Rep. Ruben Gallego pushes for VA to strip benefits from service members and veterans who stormed the Capitol

Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a Marine Corps veteran, last week called on Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough to withdraw benefits from active-duty service members, veterans, or military retirees who participated in the deadly Capitol riot on January 6.

“The behavior of these individuals is not representative of the large population of American veterans, the vast majority of whom served honorably and are appalled by the thought of insurrection in the country they served,” he wrote in a letter. “Yet, many of the veterans and servicemembers who attacked their own Government actively and enthusiastically enjoy special benefits given to them by their fellow citizens.”

Such benefits include access to disability compensation, healthcare options, and vocational opportunities.

Keep reading

Parler Says It Informed FBI Over 50 Times About Violent Content Before US Capitol Breach

Social media platform Parler said it had referred violent content from its platform to the FBI ahead of the breach at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Parler made the disclosure in a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, in response to the panel’s request for documents. The company said that it had referred “violent content and incitement” from its platform to the FBI over 50 times before Jan. 6. It also warned the bureau about “specific threats of violence being planned” about the Jan. 6 incident.

“Parler now writes to set the record straight and provide new information about the positive role Parler played in the days and weeks leading up to January 6th, which should finally put an end to the spurious allegations against the Company,” the letter, penned by Parler’s attorney Michael S. Dry, stated.

The information is the latest in an ongoing feud between Parler and big tech companies that had sought to terminate the platform’s operation following the Jan. 6 incident. Apple and Google removed Parler from its app stores, while Amazon removed the platform from its web hosting service. All three companies took issue with the company’s alleged lax approach to violent content posted by its users and “repeated violations” of their terms of service related to such violent content.

Keep reading

‘Shock and Awe’: Feds Admit They are Prosecuting Jan. 6 Capitol Protesters to Create Chilling Effect on 1st Amendment

Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin appeared on CBS News’ 60 Minutes on Sunday where he admitted that he charged as many people as quickly as possible regardless of the evidence to put a chilling effect on the 1st Amendment rights of Trump supporters.

“After the 6th, we had an inauguration on the 20th. So I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe that we could charge as many people as possible before the 20th,” Sherwin told CBS News. 

He added: “And it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re like, “If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.”’

Sherwin made it clear that the feds went after people who had gone viral regardless of whether they perpetrated any violence or committed any actual crime.

“So the first people we went after, I’m gonna call the internet stars, right? The low-hanging fruit. The ‘zip-tie guy,’ the ‘rebel flag guy,’ the ‘Camp Auschwitz guy.’ We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did,” Sherwin said.

Keep reading

Capitol Investigation Seeks to Criminalize Political Dissent

In the early hours of March 12, FBI agents in southwestern Florida barricaded a neighborhood to prepare to raid the home of one resident. Christopher Worrell of Cape Coral was arrested and charged with several counts related to the January 6 Capitol melee. Even though Worrell had been cooperating with the FBI for two months, the agency nonetheless unleashed a massive, and no doubt costly, display of force to take him into custody.

Law enforcement agents, according to one neighbor who spoke with a reporter, wore “whole outfits . . . like military and it was crazy. There was like six or seven . . . big black vehicles. They busted down the front door.” The raid included “armed men with helmets and a tanker truck” and was partially executed by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Worrell never entered the Capitol building on January 6; he isn’t accused of committing a violent crime. But a D.C. judge overturned a Florida judge’s ruling to release Worrell pending further review of his case. He remains in jail.

Keep reading

Nat’l Guard troops deployed for Biden’s inauguration getting brand new award

Tens of thousands of National Guard troops nationwide who deployed to Washington D.C. in support of President Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, will receive a new award in recognition of their service.

Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Carver, spokesman for the Virginia Air National Guard and director of Joint Task Force-DC Joint Information Center, said, “In recognition of their service as part of the security mission at the U.S. Capitol and other facilities in Washington, D.C., before, during and after the 59th Presidential Inauguration, the District of Columbia National Guard plans to present all Soldiers and Airmen who took part in the mission one or both of the following decorations: the District of Columbia National Guard Presidential Inauguration Support Ribbon and/or the District of Columbia Emergency Service Ribbon.”

Carver said both ribbons are district-level decorations.

Keep reading

Congress in lockdown: Will we just ‘get used to it’?

When I first came to Washington in 1995 as a CBS News correspondent, the U.S. Capitol building was truly “The People’s House.” Anybody could walk in and browse around, walk the historic marble floors, look at the historic statues. No metal detectors. No police or security guards removing perfume from your purse in case it’s a plot to build an explosive device from liquid.

The same sort of access was available to the public and press at most federal buildings at the time.

Even the White House, more secure than the other buildings back then, was less like a command bunker. Anybody could drive right along the public street adjacent to the back of the White House and take a look. 

Of course everything, understandably, changed with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Most any building occupied by the federal government became a fortress. Concrete barriers were erected all over the city to make it harder for a car bomber to drive into a building. Police are routinely stationed on streets, at places they rarely were seen before. Metal detectors, police and security guards, sweeps with mirrors under your car as you enter a parking garage, all became the norm. 

A complete web of rules and restrictions was adopted, dictating who could enter what building and when. It involved various combinations of: Call ahead. Get clearance. Submit your Social Security number. Show your driver’s license. Have an escort.

And that street by the White House was closed to ordinary vehicle traffic. It’s been treated to an expanding array of fencing, guard shacks and Secret Service presence.

Shortly after 9/11, many of us wondered if the changes to our nation’s capital would be permanent — and hoped it would not have to be. Since then, security measures have expanded further. And with each new restriction, there’s opportunity for abuse. Federal officials sometimes use supposed security concerns as an excuse to control access and information; the public becomes further distanced from the elected and hired officials who are supposed to work for them.

Years ago, when I was breaking news about the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” scandal, it was nearly impossible for me to get access to then-Attorney General Eric Holder to ask any questions. One day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) hastily announced a briefing about Fast and Furious to be held at its offices. CBS sent me out the door to attend. 

As I rushed out the door, Holder’s right-hand press aide, Tracy Schmaler, called to tell me I would not be admitted. Only the friendly beat reporters regularly assigned to DOJ would be allowed in through security. 

Clearly, I wasn’t a security concern. They knew me and, besides, I had undergone FBI background checks to get White House hard passes; I was no threat. This was a seminal moment. At the time, I told CBS managers we should challenge the administration’s use of “security concerns” to exert politically motivated control over who enters a public building. I argued that it would only get worse if we allowed federal officials to use a security posture as a way to determine who covers them and who does not. Although the managers agreed, we didn’t pursue the challenge.

Some years ago, after a set of budget cuts, the main public entrance to the Russell Senate Office Building across from the Capitol was temporarily shut down. I wondered if it was part of an effort by sequestration opponents to make it visibly look as if important, tangible things were being cut. After all, the closing of the entrance inconvenienced thousands of people daily visiting and working at the Capitol. Years later? The grand entrance never reopened, as far as I know.  

This week, upon my most recent visit to Capitol Hill for work, security was tighter than I’ve ever seen before. Tighter than after 9/11, and tighter than during the presidential inaugurations I’ve covered. Unspecified fears over some sort of upcoming security threat have led to what looks like a militarized zone, with police, National Guard troops, blocked roads and new fencing sporting circles of barbed concertina wire atop. They call the circle around the fortification “The Perimeter.” 

“Are you trying to get into The Perimeter?” a military officer asked as my Uber driver pulled up to find out if we could get anywhere close to the congressional offices surrounding the Capitol. 

Then, on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) demanded more funding for more security, blaming COVID-19 and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot conducted by what she called “all the president’s men.” And the Pentagon said it is reviewing a Capitol Police request to extend the National Guard’s presence for two months beyond the deployment’s scheduled end on March 12. All this on a day when Capitol Hill security was tightened even further because of reports that some members of an unnamed militia group chatted online about trying to breach the Capitol again. 

Admittedly, I don’t have access to the intelligence to which they’re responding, and the measures could well be appropriate. But I’ve been to war-torn and third-world nations that didn’t look anything like this. The security measures, to me, looked like enough to fight a large army. 

Keep reading

FBI Director Wray won’t share Officer Brian Sicknick’s cause of death with senators

FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday refused to tell senators the cause of death for Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whose death heavily influenced coverage of the Capitol riot.

Reports after Jan. 6 originally said Sicknick died after being bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher while fighting off then-President Donald Trump’s supporters, which authorities didn’t deny at the time. The claim became part of the impeachment trial case against Trump for allegedly inciting the riot — though his family now says it’s untrue.

Wray cited an “ongoing” investigation into Sicknick’s death.

“I certainly understand and respect and appreciate the keen interest in what happened to him — after all, he was here protecting all of you. And as soon as there is information that we can appropriately share, we want to be able to do that. But at the moment, the investigation is still ongoing,” Wray said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Keep reading