Now see
@disciple Clint, this is *ontopic* whataboutism.
Why? The armed forces of the US respond to the legal authority of the DOD and President. While some very messy things could happen if it wasn't clear who was legally president, that doesn't seem to be the goal of anyone involved. (To my understanding this is because they wanted Trump to remain in power without a big mess in the military. Whether the methods they chose were all legal *is* the issue overall.)
For the moment, let's keep the two groups apart: the legal/political efforts and the militias. They may be cooperating, but that is far from demonstrated.
The legal/political efforts tried for 2 months to have ballots rejected, elections done over, EC slates replaced, etc. When Jan. 6th came around the only options open were to object to EC votes in the counting session to either lower the number of Biden EC votes below 270 and force a contingent election (where the House votes by state delegation) or return the certificates of certain states to be replaced by Trump-friendly legislatures. That's what Trump's legal team and their Congressional allies were trying on Jan. 6th.
The militias had similar goals and that's exactly what the DOJ has charged Rhodes and his Oathkeepers with: conspiring to disrupt the legal transfer of presidential power. Unlike the legal/political attempts, the militia efforts involved pushing a large crowd against the Capitol and using force or intimidation to interrupt or manipulate the result of the EC count.
Outside the OKs there are several other indictments alleging the same sorts of conspiracies to interfere with the EC count. They have not yet charged those persons with having a larger goal (keeping Trump in power), but I would not be surprised if they are so charged eventually. (The OK investigation was clearly more advanced, especially with cooperators, as could be seen by anyone monitoring the criminal cases. Stand by Proud Boys your time in the barrel is likely coming soon.)
A bigger, and more critical, question is about coordination. Both groups could from public information be aware of the others and their goals. The legal and political team was certainly largely open about what they wanted. (It's hard not to when you file 60 lawsuits and publicly call for objections, replacement slates, and delays.) Likewise the plans of the militias to join the rally were made in plain sight on social media including plans by PBs to disguise themselves by dressing like "antifa" instead of their usual uniforms. So they could have worked toward the same goals without actually coordinating privately. Or maybe they did plan the whole thing together. We just don't know yet.
