Tag: riots

Jan. 6 rioters who were passive can be convicted of disorderly conduct, court rules

Rioters who were passive during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, but can be convicted of disorderly conduct, a federal court ruled Friday.

The case focused on a rioter, Russell Alford, who received a year-long sentence for his “role” in the insurrection. He was attempting to challenge “the reasonableness of his sentence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support two of his convictions, both of which charged him with engaging in ‘disorderly or disruptive conduct.’”

“The trial evidence indicated that, during Alford’s brief time within the Capitol, he was neither violent nor destructive,” D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in a Friday filing. “Nevertheless, we affirm his convictions because a jury could rationally find that his unauthorized presence in the Capitol as part of an unruly mob contributed to the disruption of the Congress’s electoral certification and jeopardized public safety.”

The ruling came down a day before the third anniversary of the Capitol riot. Over 1,200 people have faced federal crime charges over the insurrection.

“[I]t is equally clear from caselaw that even passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly,” the Friday filing read.

Prosecutors are still on the hunt for a minimum of 80 suspects and whoever placed pipe bombs at the offices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC). The FBI has put up a $500,000 reward for the perpetrator.

Keep reading

Was the Capitol Riot an ‘Insurrection,’ and Did Trump ‘Engage in’ It?

“It’s self-evident,” President Joe Biden told reporters on Wednesday. “You saw it all. He certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero.”

Biden was referring to the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent ruling that Donald Trump is disqualified from that state’s presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was originally aimed at barring former Confederates from returning to public office after the Civil War. As relevant here, Section 3 says “no person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Biden, whose reelection bid would get a big boost from Trump’s disqualification, takes it for granted that the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol qualified as an “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, and he says there is “no question” that Trump “engaged in” that insurrection. But the Colorado Supreme Court’s reasoning on both of those crucial points is iffy, and I say that as someone who thought Trump richly deserved his second impeachment, which was provoked by his reckless behavior before and during the riot.

On its face, that impeachment supports the court’s decision, which was joined by four of seven justices. The article of impeachment, after all, charged Trump with “incitement of insurrection” and explicitly cited Section 3. But that debatable characterization was not necessary to show that Trump was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Trump’s misconduct included his refusal to accept Biden’s victory, his persistent peddling of his stolen-election fantasy, his pressure on state and federal officials to embrace that fantasy, the incendiary speech he delivered to his supporters before the riot, and his failure to intervene after a couple thousand of those supporters invaded the Capitol, interrupting the congressional ratification of the election results. All of that was more than enough to conclude that Trump had egregiously violated his oath to “faithfully execute” his office and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” It was more than enough to justify his conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors in the Senate, which would have prevented him from running for president again.

Achieving the same result under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, by contrast, does require concluding that Trump “engaged in insurrection.” But in reaching that conclusion, the Colorado Supreme Court never actually defines insurrection.

“At oral argument,” the opinion notes, “President Trump’s counsel, while not providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of related conduct.” But the court does not offer “a specific definition” either: “It suffices for us to conclude that any definition of ‘insurrection’ for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.”

That description suggests a level of intent and coordination that seems at odds with the chaotic reality of the Capitol riot. Some rioters were members of groups, such as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, that thought the use of force was justified to keep Trump in office. But even in those cases, federal prosecutors had a hard time proving a specific conspiracy to “hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power” by interrupting the electoral vote tally on January 6. And the vast majority of rioters seem to have acted spontaneously, with no clear goal in mind other than expressing their outrage at an election outcome they believed was the product of massive fraud.

Keep reading

Jan. 6 rioter who was sentenced in secret provided information to authorities, court papers say

A Pennsylvania man who was sentenced in secret for his role in the U.S. Capitol riot cooperated with authorities investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack and an unrelated case, according to court documents unsealed this week.

The documents provide insight into the unusual secrecy in the case of Samuel Lazar, who had been released from federal custody in September after completing his sentence in his Capitol riot case. His case remained under seal even after his release, so there was no public record of a conviction or sentence.

The records unsealed this week show that Lazar, of Ephrata, Pennsylvania, admitted to spraying a chemical irritant at police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol and to using a bullhorn to encourage other rioters to take officers’ weapons as he yelled, “Let’s get their guns!” He pleaded guilty to assaulting officers using a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to 30 months in prison during a sealed hearing last March.

More than 1,200 people have been charged with Jan. 6-related crimes, and hundreds of them have pleaded guilty. But it is rare for records of a guilty plea and sentence to be sealed, even in cases involving a defendant’s cooperation. Court hearings and records are supposed to be open and available to the public unless there’s a compelling need for secrecy.

The documents show that prosecutors asked the judge last year to sentence Lazar to a prison term below the federal guidelines range, citing Lazar’s “fulsome” cooperation with the government. That included providing “valuable information” to authorities investigating the Jan. 6 attack, prosecutors said in court papers.

An attorney for Lazar declined to comment on Thursday. She told the judge that her client’s behavior on Jan. 6 “was completely out of character for him as he is extremely respectful, law abiding citizen who has deep respect and appreciation for law enforcement.”

Keep reading

DC Police Officer Byron Evans Who Sued Republicans Under KKK Act for Racist Attacks on Jan. 6 – Now Admits He Was Watching it on TV that Day

Officer Byron Evans and seven black Capitol Police Officers sued Brandon Straka and several Trump supporters under the KKK Act for “racist” attacks on him and seven other police officers on January 6, 2021.

Officer Evans sued Brandon Straka and Roger Stone who was not even at the US Capitol that day along with leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and others.

Brandon Straka released video on Wednesday of Officer Byron Evans admitting he was watching the January 6 protests on a TV in a room in a secure location.

CNN let the cat out of the bag:

CNN reporter: Did you ever think this might be a life or death situation for you?

Officer Byron Evans: I remember specifically thinking it when I was on the floor. I remember thinking all that stuff. Like, Byron, this is the day. All those times you’ve given thought on what you would do. You’re doing it.

CNN hack: 4 hours. Evans and the senators watched the riot on tv from a secured location.

Officer Byron Evans: I just remember the anger I felt when I saw those images. Busting windows, climbing the walls and stuff like that. It was an audible gasp in the room.

Poor Officer Evans. He must have been p*ssing himself during the BLM riots that summer! Poor guy.

Keep reading

Blaze journalist who covered Jan 6 to be charged by Biden DOJ

Journalist for The Blaze Steve Baker has been notified by the FBI that he is going to be charged by Biden’s Department of Justice for his work covering the protest and riot at the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. He was told to surrender to authorities on Tuesday and has not yet been made aware of the charges.

He said that he entered the Capitol on that day, “like about 60 other journalists, but “Did no damage or parading or violence.”

Info Wars journalist Owen Shroyer just served a nearly 2 month sentence for having been on the Capitol grounds on that day. Other journalists have also been arrested and tried. 

Far-left journalist John Sullivan, who sold his footage of J6 to mainstream media outlets, was also charged after covering the event. He was charged with Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Civil Disorder; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building; and Aiding and Abetting, per the Department of Justice.

Keep reading

The “Why” Is Now Obvious

The release of more video and cell phone tapes from January 6 by new House Speaker Mike Johnson shows further evidence of a setup by the Feds that their so-called insurrection was staged.

All sides will acknowledge the fact that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to have extra security on January 6.

However, there is a bigger question that no one, Left, Right or Center, seems to be asking:

Why?

Why wouldn’t Pelosi want to be sure that “Democracy was secure” so that Vice President Mike Pence could certify the Electoral College vote? Making sure that the Capitol was safe and sound would mean that Joe Biden’s presidency would be assured. After all, the election of 2020 was “the most secure in American history,” so why wouldn’t you want that obvious fact certified and rubber-stamped by Congress?

The only obvious answer to why Pelosi wanted to guarantee a riotous breach of the Capitol was what she knew would be the actual results of the Electoral College vote if the process were allowed to run its course. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, among others, had previously made noise about challenging election results in several swing states. And despite what many have debated, there was tangible potential for Pence to delay the certification for a couple of weeks to look into the evidence of significant vote-tampering and fraud.

How do we know that the vice president had the authority to stop the certification? Well, because the ability for the position of vice president to do just that was changed by a vote of Congress relatively recently after the events of January 6. Why would you change something that did not need to be changed?

So, at the time, Pelosi knew that a halt in the proceedings would lead to an investigation. And an investigation would lead to those questions being covered, albeit reluctantly, by the entire mainstream media. What actually transpired over the three additional days of counting in the 2020 Election would be exposed. And the narrative of the most secure election in American history would crumble in front of the eyes of everybody in this country and across the globe.

To this day, then, as the new Speaker takes a serious look at the events of January 6 and as America and the world itself can see exposed in the recently-released video evidence, we must address what happened that particular day – specifically, the reason that the crowds of tens of thousands had gathered. The patriots in Washington, D.C. showed up to highlight one very important message: “Stop the Steal.”

Pelosi’s action – as well as inaction – diverted attention from that message; she refocused our sights on the word “insurrection” in order to keep President Donald Trump from returning to the White House as a result of the true, states’ election totals of 2020. And the Left continues nonstop that charade in order to keep Trump from the White House in 2024.

Keep reading

Jan. 6 Committee Tapes Have Disappeared, Says House Republican

The disappearance of videotapes of witness interviews conducted by the Democratic-led House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack has alarmed the chairman of the House panel that replaced it.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee that is currently investigating security lapses connected to the Capitol riot and potential ramifications for upcoming criminal trials, is questioning the disappearance of the video evidence.

“All of the videotapes of all depositions are gone,” Mr. Loudermilk told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show Thursday night.

“We found out about this early in the investigation when I received a call from someone who was looking for some information off one of the videotapes, and we started searching, and we had none,” Mr. Loudermilk explained.

“I wrote a letter to Bennie Thompson asking for them. And he confirmed that they did not preserve those types. He didn’t feel that they had to.”

According to Mr. Loudermilk, the videotapes met the requirements for congressional evidence under House rules because some of the segments were shown at hearings, and the now-defunct J6 committee, led by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss), ought to have kept all of the recordings.

“According to House rules, you have to preserve any data and information and documents that are used in an official proceeding, which they did. They (J6 Democrats) actually aired portions of these tapes on their televised hearings, which means they had to keep those,” Mr. Loudermilk said.

“Yet he chose not to.”

The lawmaker explained why he believes this is an important piece of evidence to maintain, citing that some witnesses, such as former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, have changed their testimony over time, and even transcripts might not be sufficient to obtain a full understanding of the testimony.

Keep reading

January 6 Was A ‘Mostly Peaceful’ Protest

It has been nearly three years since the January 6 Capitol protest. For just as long, Americans have been force-fed a story about the fateful events of that day: even before the smoke cleared, and in many ways, it never did, the shambolic episode was labeled a deadly “insurrection.” The incoming administration was handed an invaluable support: they could now label anyone who doubted the legitimacy of their weak and doddering incumbent a suspect American, an “election denier” and a threat to “our democracy.” The narrative spread like a virus through the state-affiliated mass media, and became, arguably, the defining theme of Biden’s presidency.

In the name of defending democracy, Biden’s Justice Department launched the most ambitious law enforcement crackdown in the nation’s history – one targeting, exclusively, opponents of the party in power. It eventually came to target Donald Trump, the top threat to “our democracy” and, incidentally, or not, Joe Biden’s main political opponent. Prosecutor Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump is almost a work of plagiarism: it uses the same bombastic language as the January 6 committee, tells the same worn narrative, and takes the same creative leaps in logic, although Smith is less candid with his charges; he is curiously reluctant to use the word “insurrection.” To spare the trouble of proving his audacious case, Smith opts for the imprecise and verbose “events at the Capitol,” a phrase that appears no less than 15 times in a recent filing.

Which “events” are those, exactly? The truth is more banal than the narrative the American people have been told. If January 6 was an insurrection, it was among the most orderly, and uneventful in modern history. The newly released surveillance videos from Speaker Mike Johnson show hundreds of Trump supporters aimlessly meandering through the halls of the Capitol. Many have their smartphones out, taking videos of themselves or their surroundings. Many are dressed casually and move in a lackadaisical fashion, much like tourists. As they are calmly escorted out of the building, there is no sign that these people have any notion that they have been part of an insurrection. They have no idea what is coming – that they are about to become the targets of a nationwide witch hunt.

January 6 committee ringleaders Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have accused the right of attempting to sanitize a “coup” with “cherrypicked” video. Neither Cheney nor Kinzinger allege the new videos are fake. The evidence simply does not conform with their maximalist interpretation of what happened, which is represented by a handful of dramatic clips played on an infinite loop on CNN. The suppressed surveillance tape of the famous “Qanon Shaman” comically ambling through the halls leaves a markedly different impression.

It is laughable to see the charge of historical revisionism levied over an event so recent in time, one so shrouded in political animosities and interests that are still active today. It can be no coincidence that those who have pieced together and promoted the prevailing narrative are hostile to new information coming to light.

Keep reading

How The Democratic Party Faked An American Insurrection

Last week, more than 40,000 hours of Jan. 6 Capitol Police security footage was released in the public domain that once and for all blew a hole in the pro-Trump ‘violent insurrection’ narrative so dear to the Democrats.

The one question on countless Americans’ minds following the release of the damning videos was: will all those men and women recently locked away as political prisoners for dozens of decades get another day in court?

Indeed, January 6 may have been a lot of things to many people, but another Boston Tea Party it most definitely was not.

Social media was alight over the weekend showing one benign scene after another of the ‘insurrectionists’ casually strolling through the Capitol Building premises, exchanging pleasantries with the on-duty police officers, even giving each other fist-bumps.

The revelations of the true nature of the event came to light as newly appointed House Speaker Mike Johnson released the security footage, which came as a political manna from heaven for former president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party.

“Truth and transparency are critical,” Johnson said in a prepared statement.

“This decision will provide millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations, and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day, rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials.”

Democrats, however, who have milked the ‘insurrectionist’ narrative for everything it is worth, predictably chafed at the release, calling it a ‘risk to national security.’

“It is unconscionable that one of Speaker Johnson’s first official acts as steward of the institution is to endanger his colleagues, staff, visitors, and our country by allowing virtually unfettered access to sensitive Capitol security footage,” said New York Democrat Rep. Joseph Morelle, who sits on the Committee on House Administration.

“That he is doing so over the strenuous objections of the security professionals within the Capitol Police is outrageous. This is not transparency; this is dangerous and irresponsible.”

Keep reading

Air Marshals National Council Director STUNS Fox News Host When She Reveals Marshalls Are Quietly Following Every Person Who Flew to DC Around January 6, 2021

Sonya Labosco, Director of the Air Marshalls National Council said Air Marshalls are quietly following Americans who flew into the DC area around January 6, 2021.

Labosco said Air Marshalls are no longer going after terrorists or the bad guys because they are now stalking and following every single person who flew into the DC area around January 2021 even if they did not go to the US Capitol.

“We’re not flying right now. The only missions that we are doing are ‘Quiet Skies’ missions and those are missions that are following the January 2021 people,” Labosco said. “So we’re either on the border for illegal immigrants or we’re following folks from January 2021. We’re not doing our regular missions where we’re out there looking for the bad guys so for now most flights you’re not gonna have Air Marshalls.”

The Fox News host was stunned: “What do you mean that you’re following January 2021 people? What does that mean?

Labosco said their primary mission is to stalk every single person who flew into the DC area even if they never went to the Capitol and were never charged with any crimes.

“That means our primary mission is a little group called ‘quiet skies’ – it’s a mission called quiet skies that we’re following people that flew into the national capital region in January 2021 and they did not have to go to the Capitol or the rally and you’ve been put on a specific list that TSA has now assigned Air Marshalls to follow these people who have not had any type of criminal investigation – they haven’t committed a crime, but yet three years later we are following the same individuals day in and day out,” Labosco said.

The Fox News host asked Labosco, “So you’re saying the [Air Marshalls] aren’t…tracking terrorists at all?”

“Well, they didn’t even have to be at the Capitol…they could have just flown into the capital region so anyone who was there for a job interview or to visit family. We even have a gentleman who was there for a funeral. They’ve been put on this domestic terrorist list just because of their geographic location to Washington DC,” Labosco said.

The Fox News host was in shock as Labosco said Air Marshalls have been following the same innocent people for three years even though they have never committed a crime.

Keep reading