Daniel Beck has endorsed statements that shock the conscience, raising questions about why Trump's family—as well as his top advisers, allies, agents, attorneys and associates—met with him January 5.
Seth, I'm a long time follower on your twitter feed and appreciate the work you have done. I've read 2 of the 3 Proof books. I think overall you are excellent at surfacing news sources that report on often overlooked aspects of stories in mainstream media, especially with Trump. However, I have to say, I often find you often place confidence in your ability to make connections between different data points in these stories that is unwarranted. There are times I have thought that when reading your books; some connections seem to rely too much on your interpretation when other explanations are also possible, or at least, the connections cannot be known. I think this article is a particularly egregious example. I was able to look at Beck's facebook posts, as you have, and am unable to make the connections that you seem to find. It is obvious from reading his posts that he is delusional, and has bought into a wide array of conspiracy theories, including about Trump being able to hold onto power after the election. He seems to have thought at one point that Pence was going to count the votes in favor of Trump and even that on the 20th (even after Biden was confirmed on the 6th) somehow Trump was going to remain in office. These are theories that even my mother thought would happen. However, I see no indication that he supported or seemed to imply that violent demonstrations would be a part of any theory he espoused. The post from the priest you point to as evidence that he "openly endorsed violent seditious conduct" requires a lot of assumptions. There are other explanations that are also more likely. For one, the quote you take from the video may not even be the part that he was supporting in the video when he posted it with "Warning from Rome priest... look for truth!" Much of the video is conspiracy theories about free masons (this has been around for ages) and theories about Covid-19. He could have posted it with those things in mind, and the line about "taking to the streets" may not have even been a part of his espousal. It's a big jump to make that claim based on that one post. The post about the 1871 nonsense is even less reliable to claim that it was connected to Beck's thoughts about supporting the riots on the 6th. It seems to be what he thinks of the current troops being stationed there post-Jan. 6. It's nonsense to be sure, but it just looks to me the same type of Qanon junk that recallibrates with new theories when reality forces them to give up previous ideas. With the Parkes video, again i think it is a big jump to him posting the video "this is good intel!" and pulling out the paragraph you quote as evidence that Beck supported or had foreknowledge of the riots on the 6th. It seems that another more likely explanation is that, with that particular section of the video, he is thinking of Trump revealing a bunch on intel that implicates congress (Qanon cabal maybe?) and they are "processed"--meaning they are indicted or arrested for crimes. Beck alludes to this line of thinking in some comments on some other of his facebook posts. Again, he's delusional, but I don't think it implies anything about his support or foreknowledge of anything to do with the riots on the 6th. If anything, we can say he expected Pence to refuse to count votes for Biden or that congress would oppose the electors--but nothing you put in your article is evidence that he expected or supported the riots. It is an even bigger leap to claim that it is evidence that the meeting at Trump D.C. hotel was among people who planned jump or had foreknowledge of the riots that happened the next day. Though he certainly seems to expect something to happen at the capitol to keep Biden from being confirmed, but I think it has more to do with the Pence theory than the riots. The reason I respond like this is because I do think your reporting on the meeting at the Trump D.C. hotel is something that needs to be looked into. I just don't think this article based on Beck's facebook posts is helpful and it might even discredit your other good reporting. Also, as a journalist, why didn't you contact Beck and ask him about *before* you published it? Wouldn't it be good to hear from him, instead of just interpreting on your own? I do see you tried to contact him on his facebook post afterwards. I do hope he responds, but even if he doesn't, I think you might owe him an apology. Your interpretation of his facebook posts and what it means about his espousal of violent overthrow of the government is not really fair. It's bizarre to me that you say, of all the reporting you've done, that this is "the biggest story you've done." I also think, after listening to your discussion of meta-journalism and meta-modernism on your PROOF podcast, that maybe your idea that the data points of a particular story may be so abundant that they kind of connect themselves or make the narrative easy to see (I may be misunderstanding here) is a bit over confident. We always have to interpret and put things together, and, in this case, you seem eager to see a story that is not warranted by the evidence you site.
I hear what you are saying, and I respect the thought that went into it, but I simply disagree. Daniel Beck was given the exquisitely rare opportunity of meeting with Trump's family and his top advisors and his lawyer in Trump's private residence hours before the most significant act of domestic terrorism in the United States since the Civil War. He had access, by his own admission and as detailed in the ring of articles that support this one, to the full panoply of intelligence and planning in the possession of the president's inner circle. And he had the additional benefit of getting intelligence and planning data from not just one but several senators who were in the room. And what he did with that information was decide not to attend the very march on the Capitol that he had come to DC to participate in. What he did with that information was tell his followers on social media that the president and his team had a plan and that that plan would be executed and that that plan would be deeply distressing to the masses. He then posted information from a British conspiracy theorist that he said was consistent with all the information he had accumulated in the preceding two weeks, including the information he had accumulated by meeting with Trump's family, his top advisors, and the top allies of the Trump family in Congress. The information from that British conspiracy theorist detailed an attempt to violently overthrow the Biden administration. Anyone who thinks this is simply an article about a man who believes silly things does not understand the level of access this man had to the president's inner circle at the most critical juncture in modern American history, and does not understand that the information he presented thereafter suggests both that he feared the march on the capitol he had come to DC to participate in would become violent—which means the men he had met with in Trump's home also feared that before it happened—and that nothing he heard in the president's home changed his understanding of the president's plan as violent insurrection. I can understand that all of this is quite confusing and that many people have not read the other articles that bolster and augment it. But I can say that no other article I have written has given me chills like this one. The only possible comparison would be the chapter I wrote in Proof of Conspiracy about the war crimes Trump greenlit in Syria.
Mind you, all of this is separate from that element of the story that details Roger Stone, who we know has been in touch with Donald Trump, raising money to equip the men who breach the Capitol. And it is separate from the broader question of why Daniel Beck, and apparently his father, were put in the position to be among the 15 members of Trump's pre-insurrection war council. I made very clear that we do not know if it is connected to Beck's company, but if it is, which is certainly possible given the absolutely stunning involvement of a violent convicted criminal like Ali Alexander being involved in Trump's war council, it suggests an ongoing attempt to exploit mass-texting capability to keep Trump's "army" (as he refers to them) on call. In itself, that would only be so troubling. But when conjoined with the viewpoints that we know Beck has, it becomes more insidious. I would add that you're reading of the second two quotes endorsed by Beck is at odds with what Beck says about them. The second quote he endorses in full, and it contains the explicit claim that the Biden administration has no authority whatsoever, of you it is jaw-dropping to think is held by one of the 15 people Trump's family allowed into Trump's home the night before the insurrection. The first quote is certainly more far-ranging, so you could claim that Beck only believes part of what the priest said, but the whole of that rant is such that even believing part of it makes it astounding and dangerous to think that a person who holds that belief would get to be in Trump's house on the eve of the insurrection. Part of what the article does beyond its many particulars is paint a broader picture of the sort of people who are part of the "Trump dead-ender effort" that DHS now says is an ongoing domestic terrorist threat. I am not saying and do not know if back himself is part of such a threat, but his thinking certainly is and if that does not seem harrowing and significant to you, and well beyond what we are hearing in the news—which always puts the most extreme views about Biden and the Democrats well outside Trump's actual inner circle—we simply see things differently.
"By the fruits of their labor shall ye know them." You have done this for a long time now, Seth, and you have been proven right. I have no doubts anymore.
What's terrifying to me are all of these unhinged conspiracy theorists so close to the levers of power. Just reading your excerpts alone, I felt like I was beginning to lose it. Trump was desperate, and towards the end it's clear he had started buying into this nonsense.
I've known for some time that Stone, Flynn, Ezra, as well as Trump sycophants Cruz, Gaetz and others were going to stir up the base( that they created with "Q"), but this is nuts...WHY are these people not being rounded up?.. Immediately? They are a clear and present danger.
U mentioned our crazed super majority in one of these about Beck's -- thought this would be a good way to show y'all what it's like living behind enemy lines as a DEM in SE Idaho
This is absolutely horrifying and I just don't understand why it isn't all over the news. Thank you for putting in the tremendous amount of time and effort required to bring this to light. Other than RT how are ways we can help get this disseminated?
Seth, I'm a long time follower on your twitter feed and appreciate the work you have done. I've read 2 of the 3 Proof books. I think overall you are excellent at surfacing news sources that report on often overlooked aspects of stories in mainstream media, especially with Trump. However, I have to say, I often find you often place confidence in your ability to make connections between different data points in these stories that is unwarranted. There are times I have thought that when reading your books; some connections seem to rely too much on your interpretation when other explanations are also possible, or at least, the connections cannot be known. I think this article is a particularly egregious example. I was able to look at Beck's facebook posts, as you have, and am unable to make the connections that you seem to find. It is obvious from reading his posts that he is delusional, and has bought into a wide array of conspiracy theories, including about Trump being able to hold onto power after the election. He seems to have thought at one point that Pence was going to count the votes in favor of Trump and even that on the 20th (even after Biden was confirmed on the 6th) somehow Trump was going to remain in office. These are theories that even my mother thought would happen. However, I see no indication that he supported or seemed to imply that violent demonstrations would be a part of any theory he espoused. The post from the priest you point to as evidence that he "openly endorsed violent seditious conduct" requires a lot of assumptions. There are other explanations that are also more likely. For one, the quote you take from the video may not even be the part that he was supporting in the video when he posted it with "Warning from Rome priest... look for truth!" Much of the video is conspiracy theories about free masons (this has been around for ages) and theories about Covid-19. He could have posted it with those things in mind, and the line about "taking to the streets" may not have even been a part of his espousal. It's a big jump to make that claim based on that one post. The post about the 1871 nonsense is even less reliable to claim that it was connected to Beck's thoughts about supporting the riots on the 6th. It seems to be what he thinks of the current troops being stationed there post-Jan. 6. It's nonsense to be sure, but it just looks to me the same type of Qanon junk that recallibrates with new theories when reality forces them to give up previous ideas. With the Parkes video, again i think it is a big jump to him posting the video "this is good intel!" and pulling out the paragraph you quote as evidence that Beck supported or had foreknowledge of the riots on the 6th. It seems that another more likely explanation is that, with that particular section of the video, he is thinking of Trump revealing a bunch on intel that implicates congress (Qanon cabal maybe?) and they are "processed"--meaning they are indicted or arrested for crimes. Beck alludes to this line of thinking in some comments on some other of his facebook posts. Again, he's delusional, but I don't think it implies anything about his support or foreknowledge of anything to do with the riots on the 6th. If anything, we can say he expected Pence to refuse to count votes for Biden or that congress would oppose the electors--but nothing you put in your article is evidence that he expected or supported the riots. It is an even bigger leap to claim that it is evidence that the meeting at Trump D.C. hotel was among people who planned jump or had foreknowledge of the riots that happened the next day. Though he certainly seems to expect something to happen at the capitol to keep Biden from being confirmed, but I think it has more to do with the Pence theory than the riots. The reason I respond like this is because I do think your reporting on the meeting at the Trump D.C. hotel is something that needs to be looked into. I just don't think this article based on Beck's facebook posts is helpful and it might even discredit your other good reporting. Also, as a journalist, why didn't you contact Beck and ask him about *before* you published it? Wouldn't it be good to hear from him, instead of just interpreting on your own? I do see you tried to contact him on his facebook post afterwards. I do hope he responds, but even if he doesn't, I think you might owe him an apology. Your interpretation of his facebook posts and what it means about his espousal of violent overthrow of the government is not really fair. It's bizarre to me that you say, of all the reporting you've done, that this is "the biggest story you've done." I also think, after listening to your discussion of meta-journalism and meta-modernism on your PROOF podcast, that maybe your idea that the data points of a particular story may be so abundant that they kind of connect themselves or make the narrative easy to see (I may be misunderstanding here) is a bit over confident. We always have to interpret and put things together, and, in this case, you seem eager to see a story that is not warranted by the evidence you site.
I hear what you are saying, and I respect the thought that went into it, but I simply disagree. Daniel Beck was given the exquisitely rare opportunity of meeting with Trump's family and his top advisors and his lawyer in Trump's private residence hours before the most significant act of domestic terrorism in the United States since the Civil War. He had access, by his own admission and as detailed in the ring of articles that support this one, to the full panoply of intelligence and planning in the possession of the president's inner circle. And he had the additional benefit of getting intelligence and planning data from not just one but several senators who were in the room. And what he did with that information was decide not to attend the very march on the Capitol that he had come to DC to participate in. What he did with that information was tell his followers on social media that the president and his team had a plan and that that plan would be executed and that that plan would be deeply distressing to the masses. He then posted information from a British conspiracy theorist that he said was consistent with all the information he had accumulated in the preceding two weeks, including the information he had accumulated by meeting with Trump's family, his top advisors, and the top allies of the Trump family in Congress. The information from that British conspiracy theorist detailed an attempt to violently overthrow the Biden administration. Anyone who thinks this is simply an article about a man who believes silly things does not understand the level of access this man had to the president's inner circle at the most critical juncture in modern American history, and does not understand that the information he presented thereafter suggests both that he feared the march on the capitol he had come to DC to participate in would become violent—which means the men he had met with in Trump's home also feared that before it happened—and that nothing he heard in the president's home changed his understanding of the president's plan as violent insurrection. I can understand that all of this is quite confusing and that many people have not read the other articles that bolster and augment it. But I can say that no other article I have written has given me chills like this one. The only possible comparison would be the chapter I wrote in Proof of Conspiracy about the war crimes Trump greenlit in Syria.
Mind you, all of this is separate from that element of the story that details Roger Stone, who we know has been in touch with Donald Trump, raising money to equip the men who breach the Capitol. And it is separate from the broader question of why Daniel Beck, and apparently his father, were put in the position to be among the 15 members of Trump's pre-insurrection war council. I made very clear that we do not know if it is connected to Beck's company, but if it is, which is certainly possible given the absolutely stunning involvement of a violent convicted criminal like Ali Alexander being involved in Trump's war council, it suggests an ongoing attempt to exploit mass-texting capability to keep Trump's "army" (as he refers to them) on call. In itself, that would only be so troubling. But when conjoined with the viewpoints that we know Beck has, it becomes more insidious. I would add that you're reading of the second two quotes endorsed by Beck is at odds with what Beck says about them. The second quote he endorses in full, and it contains the explicit claim that the Biden administration has no authority whatsoever, of you it is jaw-dropping to think is held by one of the 15 people Trump's family allowed into Trump's home the night before the insurrection. The first quote is certainly more far-ranging, so you could claim that Beck only believes part of what the priest said, but the whole of that rant is such that even believing part of it makes it astounding and dangerous to think that a person who holds that belief would get to be in Trump's house on the eve of the insurrection. Part of what the article does beyond its many particulars is paint a broader picture of the sort of people who are part of the "Trump dead-ender effort" that DHS now says is an ongoing domestic terrorist threat. I am not saying and do not know if back himself is part of such a threat, but his thinking certainly is and if that does not seem harrowing and significant to you, and well beyond what we are hearing in the news—which always puts the most extreme views about Biden and the Democrats well outside Trump's actual inner circle—we simply see things differently.
Apologies for the several typos, I was dictating the above orally.
"By the fruits of their labor shall ye know them." You have done this for a long time now, Seth, and you have been proven right. I have no doubts anymore.
What's terrifying to me are all of these unhinged conspiracy theorists so close to the levers of power. Just reading your excerpts alone, I felt like I was beginning to lose it. Trump was desperate, and towards the end it's clear he had started buying into this nonsense.
I've known for some time that Stone, Flynn, Ezra, as well as Trump sycophants Cruz, Gaetz and others were going to stir up the base( that they created with "Q"), but this is nuts...WHY are these people not being rounded up?.. Immediately? They are a clear and present danger.
I’ve admired your work for some time, Seth. Sorry it took me so long to subscribe but this article shook me to the core. Keep up the great work.
Thank you for your hard work , Seth!
Could it be possible that textwire or another tech company associated with QAnon were the ones responsible for the Solarwinds hack?
8kun is back on line with the help of a Russian internet firm.
Also thank you for all of your work.
What a load BS your spewing. It’s all going to come back and bite you in the arse in the near future you freaking disgusting liar.
U mentioned our crazed super majority in one of these about Beck's -- thought this would be a good way to show y'all what it's like living behind enemy lines as a DEM in SE Idaho
https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/idiocracy-overrules-sanity-among-idaho-s-gop-legislators/article_2ca68081-b18d-54c4-80bb-5c79bab85595.html
absolutely chilling! Thanks for keeping us informed.
This is absolutely horrifying and I just don't understand why it isn't all over the news. Thank you for putting in the tremendous amount of time and effort required to bring this to light. Other than RT how are ways we can help get this disseminated?
Which of the 45 Senators (who don’t want an impeachment trail) were in the loop with all of this ...