaining that at the end of his time in the drone program he was eager to kill a target along with video of him saying he left the drone program a "whole and healthy person" (given the defense's opening statement that Bryant is troubled because he thinks he murdered people)

If I were a betting man, I would wager that the defense is going to "change its mind" about putting Bryant up on the stand in the hope that the prosecution doesn't try very hard to get these videos into evidence to provide useful context.

It will be interesting to see the role "intent" plays in regard to threats as well.  There is apparently some Ninth Circuit support that a true threat requires the person making the threat to have the intent to communicate the threat such that the intended recipient felt threatened although this isn't settled law and there is a circuit split.  The defense is hinging their entire case, based on their opening, on the argument that Bryant's videos were a "private diary" and thus demonstrate he had no intent for his message to be seen by the city council meetings.  This argument is beyond failing given how obvious and provable it is that Bryant's videos were not meant as private videos.

Further, the prosecution's opening stated that a police officer would testify (and perhaps interrogation video show) that Bryant stated he made the video knowing that I would share it.  If that is the case that Bryant made that statement, that will alone destroy the diary-intent argument.

There is a potential double edged sword the defense introduces by taking this doomed-to-fail approach that intent is relevant to what comprises a threat, and if that is the case then the prosecution should be able to use that fact to get the other full and unedited videos (that formed this composite video) into evidence especially the multiple claims from Bryant that politicians should be murdered.  Intent requires context and could open the door to other videos showing Bryant's intent and the context behind his statements.

Further, in the unlikely case Bryant actually does take the stand, those videos could also be admitted as impeachment evidence since they don't have to be disclosed in the beginning of the trial *I don't think* although I am admittedly ignorant of Montana law.

Bryant has not been shy about his desire to kill people, watch people die, murder politicians, etc and there is hours of footage beyond the single video that the jury has seen which is relevant to his mental state and his intent with the threats at issue.  It will be fascinating to see how much of it makes it before the jury for their consideration.  For example, given Bryant's fascination with using a wooden sword as a prop (which the defense calls a metaphor, and I agree) it would be useful for the jury to see what Bryant's metaphor actually means.

His sword is a metaphor for killing politicians.  In this public unedited video he stated:

And I'm gonna say there are right reasons to kill people, there are completely right reasons to kill people just like there are right reasons to fight and it's the people that do the wrong things and harm others that create these fake laws so that they can protect themselves while they continue destroying people's lives and these people who are in charge of the government and everything, the corporations, they deserve to be publicly executed.  And it's probably going to, unless they can turn themselves around and start giving and be beneficial, then it will be time for people to rise up and actually take them to the street.  And now we have video cameras and everything to watch this.  These people should be lined up in front of the White House and, with a sword, not a bullet, just one by one, have their throats slit.  Because these people have made their life's blood off of the suffering of others and according to every sacred scripture that I've ever read, and I've read all of them almost, these are the types of people that are one hundred percent okay to slice off the tree of life and throw into the fires of dissolution because it's like pruning a plant...and these people who are in these high places, they perpetuate suffering, they live off it, they make the human species suffer so they can get power and those are the people who should be removed.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  And people say that I'm crazy for thinking like that.  Okay.  I'm crazy for thinking that justice should be met.

The sword is a metaphor that comes from fantasy novels that Bryant is steeped in.  The sword.  The stick.  Consider his claim that the world is awful and evil and that he needs to find a way to fix it and his claim, in this public and unedited video, that:

Now I have to figure out a way to fix this mess.  And I'll do it myself if I have to.  No one will be able to stop me.  That I promise.  I'll bring the whole world to its knees, with a stick.

The defense will play up the victimology and the prosecution, if Bryant does take the stand, will have to balance its cross of a liar who will hand the prosecutor a target rich cross environment with the victimology shield of a poor "homeless" veteran who has PTSD.  The jury is likely going to form the PTSD conclusion even without any prompting just knowing Bryant was in the military while witnessing his obvious mental illness on display.  They're highly unlikely to realize that Air Force drone operators have PTSD at the same rate as the background civilian U.S. population and even less likely to question any vet's claimed PTSD since it's a heretical position to take for most people.

Of course all of my analysis, even if I'm correct on matters of Montana law which is far from certain, depends on a rational jury doing a rational job.  That's never certain as the Chauvin trial demonstrated recently.

 

DAY TWO

The Judge ruled on the shorter edited video I made and stated he reviewed my edited video and looked to see if it was edited to change context, and he concluded my edits just aggregated Bryant's comments.  He is permitting the shorter edited video to be provided to the jury.  This is correct and a good ruling by the judge to ensure the jury has the full set of facts to review.

The defense is now asking for a mistrial over discussion of the unedited video's admissibility in front of the jury.  This seems an odd request given that the judge just admitted the video so the jury will have all the facts and the arguments from the lawyers on the video admissibility is moot.  The jury will now have all the evidence to consider themselves and they will decide the facts.

The motion for mistrial is denied by the judge.

There is now question about how much of the police interrogation video should be shown to the jury.  It contains Bryant's usual narrative about him being a whistle blower and such and the defense wants that shown to the jury so they can hear Bryant's long narrative.  The judge denied that request and will allow defense to only show the video as impeachment evidence.

The court welcomed defense's investigator, Mark Beck, who previously made contact with me to ask questions.  When I told him that given the defense's inaccurate portrayal of me in court documents that I would review written questions and get back to him, he stated he would send those written questions but never actually did.

Council president Van Lossberg is now taking the stand to finish up his testimony.

He testified that Bryant's threat is one of the reasons he will not be seeking re-election.

Lossberg steps down but may be recalled.  He wanted to stay in the courtroom, the defense brought up that he could hear other testimony which he shouldn't hear if he is going to re-take the stand later.  Seems like a good point from the defense and the judge said as much.

Council member Julie Meritt has taken the stand.  She talked about how Brandon put the "stick" down on the table and "looked us in the eye as he did that."  She talked about training they got in case of a person bringing a weapon and she got choked up and talked through tears while stating what they might have to do to escape somebody threatening them with a weapon in the chamber.  She testified that she was "terrified" when she saw the edited video of Bryant.

She testified that she was thinking about quitting her job on the council after watching Bryant's threats.  She talked about how the image of Bryant holding the stick was traumatic and caused her panic attacks given a previous experience she had that led to her seeking therapy.  She was very distraught on the stand.

She mentioned Googling and finding the longer video after she saw my edited video.  Like previous witnesses, she saw the full longer video.  I believe the longer video they would have seen at that time was my link to Brandon Bryant's channel.  So they would have seen the public video that Bryant uploaded to HIS public YouTube channel.  Bryant didn't make his public videos private until after he got released from jail.  I would expect the prosecution will make this clear.

On cross, she stated that she found the edited video through a Google search and Bryant did not send it to her or attempt to communicate it to her in any way outside council members.  This statement will be a key part of the defense's argument and the state will likely argue that Bryant made the public live-streamed video hoping it would get back to the council and we may see Bryant state that he made the video knowing that I would re-upload it.

On cross the lawyer brought up the witness previous statements about comments being taken out of a private group and posted in public.  The defense is going to continue this insane theory that Bryant posting a live-streamed public video on YouTube was somehow posted in a "private group."  Bryant did not post his videos in a private group.  He did exactly the opposite.

Council member Meritt was excused and now council member Gwen Jones is taking the stand.

Jones brings up the stick Bryant brought to a council member and how he spoke about killing and wondering why they were discussing killing during a council meeting.

She mentions how she had seen videos of Bryant and his words in council that she thought were veiled threats and then when she saw the edited video directed at the council she thought it was an "explicit" threat.  I agree with her completely.

Oddly, Jones was dismissed from the stand without cross examination by the defense.

Officer Smith, a detective with the Missoula Police Department is now taking the stand.

Officer Smith testified that Bryant admitted he uploaded the videos to Youtube, that Bryant stated for years that this blogger had compiled his videos, and that he expected I would do so with the video in question.  He testified Bryant told him he made the videos to get attention and to be a "bogeyman" and his desire for council members to experience "fear."  He testified that Bryant uses language as a warfare tactic and that Bryant showed no remorse for his action.  He said Bryant understood how him using words like "eliminate" and "exterminate" and "submit" and "die" would be concerning and how his specific intent was to get a reaction and how his military training included "psychological operations" and that Bryant said he wanted to "incite a response" and that he wanted council members to feel "uncomfortable."  He stated that his discussions with Bryant about his stick or staff did not make him feel better about the situation.

During cross, Smith testifies that he saw the original full length threat video (and others) posted on Brandon Bryant's personal public YouTube page and, like the judge, did not think my edited scaled down video had changed the context.

Smith testified that they requested some of Bryant's videos from Google.

Mr. Coolidge got Smith to say that Bryant's videos were expressing emotion and frustration like other people would put in a diary.  Smith testified that he re-iterated that Bryant was free to go during the interrogation.

The defense got Smith to say that Bryant was a whistle blower although there was no mention of what he "exposed" about the drone program.  Bryant often says two opposing things, and in this full and unedited video Bryant states that his NOT a whistle blower.  That is correct.  He complains about the drone program but he does not expose anything illegal.  Europeans and some in America were happy to pretend he was a "whistle blower" but only because he offered up sound bytes they could use to push their agenda.

Smith testified that Bryant wasn't interested in his help with affordable housing.  This reminds me of conversations with Bryant many years ago when he was complaining about not having money for housing and I explained what his GI Bill benefits were, how much the housing allowance was, and even provided rental listings to him in Missoula he could afford.  Bryant stated none of the houses had a big enough backyard for his dog.  Bryant is not homeless, that is just a part of his narrative.

Smith does a good job pointing out that he was able to visit Bryant's public YouTube channel and see the video in question and points out that this blogger wouldn't have been able to get the videos if they weren't public.  He does a good job pointing out that Bryant's videos were not part of a diary which somebody puts in a private place, but rather were uploaded to YouTube.

Smith confirms a search warrant was given to YouTube for the videos in question.

Over an objection, Smith is able to mention other Brandon Bryant videos and that he threatens to kill other people in those videos and the prosecution was able to enter into evidence a public Facebook post by Bryant around the time of his threats to council where he has a firearm.

The court is now in recess for a lunch break.  The State has rested and claims it has met its burden of proving the elements.  The defense is called to present its first witness today so as to not waste jury time.  The defense thinks it may have a difficult time finding a witness other than Brandon Bryant to take the stand this afternoon.

The State could certainly be much more forceful if it can get in the bounty of videos of Bryant threatening to kill people but it has strongly made its case already.  This does not look good for Bryant.

The State rests and goes to lunch.  Brandon Bryant posts on Facebook during lunch what is likely his hope... that his victim status as a "disabled vet" will create the sympathy he needs to be found not guilty.  It might work as average people don't realize that Bryant is lying when he says he has PTSD from being a drone operator taking out a handful of targets from the safety of a bunker in Nevada.  While Bryant is clearly very mentally ill, his illness did not come from his brief stint in the military.

After lunch the defense calls Jesse Ramos to the stand.  The defense shows a bunch of video of Brandon Bryant not threatening council members at council meetings and speaking in allegory and reciting verses about Lord Krishna from the Bhagavad Gita.  Ramos testifies that he originally heard about the threat video as being sent to the council.  He then says he learned it was put on the "dark web" by me and "doctored."  He then goes on to talk about how finding that out made him much less concerned because people put such things in personal journals.  That's a suspect claim and he says that Bryant is troubled by his military service and he thought the video was "artistic."  Ramos was one of the people (along with Sandra Vasecka and John Contos) who wrote an unfortunate letter falsely referring to Brandon as a Staff Sergeant and platforming his false narrative as a whistleblower, falsely claiming the videos Bryant made were as a personal diary, claiming Bryant has PTSD from his military service, and casting aspersion on my "edited" version.  As such, his testimony is not surprising.  From the beginning he has been trying to shield Bryant from responsibility in this matter and it's sad to see him peddle this narrative which carries a risk to his constituents and colleagues.  Hopefully the people of Missoula will remember his testimony and his choices.  He testified that he thought Bryant shouldn't have been arrested even before he learned that it was a "doctored" video.  His continued dishonest use of the term "doctored" when he had both videos available to him shows dishonesty that makes me greatly question his testimony.

On cross it comes out that Ramos was anti-TIF and met with Bryant's group of activists.  He vouched for Bryant to other council members and was familiar with that activist group and shared their anti-establishment goals.  He says he was impressed by Bryant's military background (a background that is steeped in layer after layer of propaganda fraud).  The prosecutor asks whether Bryant was referring to Ramos when Bryant made a remark about certain council member with more integrity than his past military commanders and Ramos initially seems to answer yes and then changes his answer.  The cross examination shows clearly that Ramos was biased and very familiar with Bryant and this fact helps explain his dishonest testimony about a video being "doctored" and his false claim that it was put on the "dark web."

Ramos said that sometimes when Bryant spoke he "tuned out" because he couldn't understand it.  The prosecutor asked Ramos if he knew what was meant by Bryant describing "warriors" in his Krishna speech and brought up Bryant's use of the term "pulling weeds" and gets Ramos to admit the innocuous sounding gardening reference could mean something else.  This is a great point and harkens back to Bryant's use of the phrase "pruning trees" to describe murdering politicians.  Bryant used similar language stating in his publicly uploaded and unedited video:

And I'm gonna say there are right reasons to kill people, there are completely right reasons to kill people just like there are right reasons to fight and it's the people that do the wrong things and harm others that create these fake laws so that they can protect themselves while they continue destroying people's lives and these people who are in charge of the government and everything, the corporations, they deserve to be publicly executed.  And it's probably going to, unless they can turn themselves around and start giving and be beneficial, then it will be time for people to rise up and actually take them to the street.  And now we have video cameras and everything to watch this.  These people should be lined up in front of the White House and, with a sword, not a bullet, just one by one, have their throats slit.  Because these people have made their life's blood off of the suffering of others and according to every sacred scripture that I've ever read, and I've read all of them almost, these are the types of people that are one hundred percent okay to slice off the tree of life and throw into the fires of dissolution because it's like pruning a plant...

The prosecutor gets Ramos to admit YouTube isn't the "dark web" and grills him on his claim that the video was "doctored."  He points out how Ramos had previously stated that Bryant was prone to outbursts that could be unsettling to some.

Ramos is dismissed from the stand after a very poor showing.  Hopefully Missoula voters will dismiss him from public office because he is dishonest and that is a trait that is more important than any professed political view.

Mayor Engen has now taken the stand.

Shockingly Engen testifies he doesn't remember what Bryant yelled at him.  When Bryant screamed "you are that rich man."  It's hard to believe he doesn't remember that.  He is attempting to make it seem like Bryant's tirade wasn't all that memorable.

Engen testifies that he went to high school at the same time as a couple of Bryant's uncles and knew his grandfather and was acquainted with his mother.  He said he saw Bryant a week after that on the street and talked with him and Bryant explained he had some animosity toward him and they discussed his uncle Monty.

Engen testified Bryant was looking directly at him when he yelled "you are that rich man" which makes it even harder to believe he couldn't remember what Bryant screamed at him.

The prosecutor asked Engen during cross what he meant when he said he had a "high level of tolerance" during meetings.  Engen explained he has a thicker skin than some of his colleagues.  Engen testified that people were very uncomfortable when Bryant screamed and it was the most memorable outburst he had seen in fourteen years (which again makes it impossible to believe he didn't remember what Bryant screamed at him).

Engen testified he was not at the meeting where Bryant brought the staff to the meeting.

Amazingly enough Engen testified that he did not watch the threatening video.  Wow.  I can't imagine a mayor who has a person threatening to murder council members and gets trespassed not watching the video to come to a conclusion for himself.  That is breathtaking.

The mayor stepped down from the stand and the court is in recess.  The defense expects to have a couple more council members called tomorrow morning and then says it will call Bryant so that closing arguments can proceed in the afternoon.

It will be interesting to see if Sandra Vasecka and John Contos take the stand to follow Ramos by supplying a dishonest narrative that puts their political ambitions or other personal agenda over the truth and the safety of their colleagues and constituents.  Mayor Engen and the Ramos' testimony has already been peddled by local media in the effort to downplay Bryant's threats.

NBC Montana posted this story to their Facebook page but shadow banned my informed comment so that it's not visible to the public; I tried posting a comment without the links and that wasn't allowed to be shown to the public either.  There is a powerful media machine behind Bryant that has existed for years, primarily Russian media (RT) and its allies.  Like Ramos and his two city council colleagues, NBC Montana appears to be working overtime to share propaganda about Bryant being a whistleblower and to paint Bryant being charged with threatening to murder council members as some kind of political persecution.  Not only is this dishonest, it inflates the myth in Bryant's head and puts Missoulians at greater risk.

 
I would expect tomorrow with closing arguments that the prosecution will hammer home details from Smith's meeting with Bryant and statements made there.  Specifically, Bryant's admission that he knew or thought I would download, consolidate, and re-upload his video as I had been doing for years, along with Bryant's statements about wanting to get a reaction, be a bogeyman, put the council in fear, and make them uncomfortable as an exercise in "psychological warfare."  That will be important to the question of whether Bryant's speech constituted a true threat which will be explored on appeal should Bryant be convicted.  I think Bryant's conduct meets the standard for a true threat as I have from the time he made the video (and I think that is the case much more strongly having heard the evidence by the prosecution from Bryant's meeting with the detective) but that's not an easy question on appeal although I think in Bryant's case a true threat is established.

If Bryant takes the stand I would expect cross would include asking him when he made his videos and the video in question "private" and ask him if my edited video linked to his full video on his channel (it did, so council members saw the full video he uploaded publicly to his channel).  If Bryant lies and says something other than he made it private after he was released from jail, I would expect some impeachment evidence to be used (for example the results from the search warrant to Google).  As to mental state and intent and context, the prosecutor might ask him if he made statements about this being his "last" life (using the videos linked above on this topic as impeachment evidence in case he lies) in order to defeat any defense argument concerning his "in this life or the next" statement from the threatening video in question.  The defense will try to limit what can be asked though their questions in direct so this could prove easier said than done.  Fortunately Bryant's testimony should just be icing on the cake since the prosecution has already met its elements.

As Bryant is a literal mythomaniac I would expect the prosecution will be ready with impeachment evidence.

Of course legal questions and what is right before the law is only part of this thing.  If the defense is able to get one unprincipled juror to ignore the law and the facts, the law will be, as Bryant calls it, "fucking shit."

 

DAY THREE

Council member John Contos has taken the stand and has twice mentioned that he is nervous.  He testified he met Bryant at a bar, he was a good guy who did his part overseas, and he had a cane that he walked with due to a "war injury."  He must have had a few beers if he thinks Bryant needs a cane to walk for a "war injury" as a drone sensor operator.

While he's holding the line with the defense narrative, he still mentions that he was concerned by Bryant's frustration a couple of times.  He says he vaguely remembers hearing about the video and that it was made by somebody else and was old.

The defense asked him about something and he said he couldn't remember.  The defense pressured him to "try" and the prosecution objected since he said he couldn't remember.  The judge overruled the objection.  The witness still couldn't remember.

During cross Contos admits Bryant was his supporter and was at his election party along with Vasecka and Ramos.  Contos said he has never seen any of Bryant's videos and was not at the meeting when Brandon screamed at the council.  The prosecution is showing that "Team Liberty" -- the group that wrote the propaganda letter early on in defense of Bryant that mirrors the false narrative of the defense -- was friends with Bryant and his activist group (a group that has since distanced itself from Bryant, and whose members Bryant has lashed out against including saying he will piss on their graves).

Council member Sandra Vasecka has taken the stand.  She testifies that Bryant was active with her campaign and that even while she wasn't at specific council meetings but watched over video.

She began to say the video was a little bit concerning to her but minimized it.  She's now talking about how the video was edited and how it was a diary video that was just blowing off steam.  She is not credible nor are her compatriots.

She says that other council members beyond those that testified for the prosecution were also "concerned" about Bryant.

She does not recall whether Officer Smith said anything to council about being a threat.  Yet again the defense is needling her to remember, the state objects, the judge overrules.

She said that Bryant suffers from PTSD issues based on an email from officer Smith.

She testified that she thought Bryant was being punished for his outspoken views and that's why he got arrested.

On cross the prosecutor brings up her writing the letter and how it said that the letter had experienced fear from Bryant.  She admits she wrote that.  The prosecutor asked her if she saw other videos and she said yes.  He asked if she had seen him threatening to kill other people in other videos and she thought about it for awhile and said she didn't want to get it wrong so she couldn't remember.  She admits the council meetings in question she watched online at her home.  He's questioning her about how people experience things differently by being there rather than watching it online.

She testifies that TIF was one of the reasons she got elected.  And that Contos and Ramos are also concerned about TIF.  She admits Bryant came to her election night celebration.  Prosecution brings up how they are friends and know each other and how that influences her experiences with Bryant.

Prosecution asks her about the full video and how she said she didn't think the context was concerning.  She quotes the part of the video where Bryant says "he doesn't wish death on anybody" and the prosecutor asks her if she remember when he said "you will submit and you will die" and she says she doesn't remember that part.  She's dishonest.  Missoulians should remember her dishonesty and how she chose her political agenda over the safety of her colleagues and constituents.

She has now been dismissed from the stand and hopefully the folks of Missoula will dismiss her from public office.  Dishonesty is far more important than any political view.

The court is now waiting on council member Heather Harp to show up.  Her testimony should be fascinating given her previous video statement. where she stated that Bryant's actions that the meeting caused fear and were not defensible. Hopefully she shows more integrity, as she did in that video although I disagree with her threat assessment, unlike her colleagues from the unfortunately-named "Team Liberty."  Liberty cannot exist when fraud and threats are permitted.

She testifies she works for Habitat for Humanity and that her and Ramos and their group had nicknamed the group of activists Bryant ran around with.

She says Bryant was a "paradox" to her.  How his small stature was big and let her know what it was like to be a veteran.  Unfortunately, he's not representative of what a veteran is.

She says Bryant doesn't deserve to live paycheck to paycheck in danger of having utilities cut off and that his group was despaired by their poverty.  She said she found an opportunity to work together with Bryant and his group.

She testified that she reached out to Brian West who is a member of Bryant's group for pizza about TIF (and who Bryant had a falling out with and publicly lashed out against calling him a convicted "pedophile" and manipulator).

She testified that she is a proponent for TIF and reached out to Bryant's group to better understand different viewpoints.

She is now testifying about meeting with their group at the "Eagles Club" where there are adult beverages served and how they found common ground and shared humor and stories.  She testified she got to talk to Bryant a lot during that conversation and later had continued random conversations with him.

She testified that some of her council members during public comment were googling people speaking while they were speaking to find clips of them.  She specifically mentions council member Gwen Jones.

She testifies that at one meeting Bryant was very obviously agitated and he lost control and became angry and loud and upset, the mayor recessed the meeting, Brandon then left the building and the meeting continued.

She testified that he said "you are the rich man" and she didn't know if it was directed at the mayor or the entire city council.

She said she didn't feel fear for her safety because the mayor was able to take control of the situation.  She mentions a family member with mental illness and has outbursts and that they aren't usually like that, they just have outbursts.  She hopes that her own mental illness and bad showings on her part don't ruin the rest of his life.  She testifies that this one outburst is not how Brandon usually is.

She said she had since invited him to a couple of meetings including Kiwanis and she began crying and talking about trying to convince him to join a service organization that would help him find purpose.

She testified that Brian Lossberg and Gwen Jones had told her about they had lost faith in her ability to be the chair of a committee and how it hurt her and how the chair now is Gwen Jones.  Harp seems to be on the stand to paint the other witnesses as bad people or politically motivated given that this testimony appears irrelevant to the jury trial.

She testified how Bryant spoke in support of her remaining the chair of a committee.

She describes him holding a stick as a "totem" for "being principled and doing the right thing."

She testified she tried to get Bryant into local government and some kind of academy, Citizen Law Enforcement Academy.

She testified that she had a long 45 minute conversation about the Bryant about the threat video.

She testified that it was a very disturbing video that was made "in a way" to look like Bryant was trying to take out the city council.

She testified that no news made people more fearful of what might be coming and that there was a shooting in Missoula near the time period and she thought to herself "was it Brandon?"  She said that fear was due to not knowing news about the situation.  She said somebody called her about the shooting (which turned out not to be a shooting) and told her that it wasn't Brandon in the "shooting" because he had been arrested the night before.

She testified she came to learn that the "doctored" video was precisely that.  It was "stitched together" and not in the proper context.  She says context is everything.  To that end, in the proper context of a politician who has lost clout on the city council and is trying to make friends and elevate her profile, council member Heather Harp is lying about the video being "doctored."  In fact it's true that she's lying even without the context based on objective evidence.

She literally said she thought Brandon Bryant was a victim.  That he was using his videos as a therapeutic method to get things out he didn't want to share with the public.  More dishonesty.

Hopefully the people of Missoula will invite Heather Harp out of office because lying on the stand under oath is much more important than any expressed political viewpoint.

On cross, Harp testifies she did NOT see the shorter video when she was asked what context was missing.  So all of what she just said about the context being missing means she was absolutely lying!  She slipped up huge!  There is no way she got an email with a link to the shorter video and didn't watch it, but then watched the longer version.

She testified that some council members expressed their fears to her.

She is asked who his terms "eliminate" and "exterminate" was directed toward.  She said she didn't know.  Then she said she thought it meant everyone he was frustrated with.  She was asked about "submit" and "die" and who it was directed to and she said she did not know.

He is grilling her on her admission that during the "shooting" that her first thought was "this is Brandon."  She admitted again that was her first thought.  And that she was concerned for the safety of others about what he could have done.

She testified that TIF was one of the things Bryant was talking about in the video.

Harp is lying about the prosecutor's mic cutting out every few words and that being the reason she can't understand him.  His mic isn't cutting out.

She testified she remembers Bryant speaking to council in "cryptic" ways frequently.

He asked her what the point of his stories about dead soldiers on the battlefield and rules of engagement were about.  She answered that she thought he meant that the system is rigged against those without power and he wanted to defend the powerless.  She mentioned that in "recent times" she sees uncivil discourse in city council meetings.

She is taking a very long time reading a paragraph of her letter she read about Bryant, to refresh her memory.

He got her to admit she wrote that she didn't defend his actions because...and that Bryant said at times he says violent things that scare people and as a city we must act...

She admits she had befriended Bryant by the time she read the letter and knew him.

He mentions Bryant labeling some council members as betrayers and she acknowledge he said that, while he labeled other council members as having integrity.

She testifies that she Googles people who come before council to get to know where they come from.  She testified that Bryant's outburst and his scream were an anomaly and that her heart rate was raised, she may have lost her breath a little bit at that meeting.

She testified that she can't remember who told her that there was a "private group" and she testified that it would change her opinion if Bryant uploaded videos to YouTube publicly.  She said she watched the full version of the video on YouTube.

She testified she did not watch further videos because it might have affected her emotionally.

She testified that she appreciated Bryant coming to her defense when she was losing her position as chair.  She testifies that Gwen Jones has done a wonderful job as chair.

She is dismissed and Bryant has now taken the stand.

So far he's talking about the military and drones.

He is now describing Anwar Awlaki while drawing parallels to himself as being targeted by government for dissent.  That's a massive stretch and ironic given that Bryant gleefully flew missions to kill Awlaki and didn't refuse the mission.

A dog is barking loudly and annoyingly during testimony.  Perhaps Bryant's "service" dog.

He claims he cried every time he killed somebody which contradicts much of his media professions.

He said he was proud of his service during the time he was in the military.  That doesn't explain the alleged crying, but in this case he's being truthful about being proud of his service.  Something he contradicts in many media presentations. 

He is now saying he's a warrior and giving his spiel about facing opponents face to face to explain why he thinks he is a murderer.

Bryant explains whistle blowing actually means not exposing something illegal but rather like a whistle being blown by a referee to reset a match.  It's like a player calling time out.


It will be interesting to see if in cross if Bryant is asked about wanting to become an instructor pilot and being denied that advancement.

Bryant states he initially did not believe that people could get PTSD in the drone program and that it was only after the drone program that somebody recommended to him that he should get evaluated for PTSD.

He says he contracted a staff infection during training and that his "whistle blowing" was like a death bed confession.  He mentions that he testified before the United Nations (by which he means talked with somebody who was in the UN in a side conversation).

He says the Christians around him told him he need to kill Muslims and he describes his Taoist beliefs and transformation.

Bryant begins crying on the stand about remembering people celebrating killing others in the military, despite his media appearances where he is proud of doing so and gleeful and looking forward to it and saying "I can't wait for this MF'r to die."

Bryant says he doesn't think words are violence.

With all the talk of Bryant's spiritual life, it will be interesting to see if the prosecution asks him about the "black magic and sorcery" he says he performed on himself.

Bryant perjures himself when he claims he shared his videos non-publicly with only a small group of followers which somehow included me..  That option doesn’t even exist.  Even Google explains that what Bryant described does not exist.  His options are Public (which he selected) or Unlisted (where only people who have a direct link Bryant sends to them could see the video) or Private (where only Bryant could see his videos).  His claim that there is an ability to share videos with followers only does not exist.  If he only wanted a select few people to see his videos, he would have to make it "unlisted" and then copy and paste the link and provide that link to individuals he wanted to share the video with.  This is made clear by Google here.


Bryant says he did not expect me to edit and share his video which contradicts his police conversation.

Bryant perjures himself by falsely claiming that I put his life in danger, threatened to kill him, sent veterans to harm him (which are Marines in some renditions of his story, and Rangers in another).  I expect these lies will be destroyed on cross since the defense is offering me up as a bogeyman to try to excuse Bryant.

Bryant mentions his son's mother which hopefully opens the door for discussion of Bryant's frequent admissions that he contemplated "many many many many times" killing her.

Bryant is asked about his full legal name and admits the documents listing him as "Brandon Howard Bryant" are incorrect

The court has recessed for lunch and Bryant's cross examination will begin after lunch.

The prosecution pressed Bryant on his false claim of making his videos private and then introduced a document showing Brandon Bryant's own YouTube channel with his videos public.  It's not clear if the video in question was shown or if he had already taken it down after release from jail.

The prosecution did a brilliant job of using Brandon's false narrative about me threatening him to show that words online (non-existent in my case) could cause fear for one's safety.  Bryant got very discombobulated and combative when asked to discuss his use of military words like exterminate and eliminate.  Bryant described himself as peaceful and having taken an oath of non-violence and such and the prosecutor attempted to introduce footage from the compilation video "Brandon Bryant: Laws Aren't Going to Protect You" and the defense objected to counter the character argument the defense has made about him being non-violent and peaceful.

Bryant testified that he doesn't think there are any limits to speech and that all speech is protected absolutely.

The judge heard the arguments from both sides and then wanted to view the video for himself.  A small portion of the whole video was shown and the defense objected again and said "Mr. Rynearson is running this trial!"  The judge said he will not allow the video to be shown for now but that the prosecution can cross Mr. Bryant on the video threats to kill others and use the video as impeachment evidence.  The judge had warned the defense early on about the door swinging both ways, and it appears it may swing in a way they don't want if the judge allows the video.

The judge had a great deal of discussion with counsel arguing back and forth about introducing the composite video.  Bryant is now back on the stand to continue cross.

The prosecutor did a masterful job of getting Bryant to admit he holds the view that government officials who "betray" others such as by using TIF deserve to be executed.  Bryant talked extensively about how government officials he disagrees with should be killed, and admitted to threatening to kill me because my online speech made him feel unsafe.  Bryant was aggressive and unhinged and dishonest and contradictory....in short, he showed himself on the stand.

The Laws Aren't Going to Protect You video was never shown but it was clear that thinking the video would be shown to impeach Bryant's false answers clearly got Bryant to speak honestly.  Which translated into him admitting he thinks the city council members might deserve to be executed over TIF and that he made the threats in the video to get a response and to make the council members feel fear.

We now wait for the jury to get instructions and render a verdict.  The case has been made strongly by the prosecution.  A rational jury would find Bryant guilty.  However a jury of peers in America, in my experience, certainly doesn't consist of twelve rational people.  So it's tough to know how this will go as it always is during a jury trial.

It should be clear to the jury, however, that Bryant is a threat and meant to threaten the Missoula City Council.  It's very possible especially these days, however, that a juror might find Bryant's call to arms against government persuasive, or they might excuse him because they think he's a poor vet with PTSD rather than a vet who was never in combat who has been collecting a disability paycheck from taxpayers for years.

Regardless of the jury verdict, I'm very sad to see that Ramos, Contos, and Heather Harp were dishonest under oath to try to advance their shared personal/political agenda despite the clear threat to their colleagues and constituents that was incredibly evident.  I'm also sad that Mayor Engen didn't think to look into Bryant's threats by watching the video which seems like a serious lack of leadership in my view.

Closing arguments are nearly done.  The prosecution should have hammered home more that the videos were uploaded publicly.  The state repeated the false claim in closing that Bryant sent the link of the videos to specific people, as if it wasn't public, which is false.  Hopefully the jury will be smart enough to realize that Bryant didn't send a link to me and that sending out links rather than making videos public wouldn't help him achieve his stated goal of making the council members feel fear.  He would have a difficult time getting a reaction and being a bogeyman were it true that he didn't upload the videos publicly.  Which he did.

It's annoying to me to repeatedly hear the lies told by Bryant about me threatening to kill him, or threatening his family, and the like but I understand why the prosecutor didn't push back on those claims.  His job wasn't to defend me and it was very useful for him to use Bryant's claims about his fabricated fear from fabricated online speech.  Bryant is a projectionist and he projects onto others what he himself actually does (in this case, threatening to kill me).  While my name got drug though the mud in the hearing, the courtroom never heard any evidence from Bryant about me threatening to kill him or Marines being sent to kill him or any of his false narrative. They did, however, hear Bryant admit that he threatened to kill me.

While the prosecutor did an outstanding job, life experience leads me to be very skeptical of the chances of getting twelve people to all be rational and principled.  Especially these days.  We'll see what the jury decides and whether or not Bryant will be correct that the law will not protect us, because it's "fucking shit."

My gut feeling is Bryant will prove correct in this instance but we'll see.

The jury is now back.  My gut feeling was correct.  The jury found Bryant not-guilty.

God help Missoula.  While it's good that Bryant won't be going to jail as that would have been horrible for his development, he was guilty as charged.  His defense, however, succeeded in getting his lies (most likely about his videos being private and a diary) to get the jury to find for him.  If a jury is going to get it wrong, it's good that they got it wrong in favor of the defendant.  The threat, however, remains and will be bolstered by this victory.  Hopefully enough attention has illuminated Brandon's mental state that people are able to get him the help he needs (which is not money though that's his goal).  That would prove the best outcome for this entire ordeal.  But it's far from a certain one.

VIDEO:  BRYANT'S CROSS EXAMINATION & STATE CLOSING ARGUMENT

MORE VIDEOS ABOUT BRANDON BRYANT