Jan. 6 committee interview sheds light on origins of Proud Boys ‘1776 returns’ document

An obscure cryptocurrency advocate from Florida may be the original source of an incendiary document at the heart of the seditious conspiracy charges against members of the Proud Boys.

Samuel Armes told the Jan. 6 select committee in a newly disclosed interview that he didn’t draft the document, titled “1776 returns,” itself — and had no role in aspects that laid out an operational strategy to occupy federal buildings on Jan. 6, 2021, to disrupt the transfer of presidential power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.

But in a colorful hourlong interview with the committee, Armes said he helped formulate some of the ideas that the document relied on — and that eventually ended up in the hands of Proud Boys national chair Enrique Tarrio, one of five charged with seditious conspiracy.

The revelation comes just as Tarrio and his four allies — Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola — are set to go to trial on allegations that they spearheaded the violent assault on the Capitol, pinpointing weak points around the Capitol and using the cover of the mob to help overwhelm police lines.

Prosecutors cited “1776 Returns” in Tarrio’s indictment. The document describes plans to “Storm the Winter Palace” — a reference to the Russian Revolution of 1917. The indictment also notes that in celebratory text messages with Tarrio, an associate referenced 1776 and Tarrio responded with “The Winter Palace.”

Armes, a former State Department and Special Operations official, said he recognized components of the document as ideas he had composed as part of a “war gaming” exercise he did in August or September of 2020. He would later share those ideas with a friend in the crypto industry who happened to be an associate of Tarrio’s.

Armes said that in college he had been groomed to join the CIA and FBI before his stint in the State Department and special operations. He also briefly worked for a Florida state representative before ultimately veering into crypto. In his studies, he often participated in “war gaming” scenarios, skills he used during his stint in government.

Armes told the panel that in August or September 2020, after observing riots that took place across the country — against the backdrop of the raging Covid pandemic — he jotted down some thoughts on potential worst-case scenarios for the transfer of power. His views, he said, were partially informed by the August release of the Transition Integrity Project, a similar “war gaming” exercise conducted by 100 campaign and government experts to envision potential threats to the transfer of power.

“It was just how I thought things might happen in a scenario where a certain president doesn’t leave the White House or there is just mad chaos in the streets because no one knows who’s in charge,” Armes said.

Armes said his eventual three-to-five-page document sketched out scenarios in which an unruly mob might gather in Washington, and he appended images and Google Maps screenshots. While it was meant to be a private document, Armes said, he recalled sharing it with an interested friend, Erika Flores, an ally from the cryptocurrency world with whom he interacted frequently in the latter months of 2020. Flores, he noted, was also a friend of Tarrio’s.

“So I ended up sharing it with her on a Google Drive. And after that, I thought nothing of it,” Armes told the committee. “I would’ve never imagined that it turned into the document that I was shown last week, would’ve had zero clue, zero idea. … It’s horrific for me to even imagine that something that I would’ve written would’ve been used to source this kind of, like — I guess call it ‘terroristic document.’”

Attorneys for Tarrio did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Flores could not immediately be reached for comment, but she appears to have spoken with the select committee, as well. A committee investigator told Armes that Flores attributed the writing of the “1776 Returns” document to him and asked her to share it with Tarrio. Asked about that contention, Armes called it “blame-shifting.”

Armes went through the nine-page “1776 Returns” document with the committee, separating aspects that he said he had written from components he said he did not. Armes said he had a cursory relationship with Tarrio as a result of their mutual friendship with Flores. Flores, he recalled, introduced them in Miami and Tarrio tried to get Armes’ advice for building out his T-shirt-selling business. Armes said he also met Tarrio once at a restaurant with Flores.

Armes’ connection with at least one other figure associated with Jan. 6 also piqued the committee’s interest in Oath Keeper James Beeks.

Beeks, a Michael Jackson impersonator who had been starring in a touring production of “Jesus Christ Superstar” when he was arrested for his role in the Jan. 6 attack, also met Armes through crypto-related endeavors.

Armes said Beeks had encouraged him to join the Oath Keepers and expressed his anti-government worldview in conversations. Armes said Beeks also made romantic advances, which he says he rebuffed. Beeks invited Armes to join him in Washington on Jan. 6, Armes recalled, but he turned him down. Armes said he had been interviewed by Justice Department investigators about this connection. Beeks is set to go on trial in February.

The odd connections between Armes and two prominent Jan. 6 figures — both derived from their crypto connections — prompted a moment of levity during the interview.

“I promise, we’re not all like that,” Armes joked.

“I feel like that, at the end of this conversation, we need to have a followup rehabilitative conversation about the joys of crypto,” joked his lawyer, Anessa Santos.

Armes’ short interview featured yet another memorable — if humorous — exchange when Armes’ leg cramped and he was suddenly incapacitated.

“Charley horse. Charley horse,” his lawyer said.

“I’m good. I just did leg squats today, and I maxed out my PR squats and now its hurting,” Armes replied.

“He’s on the floor,” Santos interjected.

After he recovered, Armes made a point to emphasize that he set a personal best of 425 pounds during his squat routine.

“That will now be in the Congressional Record, so that’s good,” the committee investigator responded.

“Yeah,” Armes said. “That’s cool.”

Related articles

Pete Hegseth’s ‘worn out’ MAGA excuse is running out of steam: ex-White House insider



Pete Hegseth’s reliance on using a Donald Trump deflection as allegations of incompetence, criminality and Pentagon infighting continue to grow is starting to wear thin, according to one former Trump White House insider.

The embattled Secretary of Defense is fighting a war on two fronts this week as he fends off accusations of war crimes over the killing of two alleged drug boat survivors who were reportedly clinging to their boat after a U.S. military attack.

At the same time, a damning report from the Pentagon Inspector General (IG) stated that the Pentagon chief violated protocols with his use of the Signal app, which endangered U.S. troops during an assault on Houthi rebels.

According to a report from Jack Detsh of Politico, in order to fend off bad press and investigations into his conduct, the former Fox News personality has been taking a page out of Trump’s MAGA playbook, by criticizing the messenger and not addressing the issues head-on.

As Detch wrote, Hegseth’s strategy can be summed up as, “Attack your enemies, revamp your story and never say you got it wrong.”

Add to that, Hegseth has been quick to fall back on calling anything that portrays him in a bad light as “fake news.”

As the report notes, that may work for Trump, but it’s being overused by the Pentagon chief, who has already has a trust deficit with many less-than-supportive Republican lawmakers.

According to a former senior Trump adviser, “There’s only so many times that you can stand next to the president and label everything as fake news and deny everything. It’s worn out.”

The same official also claimed the strategy doesn’t work for the defense secretary because of his reputation.

“When he takes this approach of, ‘this is fake news,’ and then hits back with some type of a troll…that only reinforces his biggest liability, which is that he’s unqualified for the job,” they explained. “That just reinforces that he’s not serious.”

You can read more here.

A reckoning awaits these out-of-touch lawmakers hopelessly in denial



Last month, some House members publicly acknowledged that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. It’s a judgment that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch unequivocally proclaimed a year ago. Israeli human-rights organizations have reached the same conclusion. But such clarity is sparse in Congress.

And no wonder. Genocide denial is needed for continuing to appropriate billions of dollars in weapons to Israel, as most legislators have kept doing. Congress members would find it very difficult to admit that Israeli forces are committing genocide while voting to send them more weaponry.

Three weeks ago, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) introduced a resolution titled “Recognizing the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza.” Twenty-one House colleagues, all of them Democrats, signed on as co-sponsors. They account for 10 percent of the Democrats in Congress.

In sharp contrast, a national Quinnipiac Poll found that 77 percent of Democrats “think Israel is committing genocide.” That means there is a 67 percent gap between what the elected Democrats are willing to say and what the people who elected them believe. The huge gap has big implications for the party’s primaries in the midterm elections next year, and then in the race for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.

One of the likely candidates in that race, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), is speaking out in ways that fit with the overwhelming views of Democratic voters.

“I agree with the UN commission's heartbreaking finding that there is a genocide in Gaza,” he tweeted as autumn began. “What matters is what we do about it – stop military sales that are being used to kill civilians and recognize a Palestinian state.”

Consistent with that position, the California congressman was one of the score of Democrats who signed on as co-sponsors of Tlaib’s resolution the day it was introduced.

In the past, signers of such a resolution would have reason to fear the wrath — and the electoral muscle — of AIPAC, the Israel-can-do-no-wrong lobby. But its intimidation power is waning. AIPAC’s support for Israel does not represent the views of the public, a reality that has begun to dawn on more Democratic officeholders.

“With American support for the Israeli government’s management of the conflict in Gaza undergoing a seismic reversal, and Democratic voters’ support for the Jewish state dropping off steeply, AIPAC is becoming an increasingly toxic brand for some Democrats on Capitol Hill,” the New York Times reported this fall. Notably, “some Democrats who once counted AIPAC among their top donors have in recent weeks refused to take the group’s donations.”

Khanna has become more and more willing to tangle with AIPAC, which is now paying for attack ads against him.

On Thanksgiving, he tweeted about Gaza and accused AIPAC of “asking people to disbelieve what they saw with their own eyes.” Khanna elaborated in a campaign email days ago, writing: “Any politician who caves to special interests on Gaza will never stand up to special interests on corruption, healthcare, housing, or the economy. If we can’t speak with moral clarity when thousands of children are dying, we won’t stand for working Americans when corporate power comes knocking.”

AIPAC isn’t the only well-heeled organization for Israel now struggling with diminished clout. Democratic Majority for Israel, an offshoot of AIPAC that calls itself “an American advocacy group that supports pro-Israel policies within the United States Democratic Party,” is now clearly misnamed. Every bit of recent polling shows that in the interests of accuracy, the organization should change its name to “Democratic Minority for Israel.”

Yet the party’s leadership remains stuck in a bygone era. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, typifies how disconnected so many party leaders are from the actual views of Democratic voters. Speaking in Brooklyn three months ago, she flatly claimed that “nine out of 10 Democrats are pro-Israel.” She did not attempt to explain how that could be true when more than seven out of 10 Democrats say Israel is guilty of genocide.

The political issue of complicity with genocide will not go away.

Last week, Amnesty International released a detailed statement documenting that “Israeli authorities are still committing genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, by continuing to deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.” But in Congress, almost every Republican and a large majority of Democrats remain stuck in public denial about Israel’s genocidal policies.

Such denial will be put to the electoral test in Democratic primaries next year, when most incumbents will face an electorate far more morally attuned to Gaza than they are. What easily passes for reasoned judgment and political smarts in Congress will seem more like cluelessness to many Democratic activists and voters who can provide reality checks with their ballots.

Does photo show Quentin Tarantino glaring at Paul Dano? Here’s the truth

The alleged photo made the rounds online after the Oscar-winning writer and director criticized Paul Dano's acting in a December 2025 podcast episode.

Democratic Voters and the Corrupt Republican SCOTUS Six

I’ve noted many times the central role of Supreme Court reform to any civic democratic future. If you’re a regular...