2020 Election Fallout 13: Sedition And Arrests

[fraurosena]

3 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Ooh, I would love to see Hawley and some of his caucus members indicted.

 

I’m surprised they’re only just doing this now, a full two months after the insurrection. Within a day or two, people were pointing out how certain members of Congress were giving tours of the Capitol to insurrectionists in the days running up to the sixth. Everybody saw the Josh Hawley fist-pumping pic on the day of the insurrection. 

What took them so long that they’re just starting the investigation into members of Congress potential involvement now? Delaying this investigation has kept potential criminals in office where they can continue to do harm to the very foundations of the country. 

Investigating their involvement should have been in the cross-hairs from day one.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Rep. Eric Swalwell sues Trump over Jan. 6 riot, alleging he poses risk of ‘inciting future political violence’"

Quote

A House impeachment manager and intelligence subcommittee chairman filed a federal lawsuit Friday against former president Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudolph W. Giuliani and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), claiming they should be held liable for injuries and destruction caused by their incitement of the Jan. 6 mob assault on the Capitol.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who also sits on the judiciary and homeland security committees, alleged Trump and his fellow speakers at a rally near the White House that day were directly responsible for mobilizing a crowd of tens of thousands of pro-Trump supporters to march on the Capitol and priming them for violence.

Trump’s actions before and during the assault — in which at least 800 people broke into the Capitol, attacked police and delayed Congress’s confirmation of the presidential election results — “made clear he poses a risk of inciting future political violence,” the complaint alleged.

“As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants’ false and incendiary allegations of fraud and theft, and in direct response to the Defendants’ express calls for violence at the rally, a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol,” the 65-page suit asserted. “Many participants in the attack have since revealed that they were acting on what they believed to be former president Trump’s orders in service of their country.”

The lawsuit claims the four speakers violated the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan Act by conspiring to violently interfere in Congress’s constitutional duties and failing to act to stop the mob. It also accuses them of multiple counts of negligence under both federal and D.C. law, aiding and abetting, and infliction of emotional distress.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement, “Eric Swalwell is a low-life with no credibility.” Miller then repeated allegations in an Axios report from December that an alleged Chinese spy, Christine Fang, cozied up to Swalwell from 2012 to 2015 before he was briefed by U.S. intelligence officials about their concerns and cut off ties. Miller said “after failing miserably with two impeachment hoaxes,” Swalwell is engaging on witch hunt on behalf of the Chinese.

“It’s a disgrace that a compromised Member of Congress like Swalwell still sits on the House Intelligence Committee,” Miller said.

Brooks in a statement called the suit frivolous and a “meritless ploy.”

“I make no apologies whatsoever for fighting for accurate and honest elections,” Brooks said.

Trump Jr. and Giuliani did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The suit is the latest claim against Trump and top allies to assert they had a role in the storming of the Capitol through their actions that day and weeks of baseless allegations that November’s presidential election was stolen from him.

The NAACP last month sued Trump, Giuliani and two extremist groups whose members have been accused of leading the violence at the Capitol — the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers — on behalf of Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.). Guiliani, Trump’s campaign and others also face defamation claims related to their groundless post-election criticism of a former U.S. election cyber security official and vote counting machine maker.

Thursday’s lawsuit paints a fuller picture of Trump’s actions before and after the event, drawing on the House impeachment manager’s case against the former president, suing under a wider theory of negligence. The suit does not focus on extremists who planned for violence but the “many more [who] were there for a political rally” before the defendants and others alleged “whipp[ed] them into a frenzy and turn[ed] them into a violent mob that participated in the attack.”

“This is an important part of holding Trump — and the other Defendants — responsible for what happened on January 6th,” said attorney Matthew Kaiser, speaking for three firms representing Swalwell, a House impeachment manager and Democratic Steering and Policy Committee co-chair.

Trump was acquitted last month in his second impeachment trial as 57 senators — seven Republicans and all 50 Democrats — voted to convict him of inciting the mob’s attack. A two-thirds majority, 67 votes, was needed for a conviction. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voted for acquittal but said afterward that there was “no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible.”

Thursday’s lawsuit noted that McConnell also said Trump was not immune from civil liability for the event, which left five dead and resulted in 139 assaults on police officers. Republican Whip Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) added that Trump could be held accountable “in a court of law.”

The Democratic House members recounted how they and others were trapped in the House chamber as plainclothes officers barricaded doors and held off the mob at gunpoint, while other staff and members took shelter throughout the Capitol complex.

While hundreds of police, then Vice President Mike Pence, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and others “were put in mortal danger, and as the seat of American Democracy was desecrated by the insurgent mob,” the complaint contended, Trump was reported by those close to him as being “delighted,” “borderline enthusiastic,” and “confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was.”

The suit recounts how Trump, Giuliani and the others exhorted listeners at a rally near the White House before the Jan. 6 attempted insurrection, with Giuliani calling for “trial by combat” and Trump saying he would join marchers down Pennsylvania Avenue to give lawmakers “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” Trump had repeatedly promoted the rally, posting on Twitter that it “will be wild!”

He praised participants afterward, tweeting: “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Trump’s remarks followed his “lengthy history of normalizing violence” through rhetoric and social media, the suit contended. It asserted that Trump continued in a conspiracy to undermine confidence in election results once he fell behind by alleging, without evidence, that the election had been rigged and by pressuring elected officials, courts, and Congress to reject the results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan.

The complaint alleges that false and misleading election-related claims were given an exponential boost by Donald Trump Jr., who intentionally spread them on social media in an effort to “subvert the will of the people in the 2020 election.”

Brooks likewise echoed Trump by saying that he “lack[ed] faith this was an honest election,” that Congress could reject electoral votes of any state and “controls who becomes president” and that Trump did not lose Georgia, the suit recounts. At the Jan. 6 rally, Brooks told attendees that they were victims of a historic theft, that it was time to start “kicking a--,” and asked if they were ready perhaps to sacrifice even their lives for their country.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, a declaration that defendants violated the law and a requirement that they provide seven-days written notice before any future rally or public event in Washington on a day with any significant election or election certification event.

 

[clueliss]

 

[onekidanddone]

17 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I’m surprised they’re only just doing this now, a full two months after the insurrection. Within a day or two, people were pointing out how certain members of Congress were giving tours of the Capitol to insurrectionists in the days running up to the sixth. Everybody saw the Josh Hawley fist-pumping pic on the day of the insurrection. 

What took them so long that they’re just starting the investigation into members of Congress potential involvement now? Delaying this investigation has kept potential criminals in office where they can continue to do harm to the very foundations of the country. 

Investigating their involvement should have been in the cross-hairs from day one.

They probably have been under investigation since the get go, it just hasn’t been made public. Prosecutors have to be careful not to tip their hats. 

2 hours ago, clueliss said:

 

Only the best criminals. 

[47of74]

The QAnon shaman doofus didn’t help himself. 

Quote

The day after his first post-arrest television interview, Jacob “QAnon Shaman” Chansley found his words turned against him by federal prosecutors at a bail hearing on Friday afternoon, as a federal judge appeared taken aback that the appearance took place without his authorization.

“Can you tell me how that came about?” Senior Judge Royce Lamberth asked, pressing Chansley’s lawyer Albert Watkins on whether his law firm used “subterfuge” to skirt jailhouse restrictions.

Watkins denied any intent to end-run the court or the detention facility’s restrictions.

“It didn’t occur to me that I wouldn’t be able to capture the video image of my client in my office,” he said.

If I was the judge I would tell him you still want that “organic” food you better check with the court before you so much as breathe different.  

[nokidsmom]

On 3/5/2021 at 5:31 PM, onekidanddone said:

They probably have been under investigation since the get go, it just hasn’t been made public. Prosecutors have to be careful not to tip their hats. 

Once it was mentioned about the tours, I figured they would be looking into it immediately.  But yeah, it's typical to keep things under wraps at the risk of looking like nothing is being done.

Reminds me of years ago a local cop covered up his suicide by making it look like he was killed.   Everyone talked about the "local hero" while investigators and the coroner's office were already treating it as a suicide but couldn't talk about it.  Once the investigation was done, a lot of people were shocked at why these guys didn't speak out when they gave the cop a hero's funeral.   Ongoing investigation so they couldn't. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by nokidsmom

[Howl]

 Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers extremist group, has been  connected to the Jan 6 insurrection.  

CNN: Oath Keepers founder directed Capitol rioters on January 6, Justice Department says

Oath Keepers has been blocked from Twitter and FaceBook and their website is now down. 

In keeping with the "graduates of elite schools believe stupid shit," 

Quote

Yale Law School graduate Elmer Stewart Rhodes in 2009 founded the far-right Oath Keepers, a fiercely antigovernment, militaristic group that improbably claims more than 30,000 law enforcement officers, soldiers and military veterans as members.

Linky to Southern Poverty Law Center's entry on Rhodes and Oathkeepers here. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Ol' Jakey is making friends with the judge. /s "‘QAnon Shaman’ stays in jail as judge slams his arguments: ‘So frivolous as to insult the Court’s intelligence’"

Quote

Jacob Anthony Chansley, often referred to as the “QAnon Shaman” who donned horns and red-white-and-blue face paint to storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, has spent nearly two months pleading with a judge — and with the public in high-profile interviews — to let him go free.

He said on “60 Minutes+” last week that the Capitol riots were “not an attack on this country,” while his attorney has argued that he was actually a peaceful protester and wasn’t really armed when he was filmed storming the building with a spear.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth was not impressed.

On Monday, Lamberth denied Chansley’s motion for release in a scathing memorandum that rejected his arguments as “meritless,” “mistaken” and “so frivolous as to insult the Court’s intelligence.” The judge said that Chansley was too dangerous to release and continues to pose a threat to the public.

“The statements defendant has made to the public from jail show that defendant does not fully appreciate the severity of the allegations against him,” Lamberth wrote. “To the contrary, he believes that he — not the American people or members of Congress — was the victim on January 6th.”

Chansley is charged with violently entering the Capitol, among other felony charges, and prosecutors have urged the court to keep him in jail. Chansley’s attorney, Albert Watkins, did not immediately return a request for comment late Monday.

The 33-year-old Phoenix resident quickly became one of the most recognizable people charged in the Capitol riot, in part because of the eccentric costume he wore while sitting in Vice President Mike Pence’s chair. His connection to QAnon, an extremist ideology that spreads a sprawling set of false claims, has also highlighted the movement’s role in the Jan. 6 riot.

He made headlines soon after his arrest when he asked to be fed only organic foods, citing his obscure religious beliefs, and begged to be released after Watkins said he lost 20 pounds in jail. Watkins also made a public plea for a pardon from President Donald Trump, which was ignored. Chansley has filed multiple motions for release before his trial, but none have succeeded.

Last week, he made another public appeal on “60 Minutes+,” without permission from the jail, the U.S. Marshals Service or the court — a move that led Lamberth to scold him and his attorney in a hearing on Friday.

On Monday, Lamberth, a fiery presence in D.C. courts appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, eviscerated the alleged rioter’s claims one by one.

Chansley has repeatedly argued that he acted peacefully on Jan. 6 when he helped lead a pro-Trump mob into Congress in an insurrection that left one police officer and four others dead.

But the judge pointed to videos, photos, social media posts and police interviews that he said clearly contradict those claims. “Defendant’s perception of his actions on January 6th as peaceful, benign and well-intentioned shows a detachment from reality,” Lamberth wrote.

Video shows Chansley leading the breach of the U.S. Capitol while holding a six-foot pole topped with a spear tip, authorities said. Prosecutors added that Chansley forced his way into the Senate chamber, where he sat in Pence’s chair and left a note declaring “ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME JUSTICE IS COMING!”

In social media posts before the riot, Chansley also advocated for “identifying and then hanging those he believes to be traitors within the United States government,” according to court documents. FBI agents say that in interviews with them Chansley said he had plans to go to the Arizona Capitol and that he might engage in similar acts in the future.

In his motion for release, Chansley claimed that the spear he carried was actually a “flagpole” with a “finial spear” on its tip. He argued that the object should not be considered a weapon, because similar flagpoles hang within the halls of multiple federal buildings across the country.

The judge did not buy that reasoning.

“By defendant’s logic, knives would not be considered dangerous weapons due to their availability in government building cafeterias,” Lamberth wrote. “The Court declines to adopt defendant’s ‘readily-available-in-government-buildings’ standard for determining whether an object is a ‘dangerous weapon’.”

The judge also said that Chansley “blatantly lied” when he claimed that a police officer waved him into the building, a claim that was contradicted by security footage and other videos filed by prosecutors. He said Chansley’s suggestion that he entered the building in a calm “third wave” of rioters, only after the Capitol had been violently breached by others, was false.

“To the contrary, he quite literally spearheaded [the breach],” Lamberth wrote.

Finally, Lamberth rejected Watkins’s argument that he could not meet confidentially with his client because of coronavirus restrictions in the jail where Chansley is detained.

Lamberth called that assertion “remarkable,” pointing to the lengthy “60 Minutes+” interview that both Chansley and Watkins participated in last week.

“The issue is that when defense counsel is able to speak with his client, he squanders the opportunity for private conversations, preferring instead to conduct a public interview,” Lamberth wrote. “Such media appearances are undoubtedly conducive to defense counsel’s fame. But they are not at all conducive to an argument that the only way defense counsel could privately communicate with his client is if defendant were temporarily released.”

In fact, Chansley was able to privately contact Watkins over videoconference in a room with a closed door to participate in the “60 Minutes+” interview, the judge said.

“Given defense counsel’s decision to use what could have been a confidential videoconference on a media publicity stunt, that argument is so frivolous as to insult the Court’s intelligence,” Lamberth added.

After rebutting each of Chansley’s arguments, Lamberth denied his release on Monday.

The judge said Chansley showed a willingness to engage in violence and openly flout the law. There’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t do the same if he was released before the trial, which hasn’t yet been scheduled, Lamberth said.

“Defendant characterizes himself as a peaceful person who was welcomed into the Capitol building on January 6th by police officers,” the judge wrote. “The Court finds none of his many attempts to manipulate the evidence and minimize the seriousness of his actions persuasive.”

 

[47of74]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Ol' Jakey is making friends with the judge. /s "‘QAnon Shaman’ stays in jail as judge slams his arguments: ‘So frivolous as to insult the Court’s intelligence’"

 

Yeah I saw that too and was just coming here to remark on that.  Next time that guy who sat at Speaker Pelosi's desk whines about having to stay in jail while everyone else goes home they'll be able to call bullshit on that cause people are being made to stay in jail.

[Ozlsn]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The Court declines to adopt defendant’s ‘readily-available-in-government-buildings’ standard for determining whether an object is a ‘dangerous weapon’.”

I'll take "phrases I did not expect to see eminating from a judge for $1000 please Alex".

[GreyhoundFan]

More charges:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

What a charming fellow /s "Navy investigators found contractor in Capitol riot was known as a white supremacist"

Quote

A U.S. Army reservist who participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was widely known as a white supremacist and regularly discussed his hatred of Jews while working at a New Jersey-based naval facility, according to new evidence revealed by federal prosecutors late Friday.

The reservist, Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, who worked as a security contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle and held a secret-level security clearance, was arrested and charged Jan. 15 for allegedly breaching the Capitol. At the time, prosecutors described him as an “avowed white supremacist” and Nazi sympathizer, a determination based in part on evidence provided by a confidential source to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and a YouTube channel in which Hale-Cusanelli expressed those views.

But Friday’s filing — a bid to keep Hale-Cusanelli in prison while awaiting trial — included newly revealed results of an extensive NCIS investigation following Hale-Cusanelli’s arrest. That investigation included interviews with 44 colleagues at NWS Earle conducted on Jan. 20 and 21.

Of those interviewed, 34 agreed Hale-Cusanelli held “extremist or radical views pertaining to the Jewish people, minorities, and women.” One contractor colleague said he discussed his dislike for Jews every day. A supervisor told investigators she had to admonish him for sporting a “Hitler“ mustache (images of which prosecutors extracted from Hale-Cusanelli’s phone).

“A Navy Petty Officer stated that Defendant talked constantly about Jewish people and remembered Defendant saying ‘Hitler should have finished the job,’” according to prosecutors’ summary of the report.

The newly disclosed interview results are the latest evidence that the Jan. 6 insurrection, when a mob of thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election results, included a contingent of white supremacists — in addition to extremist militia and paramilitary groups who used the cover of the mob to breach the Capitol.

Hale-Cusanelli’s case has received attention because of his role in the Army reserves and active employment at a military facility. The new evidence underscores a challenge policymakers have begun confronting on Capitol Hill and across military leadership: how to combat extremist ideologies among service members. Many former military and police were among the rioters.

Prosecutors disclosed the NCIS investigation results in part to rebut a letter of support from one of Hale-Cusanelli’s supervisors at NWS Earle, Sgt. John Getz, submitted by defense lawyers to support Hale-Cusanelli’s release on bond. In a two-page letter, Getz told the court that he was “appalled at how [Hale-Cusanelli] was slandered in the press in regards to him being a ‘white supremacist.’"

“I have never known him to be this way. I know that our co-workers would agree,” Getz wrote, adding “Never have I seen Mr. Hale treat any of his African-American co-workers differently than anybody else, nor have I heard any distasteful jokes or language leave his mouth.”

But prosecutors say Getz’ letter contradicts his own statements to NCIS investigators about Hale-Cusanelli’s conduct. Getz told NCIS that Hale-Cusanelli “would make racial jokes and wouldn’t be quiet about it.” He said he knew Hale-Cusanelli was a Nazi sympathizer and Holocaust denier but that “nothing about Hale-Cusanelli’s statements struck him as dangerous.”

Getz also recalled that Hale-Cusanelli would “walk up to new people and ask ‘You’re not Jewish, are you?’”

“He described Hale-Cussnelli’s demeanor as ‘joking but not,'” according to the summary of the report.

As a result of the contradictions — and the fact that the letter of support was undated and unsigned — NCIS investigators visited Getz on March 9, prosecutors revealed. In an interview, he acknowledged writing the letter and that it contradicted his statements to NCIS in January.

“Sergeant Getz stated that he did not feel compelled to include his observations of Defendant’s conduct, as reported to NCIS, in his letter to the Court,” prosecutors said. “Sergeant Getz elaborated that he wanted to ‘speak positively’ about Defendant for the bond hearing, and because he was not personally offended by Defendant’s conduct.”

Hale-Cusanelli’s lawyer, Jonathan Zucker, arguing for his pretrial release earlier this month, emphasized that Hale-Cusanelli had not been charged with committing any violence on Jan. 6, joined no anti-government groups and is accused of little more than entering the building and verbally harassing a Capitol police officer who deployed pepper spray at the crowd.

Zucker argued that the government’s characterization of Hale-Cusaneli as a white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer was inaccurate.

“In fact, during an interview of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli by FBI agents, he denied this when he stated that, ‘he is not a Nazi ...’ and ‘he is not a white nationalist or a white supremacist,’” Zucker said, citing Hale-Cusanelli’s FBI interview summary from February. “There is no evidence Mr. Hale-Cusanelli is a member of any white supremacist organizations.”

He also called Hale-Cusanelli’s YouTube channel “controversial,” but primarily about local New Jersey politics. And he said the government’s discovery of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries” at Hale-Cusanelli’s home “does not mention that there were hundreds of other books in Mr. Hale-Cusanelli’s collection.”

Prosecutors rebutted those claims, revealing that Hale-Cusanelli’s phone was packed with anti-Semitic and racist content. And they contend his views were the animating impetus behind a “fantasy of participating in another Civil War.” His discharge from the Army and debarment from work at NWS Earle as a result of his alleged actions would leave him more time to pursue those goals if released pending trial, prosecutors say.

“If nothing else,” Assistant U.S. Attorney James Nelson wrote, “the events of January 6, 2021, exposed the size and determination of right-wing fringe groups in the United States, and their willingness to place themselves and others in danger to further their political ideology.”

 

[fraurosena]

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

held a secret-level security clearance,

How could he get and then keep a security level clearance, when he was...

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

an “avowed white supremacist” and Nazi sympathizer, a determination based in part on evidence provided by a confidential source to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and a YouTube channel in which Hale-Cusanelli expressed those views

... publicly expressing these hateful— and eminently bribable— views?

[47of74]

Here's a YouTube about the contractor

Yeah I agree that white supremacy is one of the biggest threats facing us as a country.

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

Here's a YouTube about the contractor

Yeah I agree that white supremacy is one of the biggest threats facing us as a country.

Not sure I can say - even on FJ - what I hope happens to him, assuming he's going to prison.  It ain't nice.

I've got exactly zero tolerance for pro-Hitler garbage.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Two arrested in assault on police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died after Jan. 6 Capitol riot"

Quote

Federal authorities have arrested and charged two men with assaulting U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick with an unknown chemical spray during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot but have not determined whether the exposure caused his death.

Julian Elie Khater, 32, of Pennsylvania and George Pierre Tanios, 39 of Morgantown, W.Va., were arrested Sunday and are expected to appear in federal court Monday.

“Give me that bear s---,” Khater allegedly said to Tanios on video recorded at the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol at 2:14 p.m., where Sicknick and other officers were standing guard behind metal bicycle racks, arrest papers say.

About nine minutes later, after Khater said he had been sprayed, Khater is seen on video discharging a canister of a toxic substance into the face of Sicknick and two other officers, arrest papers allege.

Khater and Tanios are charged with nine counts including assaulting three officers with a deadly weapon — Sicknick, another U.S. Capitol Police officer identified as C. Edwards, and a D.C. police officer identified as B. Chapman. They are also charged with civil disorder and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The charges are punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Prosecutors filed charges after tipsters contacted the FBI allegedly identifying Khater and Tanios from wanted images released by the bureau from surveillance video and officer-worn body camera footage, the complaint said. It said the men grew up together in New Jersey, and that Khater had worked in State College, Pa., and Tanios owns a business in Morgantown.

Tanios’s sister, Maria Boutros, a real estate agent in New Jersey, said when reached by phone Monday that her brother “was arrested for something he didn’t do. He didn’t do it. He would never do that.”

Khater was arrested Sunday in Newark, N.J., according to an unsealed arrest warrant signed by U.S. Magistrate Zia Faruqui on March 6. Family for Khater could not be immediately reached.

Questions remain about whether anyone will be held criminally responsible in Sicknick’s death. Autopsy results for Sicknick were still pending as of Monday, according to a spokeswoman for the deputy mayor of public safety in D.C. Without a cause of death, his case has not been established as a homicide, although charging papers allege that evidence of an assault on Sicknick is clear on video.

An FBI agent alleged in charging papers that publicly available video showed that after Khater asked for the bear spray, Tanios replied, “Hold on, hold on, not yet, not yet … it’s still early.” The agent said the exchange showed that the two allegedly were “working in concert and had a plan to use the toxic spray against law enforcement.”

The agent asserted that the men “appeared to time the deployment of chemical substances to coincide with other rioters’ efforts to forcibly remove the bike rack barriers that were preventing the rioters from moving closer to the Capitol building,” using their hands, ropes and straps.

All three officers were temporarily blinded and incapacitated for more than 20 minutes “as a result of being sprayed in the face with an unknown substance by Khater,” and Edwards sustained scarring beneath her eyes for several weeks, charging papers said.

Charging papers include a photograph that the FBI agent said allegedly shows Khater “holding a white can with a black top that appears to be a can of chemical spray.” It adds that the officers reported the substance to be “as strong as, if not stronger than, any version of pepper spray they had been exposed to” in their police training.

Sicknick died at a hospital about 9:30 p.m. Jan. 7, one day after 139 police officers were reportedly assaulted by an angry mob of Trump supporters wielding sledge hammers, baseball bats, hockey sticks, crutches and flagpoles. At least 800 people entered the Capitol after a smaller number forced entry, police have testified, seeking to block Congress from confirming the November presidential election victory of Joe Biden.

Sicknick, 42, who grew up in South River, N.J., became the third officer to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda in early February, where fellow officers, lawmakers and President Biden and first lady Jill Biden came to pay respects to the 13-year Capitol Police veteran and former New Jersey Air National Guard member.

Authorities have included Sicknick among five people who died as a result of the riot. The four others were civilians — Ashli Babbitt, 35, who was shot by an officer, and three others who died in the chaos.

Referring to Sicknick, a House-passed article of impeachment charged Trump with inciting insurrection, alleging that members of a crowd he addressed “injured and killed law enforcement personnel.” Trump was acquitted after 57 senators voted to convict him for inciting the attack, 10 short of the two-thirds majority needed.

Then-acting U.S. attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen said in a statement shortly afterward that Sicknick died of “the injuries he suffered defending the U.S. Capitol,” echoing a statement by Capitol Police.

The Capitol Police said that Sicknick “was injured while physically engaging with protesters” and collapsed after he had returned to his office following the riot.

Investigators determined that he did not die of blunt force trauma, people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. After more than two months, no autopsy or toxicology report has been made public.

The case remains a top priority for investigators — including the FBI, Capitol Police and D.C. police, which handles all deaths in the District — with Rosen saying authorities would “spare no resources in investigating and holding accountable those responsible.”

The day after Sicknick died, his family issued a statement noting “many details regarding Wednesday’s events and the direct causes of Brian’s injuries remain unknown and our family asks the public and the press to respect our wishes in not making Brian’s passing a political issue.”

That statement was in part an attempt to quell rumors circulating on social media that purported to show videos of attacks on Sicknick, and possible suspects.

The family added: “Brian is a hero and that is what we would like people to remember.”

Sicknick’s family has not spoken publicly, and their spokeswoman said in February they decided against conducting interviews.

Sicknick, of northern New Jersey, is survived by his older brothers, Ken and Craig, parents Charles and Gladys Sicknick, and his girlfriend of 11 years, Sandra Garza.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) paid tribute to Sicknick on the Senate floor, saying the officer understood “that wearing that uniform, wearing that badge, that you had a sacred duty to protect this sacred space.”

The senator described Sicknick’s death as a “crime” that “demands the full attention of federal law enforcement.” He said “when white supremacists attacked our nation’s capital, they took the life of one of our officers. They spilled his blood, they took a son away from his parents. They took a sibling away from their brothers.”

Sicknick joined the New Jersey Air National Guard in 1997 and had been assigned to the 108th Air Refueling Wing out of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey. The Guard said he deployed to Saudi Arabia in 1999 and to Kyrgyzstan in 2003.

Though Sicknick supported Trump, those who encountered him said his political views did not align neatly with one political party. Messages he sent to his congressman, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), were “polite and measured,” according to the lawmaker’s spokesman. He opposed impeachment and favored gun control. He was concerned about animal cruelty and the national debt.

During the ceremony honoring Sicknick at the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) described him as a “peacekeeper, not only in duty but in spirit.”

 

[WiseGirl]

Well this goes to show how much planning went into this "rally". Large caches of weapons elected officials that were complicit and military/police leaders that did not act need to get charged, expelled, and not allowed to hold public office including OFM, CancunCruz, and asshole Hawley.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Army initially pushed to deny District’s request for National Guard before Jan. 6"

Quote

The Army initially pushed to reject the D.C. government’s request for a modest National Guard presence ahead of the Jan. 6 rally that led to the Capitol riot, underscoring the deep reluctance of some higher-ups at the Pentagon to involve the military in security arrangements that day.

In an internal draft memo obtained by The Washington Post, the Army said the U.S. military shouldn’t be needed to help police with traffic and crowd management, as city officials had requested, unless more than 100,000 demonstrators were expected.

The draft memo also said the request should be denied because a federal agency hadn’t been identified to run the preparations and on-the-day operations; the resources of other federal agencies hadn’t been exhausted; and law enforcement was “far better suited” for the task.

The Army leadership made its position clear in deliberations at the Pentagon the weekend before the event, citing those reasons among others, according to four people familiar with the discussions, who like others in this report spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Defense Department matters.

The Army ultimately relented after facing pressure from acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, and realizing that District officials weren’t going to turn to the Justice Department for help instead, as the Army had wanted, the people said.

Army Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy agreed to support the request, so long as a lead agency was identified and all other federal agencies “exhausted their assets to support these events,” according to the recommendation he gave in a revised final memo to Miller, who approved the request.

Still, the Army’s initial impulse to consider refusing military involvement in the security arrangements — even though the Guard is trained to assist law enforcement during large-scale protests and has done so regularly for decades in the District — shows the extraordinary steps officials at the Pentagon were taking to stay away from what was shaping up to be a politically toxic and volatile moment for the nation.

Col. Cathy Wilkinson, a spokeswoman for the Army, said in a statement that the Pentagon provided 340 members of the D.C. Guard to help with street closures and crowd control as asked.

“Clearly, the Mayor’s request was approved and supported,” Wilkinson said. “The draft memo was not signed or approved. It is customary for the Army staff to provide options for Army senior leaders to inform their decision making process.”

The Army’s previously undisclosed draft memo advocating against the deployment ahead of the pro-Trump rally sheds light on the thinking of leaders involved in the security arrangements, which permitted one of the biggest national security failures since the 9/11 attacks.

In the weeks since the riot, top Pentagon officials have emphasized that the Capitol Police and federal agencies didn’t request military backup before the event, leaving the Defense Department unprepared to respond rapidly when the situation got out of control. The draft memo, however, suggests that the Army leadership also had been disinclined to get involved from the start.

Reluctance at the Pentagon about the deployment of the D.C. Guard during the preparations also raises questions about when it is appropriate to use the U.S. military on domestic soil. While top Pentagon officials have emphasized that military force should be used to support domestic law enforcement only as a last resort, that maxim has traditionally been understood to apply to active-duty forces — not the National Guard.

Unlike in the 50 states, where governors control the National Guard, the D.C. Guard answers to the president, who delegates authority to the defense secretary and Army secretary. The mayor of the District of Columbia can only request that the federal government deploy the D.C. Guard.

The thinking of Pentagon leaders before and during the riot is now facing scrutiny from lawmakers who have accused the Defense Department of reacting too slowly to the Capitol Police’s 11th-hour plea for military assistance, as rioters breached the Capitol in a catastrophic security failure.

Despite the unanswered questions, the political appointees and generals who were leading the Pentagon on Jan. 6 haven’t been called to testify publicly on the matter before Congress, as lawmakers attempt to understand how the Capitol could have been left so vulnerable to attack.

Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. Guard, told lawmakers on March 3 that after receiving a panicked call from the chief of the Capitol Police, he had to wait three hours and 19 minutes before the Pentagon allowed him to send his available forces to the building.

Even when the situation spiraled out of control, and the Capitol Police pleaded for backup from the military, Army Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt and Lt. Gen. Charles A. Flynn, the brother of the former national security adviser, articulated why it would be better for the military not to be directly involved, according to Walker. Piatt and Flynn were not part of the D.C. Guard’s chain of command.

Pentagon officials have denied that their response was delayed, describing the arrival of the D.C. Guard about three hours after the call for help as a quick rollout, considering that the military hadn’t been postured or asked to provide backup to the Capitol Police if needed.

“We were asked to support the Capitol from a cold start after it already had been overrun and are being criticized for how we fast we responded,” said a former Pentagon official involved in the events that day. “We are not like law enforcement units whose job it is to police the streets.”

Fears of over-militarization

By the time of the riot, Pentagon leaders had become skittish about using the military to support law enforcement on domestic soil.

Last June, Milley and then-defense secretary Mark T. Esper were excoriated by lawmakers and retired military personnel for appearing alongside President Donald Trump as federal law enforcement cleared racial-justice protesters near the White House using force and pepper balls.

They also faced blowback more broadly for militarizing Washington, with more than 5,000 National Guard troops in the city and 1,600 active-duty forces amassed nearby, in response to the unrest that followed the police killing of George Floyd.

The D.C. Guard flew helicopters low over protesters, and the Justice Department put uniformed agents with no insignia from the Bureau of Prisons on the streets, enraging city officials.

The fallout from the Nov. 3 election deepened the reluctance at the Pentagon.

Trump ousted Esper after the vote, raising worries that the president was paving the way for extrajudicial action using the military. Days later, Milley gave a pointed speech, saying members of the U.S. military “do not take an oath to a king or queen, tyrant or dictator,” but rather to the Constitution.

Still, Trump began taking increasingly extreme measures to remain in power. After his former national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, suggested that Trump could “rerun” the Nov. 3 vote, all 10 living former defense secretaries penned a letter warning the Pentagon to keep the military out of the presidential transition.

The military as a last resort

On Dec. 31, city officials, also wary of a repeat of June, submitted a narrow request to the Pentagon for help from the D.C. Guard with traffic and crowd control on Jan. 6, which the D.C. Guard determined would require 340 personnel.

The Army thought the proposal was light on details and didn’t want to authorize it after a first-blush review that resulted in the draft memo, a former senior Pentagon official said, noting that the Army and senior leadership were “scarred by the experiences of June” and that the military has long been hesitant to deploy for domestic matters involving law enforcement.

Senior officials were “very cognizant” that sending in the military “could be misconstrued by so many people as a power grab and play into the narrative that the military was on the cusp of overthrowing duly elected officials to redo an election,” the former official said.

Asked to explain the Army’s position, the other former Pentagon official said: “It is customary practice that law enforcement assets have to be utilized and near exhaustion before DoD will support operations. It is not an official policy but is designed to reinforce that military should be used as a last resort.”

But while top Pentagon leaders have stressed since June that active-duty troops should be used to support domestic law enforcement only as a last resort, the National Guard is used regularly for such missions across the nation.

District officials routinely ask for help from the D.C. Guard for major events, mostly to help with traffic control to free up police officers for other duties.

The D.C. Guard, for example, helped with last year’s July 4 event and aided the city in handling a march on Washington led by the Rev. Al Sharpton last August. The Guard even deployed to prevent large crowds from gathering and spreading the coronavirus during the 2020 cherry blossom festivities.

A District official familiar with the security plans on Jan. 6 couldn’t recall any historical example of the Defense Department rejecting the city’s request to deploy the D.C. Guard.

During a preparatory call ahead of the pro-Trump rally, McCarthy suggested that the city get help from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons, according to the District official. District officials refused, citing concerns they had with federal agents last summer.

City officials thought the D.C. Guard was a better fit, calling the force “a tactical ready unit” that was familiar with the area and had worked with local law enforcement regularly during large-scale events, according to the District official.

According to the former senior Pentagon official, top defense officials discussed the request on calls over the holiday weekend before the Jan. 6 event. Miller had “strong inclinations to support the mayor,” the former senior official said, and eventually Pentagon leaders came to a consensus to grant the request.

The Army approved the request because District officials refused to ask for extra help from federal law enforcement as Army officials had wanted, according to the former Pentagon official.

“It was obvious we didn’t want to find ourselves in a situation where [the D.C. police] needed help and we denied it,” the former Pentagon official said.

After the Pentagon approved the Guard mission, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bower (D) sent a letter on Jan. 5 confirming that the city had not requested additional personnel from federal law enforcement. She said the D.C. police were “well trained and prepared” for the event.

Demand for a lead federal agency

The Army leadership also felt strongly that the military shouldn’t be used unless a federal agency was designated to lead the activities.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told Miller and acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen that the Justice Department would serve as the “lead” agency, according to people familiar with the arrangement.

As the “federal lead,” the Justice Department essentially was in charge of coordination for the various agencies, a federal law enforcement official familiar with the preparations said.

The designation pertained only to the Justice Department, the FBI, the Defense Department and the Interior Department, the official said, and did not cover the Capitol, where Capitol Police oversee security.

The designation was so vague that officials in the District government and at the D.C. Guard didn’t even know that the Justice Department was functioning as the “lead agency.” The Justice Department declined to comment.

The arrangement fell far short of what happens when the Department of Homeland Security designates a National Special Security Event. On those occasions, such as during the presidential inauguration or the State of the Union address, there is a clear command structure, in which the Secret Service sits atop all the other federal and local agencies. The Jan. 6 event wasn’t declared an NSSE.

The former Pentagon official said the Army leadership wanted to ensure there was a command-and-control architecture for appropriate decision-making and information sharing before and during the event. The official said the Justice Department fell short of ensuring that.

The D.C. Guard deployment also went ahead, even though federal resources hadn’t been exhausted, as McCarthy had stipulated as a condition in his final memo recommending approval.

Ultimately, the Army leadership approved the Guard mission because it didn’t want to put the District government in a tough place, the former Pentagon official said.

 

[clueliss]

 

[Xan]

There was an article on another political site (and right now I can't remember where it was) that had an alternate view of the lack of assistance from the army.  That writer stated that Trump had initially wanted "10,000 troops" in DC that day.  If that's true, then Trump and his people weren't planning on withholding security forces.  The writer thought it might be possible that someone in the pentagon hierarchy didn't want Trump playing with the soldiers and using them for a coup.  I think the mayor of DC was also worried about this and that's why she didn't request army help beforehand.

I don't know whether this is a valid theory or not but I did find it interesting.

 

[fraurosena]

52 minutes ago, Xan said:

There was an article on another political site (and right now I can't remember where it was) that had an alternate view of the lack of assistance from the army.  That writer stated that Trump had initially wanted "10,000 troops" in DC that day.  If that's true, then Trump and his people weren't planning on withholding security forces.  The writer thought it might be possible that someone in the pentagon hierarchy didn't want Trump playing with the soldiers and using them for a coup.  I think the mayor of DC was also worried about this and that's why she didn't request army help beforehand.

I don't know whether this is a valid theory or not but I did find it interesting.

 

An interesting theory made all the more plausible by Gen. Milley's comments about the military not playing a role in the election, and that the military takes an oath to the Constitution not an individual.

[47of74]

Not surprising. 

Quote

The majority of defendants charged in the Capitol assault on Jan. 6 not only shared an interest in reversing the 2020 election results and keeping Donald Trump as president but also had something else in common—the group had a deepened history of financial hardship.

Nearly 60 percent of the people faced with charges for the Capitol riot had previous money difficulties, including bankruptcies, unpaid tax bills and other debts, lawsuits involving unpaid debts or notices of eviction or foreclosure, according to an analysis conducted by The Washington Post of the 125 defendants who had publicly available financial information. 

The Washington Post also uncovered that the group’s bankruptcy rate stood at 18 percent—almost double the national average—and that 20 percent of them faced home eviction or foreclosure at one point.  

One of the Capitol rioters—Jenna Ryan, the Texas real estate agent who arrived to Washington, DC amid the electoral vote certification via a private jet—filed for bankruptcy in 2012, almost lost her home to foreclosure before that and was still paying off $37,000 for unpaid federal taxes when she was arrested for her involvement in the attacks.

 

[47of74]

More of that bullshit about the military coming to fuck face's rescue

Quote

During an appearance on the Elijah Streams program this Tuesday, Tennessee pastor, Trump cultist, and self-proclaimed “prophet” Jeff Jansen participated in the QAnon time-honored tradition of kicking the can down the road when it comes to Donald Trump’s (any day now) reinstatement as president.

“He stepped aside, he never conceded, and the last defense is [the] military,” Jansen continued, regurgitating the tired QAnon claims that have never come to pass. “Actually, the military is in control right now and they’ve already made their determination. Now it’s about execution. Now it’s about returning civil power after … the rightly, duly elected president from this past election comes forward and they expose the corruption, there will be civil power restored to the United States and that president will be Donald J. Trump.”

 

[Howl]

Wasn't yesterday (March 20) the day Trump was REALLY supposed to be inaugurated, according to Q and various other wingnuts? 

Also, if a large number of the arrestees had financial problems before, being arrested, bail, lawyers fees, likely being fired and possibly facing divorce, it's only going to get a LOT worse. 

[Xan]

6 hours ago, 47of74 said:

More of that bullshit about the military coming to fuck face's rescue

 

I actually watched this.  His stupidity rivals that of our favorite, Bro Gary Hawkins.  I can't believe that anyone thinks he's a prophet.  As far as I can see, he's just another con man.  He's decided that he's too good to just drive a truck for a living and he's looking for donations to his fake ministry.