When a population is placed in a state of sufficiently grave fear and anger regarding a perceived threat, concerns about the constitutionality, legality and morality of measures adopted in the name of punishing the enemy typically disappear. The first priority, indeed the sole priority, is to crush the threat. Questions about the legality of actions ostensibly undertaken against the guilty parties are brushed aside as trivial annoyances at best, or, worse, castigated as efforts to sympathize with and protect those responsible for the danger. When a population is subsumed with pulsating fear and rage, there is little patience for seemingly abstract quibbles about legality or ethics. The craving for punishment, for vengeance, for protection, is visceral and thus easily drowns out cerebral or rational impediments to satiating those primal impulses.
The aftermath of the 9/11 attack provided a vivid illustration of that dynamic. The consensus view, which formed immediately, was that anything and everything possible should be done to crush the terrorists who — directly or indirectly — were responsible for that traumatic attack. The few dissenters who attempted to raise doubts about the legality or morality of proposed responses were easily dismissed and marginalized, when not ignored entirely. Typically, they were vilified with the accusation that their constitutional and legal objections were frauds: mere pretexts to conceal their sympathy and even support for the terrorists. It took at least a year or two after that attack for there to be any space for questions about the legality, constitutionality, and morality of the U.S. response to 9/11 to be entertained at all.
For many liberals and Democrats in the U.S., 1/6 is the equivalent of 9/11. One need not speculate about that. Many have said this explicitly. Some prominent Democrats in politics and media have even insisted that 1/6 was worse than 9/11.
Joe Biden’s speechwriters, when preparing his script for his April address to the Joint Session of Congress, called the three-hour riot “the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.” Liberal icon Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), whose father’s legacy was cemented by years of casting 9/11 as the most barbaric attack ever seen, now serves as Vice Chair of the 1/6 Committee; in that role, she proclaimed that the forces behind 1/6 represent “a threat America has never seen before.” The enabling resolution that created the Select Committee calls 1/6 “one of the darkest days of our democracy.” USA Today’s editor David Mastio published an op-ed whose sole point was a defense of the hysterical thesis from MSNBC analysts that 1/6 is at least as bad as 9/11 if not worse.S.V. Date, the White House correspondent for America’s most nakedly partisan “news” outlet, The Huffington Post, published a series of tweets arguing that 1/6 was worse than 9/11 and that those behind it are more dangerous than Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda ever were.
After obtaining over 500 pages of internal documents from the DC Metropolitan Police, Judicial Watch has found that they believe the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, who inside the Capitol during the riot on January 6, was unjustified.
In May, Judicial Watch filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain more than 500 pages of internal documents from the DC Metropolitan Police regarding the killing of Ashli Babbitt.
In the report, eyewitness testimony from a Capitol Police sergeant, whose name was redacted, suggests that while Babbitt did in fact climb through a broken window to enter the Capitol building, she was not carrying a weapon when she was shot by Capitol Police officer Lt. Michael Byrd.
“Sergeant [redacted] observed a white, female protester was climbing through an opened area where the glass pane had been knocked out,” a document from the Internal Affairs Division states.
“He heard a gunshot and this female fell backwards through the opening. The crowd on the other side of the barricaded east doors, began to step back and some put their hands in the air. Sergeant [redacted] observed Lieutenant Byrd step back just after hearing the gunshot. He did not see anything in the female protester’s hands prior to the gunshot.”
The Department of Justice has been hit with a lawsuit for failing to provide public access to its records about the “killing” of Ashli Babbitt.
She was the California woman, unarmed, a 14-year Air Force veteran, who was shot and killed by Capitol police last January when dozens of protesters got rowdy, broke windows and doors, and vandalized parts of the building.
Democrats over and over have claimed the events that day as worse than 9/11 and a true threat to the future of American government.
Babbitt was shot and killed as she climbed through a broken interior window.
Congress and federal and local authorities kept secret for months before finally revealing that her killer was U.S. Capitol Officer Michael Byrd, and then they quickly confirmed he would face no punishment for killing her.
Now government watchdog Judicial Watch has confirmed it filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for its records relating to her death.
Earlier, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Civil Rights Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation all failed to provide the records responsive to Judicial Watch’s April 14, 2021 and May 20, 2021, FOIA requests.
Those were for records of the shooting, including video footage, and communications about the case and more.
In the days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, an obscure arm of the U.S. Postal Service did some serious internet sleuthing.
On Jan. 11, the United States Postal Inspection Service’s Internet Covert Operations Program — better known as iCOP — sent bulletins to law enforcement agencies around the country on how to view social media posts that had been deleted. It also described its scrutiny of posts on the fringe social media network Wimkin.
Few Americans are aware that the same organization that delivers their mail also runs a robust surveillance operation rooted in an agency that dates back to the 18th century. And iCOP’s involvement raises questions about how broad the mandate of the Postal Service’s policing arm has grown from its stated mission of keeping mail deliverers safe.
The documents also point to potential gaps in the Jan. 6 select committee’s investigation by revealing concerns about a company it is not known to be scrutinizing. And those documents point to a new challenge for law enforcement in the post-Jan. 6 era: how to track extremist organizing across a host of low-profile platforms.
An Oklahoma man pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after taking one of Nancy Pelosi’s beers from her office on January 6.
Andrew Craig Ericson, 24, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. Prosecutors will drop three related misdemeanor charges in exchange for his plea. Ericson said in a signed statement that he is pleading guilty because he is in fact guilty.
He will face six months in federal prison and a $5,000 fine after he was tipped off to the FBI by someone who had known him since high school.
Six months in prison for one beer?
Ericson posted a photo of himself on Snapchat while sitting comfortably with his feet on a table at Pelosi’s conference room and taking a beer out of a mini-refrigerator.
Trump was right.
President Trump told supporters the Justice for J-6 rally was a set-up.
Populists and Trump supporters feared it would be another calamity where Antifa and unnamed FBI agents would infiltrate the crowd and trigger-happy Capitol Hill police officers would gun down young women.
So the turnout was sparse.
We all support the Jan. 6 political prisoners. We just didn’t want to get set up by the government or shot by Capitol Police to prove it.
On Saturday there were more police, reporters and undercover intelligence agents than protesters in Washington DC.
There was a heavy police presence at the US Capitol on Saturday in anticipation of a rally in support of the January 6 political prisoners.
Demonstrators will show support for the January 6 political prisoners on Saturday.
Hundreds of non-violent Trump supporters are currently in jail awaiting trial for walking through the Capitol on January 6.
But it was all a set up.
There were more police, reporters and undercover intelligence agents than protesters in Washington DC.
The only armed person arrested on Saturday was an undercover agent.
Reporter Ford Fischer caught the whole thing on video.
Police surrounded a masked man who was armed with a firearm.
The masked man told officers where his gun was and pulled out a badge.
“Without disarming or handcuffing him, police extract him from the event.” Ford Fischer said.