Tag: riots

Poison Spiders At The Center Of The Web

You know why the judge let provocateur Ray Epps off the hook for his antics before and during the so-called J-6 “insurrection,” don’t you? Well, yes, it was partly because he was acting at the direction of blob officials, most likely the FBI, but possibly the CIA, Defense Intelligence, or some black-box fed outfit no one ever of (but somehow gets half a billion in funding every year). Ol’ Ray, pleaded to one year’s probation (no jail time), 100 hours of community service (checking books out at his local library?), and a $500 fine. Say, what. . . ? A speeding ticket on the Rockville Pike would probably cost you more.Clusterfuck Nation is a reader-supported publication. Support this blog on Patreon or here on Substack.

     You remember those videos of Ray on the DC street the day before the riot, importuning the crowd, a commanding presence with his military bearing and red hat, six inches taller than most of the other men around him, yelling, “Tomorrow we need to go into the Capitol, into the Capitol!”  At which moment the crowd groaned “no-o-o-o. . . !” and then commenced chanting, “fed. . . fed. . . fed. . . !” They had his number. His use of the word need was especially beguiling, as in, who actually “needed” that to happen?

     I’ll tell you one reason Ray didn’t get, like, twenty years, nor two years of pre-trial detention in the reeking, roach-infested DC lockup, or massive fines, like other J-6 defendants: Because he told his handlers in no uncertain terms that he would blow their cover and vivisect them publicly on the whole fed J-6 operation if they so much as made him show up in person for any proceeding — and, of course, he “attended” his sentencing by phone, in a Zoom meeting from a remote location.

      Okay, I’ll tell you the actual reason that Ray Epps got the VIP powder puff treatment: It was to give half of America a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. . . the old double-barreled middle finger. . . a thunderous fuck you, with the subtext: we can do anything we want to you and you can’t do anything about it. . . and we can rub your faces in it, too, ho ho. . . and then empty a bed pan over your head in case you’re not feeling sufficiently impotent and humiliated. And the purpose of all that is their hope to foment some act of genuine violent resistance against the blob to justify further lawless persecution of the blob’s enemies. They’re really hoping to set off a civil war to justify martial law in order to ensure a free and fair election.

     The judge in the Ray Epps case is. . . wait for it. . . the fabulous judicial utility infielder, James Boasberg, now Chief Judge of the DC Federal District Court, a big cheese. Yes, the same rascal who sat on the FISA Court during the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” shenanigans, when they fed all manner of fake documents to that court to enable the FBI to conduct warrantless surveillance on Donald Trump’s campaign, and then afterwards on his presidency.

Keep reading

Fani Willis Secretly Colluded with January 6 Committee; Could Blow Up Case

Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis secretly colluded with the one-sided, Democrat-run January 6 Committee to obtain tips that would help her prosecute Donald Trump — and tried to keep it out of court, and public view, using a procedural trick.

The revelation could upend the prosecution of Trump and 18 co-defendants because the evidence was concealed to keep it away from discovery requirements that would allow defense lawyers to see what was shared, and the extent of the collaboration.

Politico reported Wednesday:

Committee staff quietly met with lawyers and agents working for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in mid-April 2022, just as she prepared to convene a special grand jury investigation. In the previously unreported meeting, the Jan. 6 committee aides let the district attorney’s team review — but not keep — a limited set of evidence they had gathered.

…

The committee aided Willis’ nascent probe even as it rebuffed the Justice Department’s requests for material in the separate federal criminal probe of Trump’s election subversion. At the time, one reason the committee was more inclined to cooperate with the Fulton County team than with the federal prosecutors was that federal prosecutors might have been required to disclose the evidence in ongoing criminal cases related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

…

Jan. 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) had previously described “staff-level contacts” between his panel and Fulton County prosecutors. In early April 2022 — nearly two weeks before the panel’s staff met with Willis’ team — Thompson told reporters he wasn’t aware of how extensive those contacts were. And on Wednesday, Thompson told POLITICO that he did not know about the in-person visit that spring.

The lawyers from the January 6 Committee shared evidence with Willis when she was convening a “special purpose grand jury,” prior to the criminal grand jury. Since there were no defendants, Politico notes, there could be no defense motions for discovery.

Because the January 6 Committee later destroyed its records — ironically, given that President Donald Trump faces a separate prosecution for mishandling government documents — it may not be possible for the defense to obtain all evidence against it.

Keep reading

No jail for Trump supporter who joined Capitol riot and was later targeted by Jan. 6 ‘false flag’ conspiracy theory

The Donald Trump supporter who had encouraged a raucous crowd to go to the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6 and was later targeted by a right-wing conspiracy theory that he was a federal plant will not serve any time behind bars.

Ray Epps, 62, was sentenced Tuesday to one year of probation for participating in the riot at the Capitol, in which hordes of Trump supporters angry over Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral win overwhelmed law enforcement and violently forced their way into the building as Congress was certifying the results, as required by the U.S. Constitution.

“Defendant sentenced to twelve (12) months Probation, a $25 Special Assessment, and Restitution totaling $500,” the docket read Tuesday following Epps’ sentencing before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, a Barack Obama appointee. The docket noted that Epps appeared via Zoom and was not present in the courtroom.

Boasberg did not place any travel restrictions on Epps, The Associated Press reported. The sentence reflected what Epps and his lawyer had requested, and rejected the federal government’s argument that he deserved six months of jail time.

Originally from Arizona, Epps has said that he and his wife were forced to sell their property and business and flee their home after facing threats to their safety over the so-called “false flag” theory that accuses Epps of being an agent of the federal government. They now reportedly live in a trailer in the woods.

Boasberg reportedly expressed sympathy for the man’s situation.

“You were hounded out of your home,” the judge said, according to The Associated Press. “You were hounded out of your town.”

Boasberg reportedly said that he hoped the threats against Epps and his wife would subside. For his part, Epps said that he shouldn’t have believed what he saw on Fox News, including false statements that the election was stolen from Trump. Epps has blamed Fox and former host Tucker Carlson — from whom he sought an apology — and has since filed a defamation lawsuit against the network.

“I have learned that truth is not always found in the places that I used to trust,” he said, according to AP.

Keep reading

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