Capitol Riot Investigation Thread

[stessier]

That report is just stupid. Given what he admitted to doing, I don't see how anything more than trespass is warranted. 10 minutes walking around with a sign is not the same as trying to break into the Senate chamber. One can admit the horror of one while also admitting the other actions don't rise to that level.

I totally agree that cases have their own nuances but that focus on the individual isn't the story that is being told here. The story is that the DOJ does not seem to have a consistent rubric for evaluating these cases and are using language in their briefs and pleadings that are sharply in contrast with the facts of the case (in this case undercutting their own argument for jail time) and between cases. The judge blasting the prosecutors for two and a half hours about it is also not solely about this individual case and the outcome.

That's the story he tells, but we'd need to read the briefs to evaluate if that is true. A federal judge going off is not necessarily convincing.. They are mercurial at the best of times.

[malchior]

That report is just stupid. Given what he admitted to doing, I don't see how anything more than trespass is warranted. 10 minutes walking around with a sign is not the same as trying to break into the Senate chamber. One can admit the horror of one while also admitting the other actions don't rise to that level.

I totally agree that cases have their own nuances but that focus on the individual isn't the story that is being told here. The story is that the DOJ does not seem to have a consistent rubric for evaluating these cases and are using language in their briefs and pleadings that are sharply in contrast with the facts of the case (in this case undercutting their own argument for jail time) and between cases. The judge blasting the prosecutors for two and a half hours about it is also not solely about this individual case and the outcome.

That's the story he tells, but we'd need to read the briefs to evaluate if that is true. A federal judge going off is not necessarily convincing.. They are mercurial at the best of times.

The Buzzfeed article tells pretty much the same story and having paid attention to this closely for months this inconsistency has been a persistent issue.

[Smoove_B]

In case you're wondering what part of NJ I'm living in.

Federal authorities are seeking a prison term of more than three years for the New Jersey gym owner who was caught on film storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and later punching a law enforcement officer in the face outside the government building.

...

“They pulled the pin on the grenade, and the blackout is coming,” Fairlamb said in a video two days after the attack, according to the sentencing memo. “What a time to be a patriot.”

Prosecutors said this was an indication that an adequate prison sentence was needed to deter Fairlamb and others from subsequently committing similar crimes.

“The gravity of these offenses demands deterrence,” prosecutors wrote. “This was not a protest. And it is important to convey to future rioters and would-be mob participants—especially those who intend to improperly influence the democratic process—that their actions will have consequences.”

[Octavious]

He's probably part of the pit crew on my daughter's marching band. Which is why I don't get involved in providing my time this year.

[Carpet_pissr]

What is this 'blackout'? Some racial reference?

I dare not Google it for fear of entering the Q-osphere on the internet.

[malchior]

Vague recollection here but it was a reference to a qanon predicted nationwide eletrical blackout that'd preceed inauguration day.

[LawBeefaroni]

The phrases "internet blackout" and "internet blackout 2021" have seen a dramaticuptick in Google searches since Jan. 3, when prominent QAnon supporters began touting the theory that President Trump would shut down the entire internet on the day of Joe Biden's inauguration. Lin Wood, a Trump-allied attorney with a history of promoting false conspiracies, warned in a social media post earlier this month that Trump supporters should "BE PREPARED FOR AN IMMINENT BLACKOUT."

Lin fucking Wood. Figures.

Sauce.

[Kraken]

At least seven Jan. 6 rioters won elected offices on Tuesday. Including the school board guy that I went to the polls specifically to vote against.

BuzzFeed News first reported last week that at least 13 Republicans who traveled to Washington on Jan. 6 to protest the results of the 2020 election were running for office this year. None were charged with crimes, and all denied being part of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol to try to stop the certification of Joe Biden's electoral college win. The attack resulted in five deaths and left some 140 members of law enforcement injured.

On Tuesday, three of those 13 Republicans - Dave LaRock, John McGuire and Marie March - were elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, as first reported by HuffPost. LaRock and McGuire won reelection, while March won an open seat.
...
According to HuffPost, other Jan. 6 rallygoers who won elected office Tuesday include Christine Ead for the Watchung, N.J., city council; Natalie Jangula for the city council in Nampa, Idaho; Matthew Lynch for the local school committee in Braintree, Mass.; and Susan Soloway for reelection to the board of directors in Hunterdon County, N.J

[YellowKing]

Unless they were inside the Capitol or doing something else illegal, I don't have a problem with people who went to a protest winning office, no matter how much I disagree with their reason for protesting.

[hepcat]

If it weren't for the problematic issue that they believe overthrowing an election is okay, I would agree with you.

[Blackhawk]

I have no problem with people who did something illegal holding office - I have a problem with the fact that they're actually electable.

[YellowKing]

If it weren't for the problematic issue that they believe overthrowing an election is okay, I would agree with you.

Practically the whole party and their base now believes overthrowing an election is OK. I guess what I'm saying is them simply being at the rally doesn't particularly mean anything anymore in that context.

[Kraken]

Local reaction to our homegrown insurrectionist.

BRAINTREE, MA — Newly-elected school committee member Matt Lynch made transphobic social media posts and threatened a parent while still working as a special education teacher at Braintree High School, according to complaints filed by parents, teachers and students.

"This type of person should not, and cannot, be in an academic environment and be teaching the children of Braintree," wrote one former Braintree student. "He does not belong in a position of power to students."

Lynch resigned from the school system in February, a month after he attended the Jan. 6 rally in support of President Donald Trump that turned violent as some attendees stormed the Capitol. While the 27 complaints mostly focused on Lynch's trip to Washington, they also touched on other areas, including posts he made on social media and comments made to parents.

I'm convinced that his "Make Braintree Wamps Again" slogan got him the votes. Firing politically incorrect mascots is one of those stupid culture war things that makes people hate liberals, and the townies here all consider themselves Wamps.

(Wamps are the Wampanoag tribe, whose leadership didn't appreciate the appropriation.)

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

Bannon has to be laughing at them.

[malchior]

This can't be true. If it is...then we have much, much bigger problems than even I thought. It'd mean that we're 10 months down the line and we have had a completely ineffectual response to an actual coordinated coup attempt.

[El Guapo]

Who is Mueller, She Wrote? I just have no idea if that's a credible source or not.

[Isgrimnur]

About

[El Guapo]

Right, I got that far, but...credible source for this or not? I mean, I guess they won a "webby", but I've never heard of the webbies before.

[stessier]

Right, I got that far, but...credible source for this or not? I mean, I guess they won a "webby", but I've never heard of the webbies before.

What color are your cave walls?

[LawBeefaroni]

Her Venmo is right there in the profile. Right there!

[coopasonic]

Right, I got that far, but...credible source for this or not? I mean, I guess they won a "webby", but I've never heard of the webbies before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller,_She_Wrote

The three hosts of the show at its inception were A.G., Jaleesa Johnson and Jordan Coburn. The name A.G. was a pseudonym for Allison Gill. Her identity was kept confidential to avoid potential violations of the Hatch Act due to the political nature of the podcast, as Gill was an employee of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.[9] Gill maintains that her March 2020 termination for medical unfitness was pretextual and retaliatory for her involvement with the Mueller, She Wrote podcast.[10]

As of late 2019, Jaleesa Johnson is no longer with the podcast.

No idea of their credibility, but hey, they have a wiki page.

[malchior]

I'm not 100% dismissing her. It does seem suspect since it'd be absolute bonkers if that was real. Still a lot of folks with solid backgrounds are re-tweeting this so she has some level of credibility. For example, Frank Figliuzzi (formerly a FBI special agent and often MSNBC guest) is who I saw re-tweet this. I've seen her posting via retweets for awhile - I don't follow her personally - and I've definitely never gotten the Kurt Eichenwald vibe. She also has been one of the few voices defending Garland consistently so she might be considered a bit of an institutionalist voice as well.

Also, Jon Karl's new book is going to say that Pence basically camped in a loading dock because he didn't want to leave with the security detail. The story is just out there. There is a *lot* we don't know about what happened that day and that is utterly unacceptable.

[Holman]

This definitely isn't the first reporting that Pence refused to get in the car for fear of being driven away from the Capitol (and thus prevented from certifying the EC votes). I think I heard that weeks ago.

[malchior]

FWIW I just gave her podcast a listen and she is definitely not a crazy person. She is like a more institutionally grounded Sarah Kendzior. Meaning for example she thinks the Mueller report describes crimes, that there was rampant criminality in the Trump administration, but that our institutions are very functional and just carefully churning away in the background. Keeping the institutional hope alive! It was actually pretty good since she had Frank Figliuzzi on to talk about the latest Durham indictment. It was a pretty enlightening discussion.

[El Guapo]

FWIW I just gave her podcast a listen and she is definitely not a crazy person. She is like a more institutionally grounded Sarah Kendzior. Meaning for example she thinks the Mueller report describes crimes, that there was rampant criminality in the Trump administration, but that our institutions are very functional and just carefully churning away in the background. Keeping the institutional hope alive! It was actually pretty good since she had Frank Figliuzzi on to talk about the latest Durham indictment. It was a pretty enlightening discussion.

Yeah I don't mean to dismiss her but it's just a new source (for me) with explosive claims. So on the keycard thing I'll wait until I see some other independent reporting on it.

Either way, the Commission needs to get its rear in gear on this stuff.

[LordMortis]

How about insurrectionist seeking asylum in Belarus?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/capi ... s-rcna4910

A man wanted by the FBI on charges that he assaulted police officers at the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has fled to Belarus and is trying to claim political asylum there, local media reported.

The man, Evan Neumann, who according to a filing March 23 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., is wanted on six criminal charges, told a state-run TV news channel in Belarus on Monday that he is escaping persecution. The charges also include disorderly conduct and violently entering the Capitol building.

Neumann, who according to the court filing is from Mill Valley, California, said in the interview that his attorney had advised him to travel to Europe for business.

Patriot? Maybe we can send all of Trump era "patriots" there?

[malchior]

Lawfare

Quite a good discussion about why the DOJ is dicking around on Bannon. Essentially they are stuck because the imperial Presidency they've built to protect the White House from vexatious oversight intersects with the bad behavior. In other words, the DOJ has a bit of an inherent conflict of interest here. It sure as hell raises the stock for the people who want Congress to become more muscular and return to inherent contempt.

It also maps very well into an idea that I mentioned previously that the system as it stands now has a major weakness. It can not react with the speed necessary to prevent the potential collapse of our democracy or other domestic legal attacks upon it. For example, the infamous OLC memo that says the sitting President can't be indicted and prevented Mueller from charging Trump with obstruction of justice is one of a legal web the DOJ has spun around the imperial White House. In trying to bolster the power of the President they might accidentally cause an "Emperor" to appear.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is frustrating a lot of people. Congress held Steve Bannon in contempt fully three weeks ago, and the Justice Department still has not yet indicted him. Over at Vanity Fair, Eric Lutz frets that Garland is “setting a dangerous precedent” by taking so long to spring the trap:

subpoenas only have teeth if the Garland DOJ proves willing to enforce them. “If Merrick Garland does not prosecute Steve Bannon, all these other witnesses...they are going to have no deterrent either and they are going to see it as a free-for-all to do what they will,” as CNN legal analyst Elie Honig put it. “So there is a lot riding on what Merrick Garland decides to do here.” Discussing the subpoenas Tuesday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough said he was “a little bit confused by exactly what Merrick Garland is doing.”

Such exasperation over the Justice Department’s handling of Bannon seems widespread. Congress has acted, after all. The Justice Department is under an apparent legal obligation to put such matters before a grand jury. The facts are not in serious dispute: Bannon is defying a subpoena. Why hasn’t the indictment happened yet?

The answer will disappoint many people who are eager to see Bannon prosecuted: The question before the Justice Department that his case presents is not, in fact, a simple one. It’s a complicated, nuanced question with a variety of components that the Justice Department needs to work through.

...

Bannon’s claim that executive privilege prevents his testimony has faced a great deal of ridicule. Donald Trump, as a federal judge put it yesterday, is “not president,” and the current president has not asserted privilege over Bannon’s testimony. Bannon was not even an executive branch official at the relevant time, and the privilege—whatever its true contours—cannot cover podcast hosts. And Bannon has refused even to show up for testimony in response to the subpoena. Executive privilege does not excuse a witness from appearing in the first place; it merely protects testimony. The witness has to show up and assert privilege in response to specific questions.

The trouble for the Justice Department is that each of the elements of Bannon’s claim has some degree of precedent in the Justice Department’s own positions. This does not mean those positions are correct understandings of the law; they almost certainly are not. It also doesn’t mean the Justice Department would necessarily back Bannon’s invocation of the privilege in this context.

But critically, the question for a prosecutor deciding whether or not to charge Bannon with a crime is not whether Bannon’s interpretation of the law is correct or not. It is whether the department can prove to a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Bannon did not believe his assertion of privilege to be credible. After all, it is not inappropriately stubborn conduct to refuse to testify in the presence of a valid assertion of privilege. The burden is thus on the prosecution to prove that Bannon could not in good faith believe his assertion of privilege to be valid.

...

The result is that the question facing the Justice Department is not the simple one that people seem to imagine—in which the department’s only equity is supporting Congress’s subpoena authority in the face of intransigent witnesses. The question, rather, is whether it’s possible to use the criminal process to do this without compromising traditional executive branch views of its own authority and in a fashion that can be proven to a jury under the exacting standards of the criminal law. Ambiguity in the law is endemic to disputes between Congress and the executive branch over their respective constitutional authorities. But that ambiguity is anathema to criminal prosecution. Individual citizens must have notice of what the law is before they can be prosecuted for violating it, and the Justice Department must prove each element of its case without any ambiguity

[malchior]

Update: Now Mark Meadows is refusing to cooperate. Why not? It isn't like anything can be done to stop them from thumbing their noses at us under the current framework.

[Skinypupy]

Update: Now Mark Meadows is refusing to cooperate. Why not? It isn't like anything can be done to stop them from thumbing their noses at us under the current framework.

I've been wondering what would happen in the mirror universe where prominent Dems were being subpoenaed and simply ignored it while majority GOP was in charge of the investigation.

Since Republicans don't give a shit about any rules whatsoever, how long would you give the defiant Dems before they were arrested on contempt charges? A couple days, or merely a few hours?

[Smoove_B]

how long would you give the defiant Dems before they were arrested on contempt charges? A couple days, or merely a few hours?

At the rate we're going, I don't think we'll need to speculate about this for much longer.

[Kurth]

I'm not 100% dismissing her. It does seem suspect since it'd be absolute bonkers if that was real. Still a lot of folks with solid backgrounds are re-tweeting this so she has some level of credibility.

I don't know whether she's credible or not. I don't know whether this "reporting" is factual or bullshit.

But I do know that lots of folks with solid backgrounds retweeting this doesn't do anything to move the needle one way or the other for me. #twittersucks

[malchior]

I'm not 100% dismissing her. It does seem suspect since it'd be absolute bonkers if that was real. Still a lot of folks with solid backgrounds are re-tweeting this so she has some level of credibility.

I don't know whether she's credible or not. I don't know whether this "reporting" is factual or bullshit.

But I do know that lots of folks with solid backgrounds retweeting this doesn't do anything to move the needle one way or the other for me. #twittersucks

I get the blanket doubt about Twitter but fwiw she has (had?) a quarter million 'listeners' and has mainstream legal and government officials on her podcast daily. It is alternative news. Cranks rarely get the same crowd that populates MSNBC primetime panels calling into their podcast. But the explosive story? I still haven't seen any alternative sourcing on it. I still have a hard time believing it just because it'd be unimaginable that we'd still be dicking around with Congressional subpoenas. That said, I believe she was told this and didn't make it up but have no idea what the provenance is.

[malchior]

What will Mark Meadows do?! What a pickle he is in...

[YellowKing]

Actual photo of Congress holding someone in contempt:

[Kurth]

I'm not 100% dismissing her. It does seem suspect since it'd be absolute bonkers if that was real. Still a lot of folks with solid backgrounds are re-tweeting this so she has some level of credibility.

I don't know whether she's credible or not. I don't know whether this "reporting" is factual or bullshit.

But I do know that lots of folks with solid backgrounds retweeting this doesn't do anything to move the needle one way or the other for me. #twittersucks

I get the blanket doubt about Twitter but fwiw she has (had?) a quarter million 'listeners' and has mainstream legal and government officials on her podcast daily. It is alternative news. Cranks rarely get the same crowd that populates MSNBC primetime panels calling into their podcast. But the explosive story? I still haven't seen any alternative sourcing on it. I still have a hard time believing it just because it'd be unimaginable that we'd still be dicking around with Congressional subpoenas. That said, I believe she was told this and didn't make it up but have no idea what the provenance is.

I feel the same way about alternative news that I do about alternative facts. But I’m just an old curmudgeon at this point, so don’t mind me.

[geezer]

I'm not 100% dismissing her. It does seem suspect since it'd be absolute bonkers if that was real. Still a lot of folks with solid backgrounds are re-tweeting this so she has some level of credibility.

I don't know whether she's credible or not. I don't know whether this "reporting" is factual or bullshit.

But I do know that lots of folks with solid backgrounds retweeting this doesn't do anything to move the needle one way or the other for me. #twittersucks

I get the blanket doubt about Twitter but fwiw she has (had?) a quarter million 'listeners' and has mainstream legal and government officials on her podcast daily. It is alternative news. Cranks rarely get the same crowd that populates MSNBC primetime panels calling into their podcast. But the explosive story? I still haven't seen any alternative sourcing on it. I still have a hard time believing it just because it'd be unimaginable that we'd still be dicking around with Congressional subpoenas. That said, I believe she was told this and didn't make it up but have no idea what the provenance is.

I feel the same way about alternative news that I do about alternative facts. But I’m just an old curmudgeon at this point, so don’t mind me.

I get you. I have trouble taking podcasts and related platforms that don't have any real ethics standards too seriously - there's just too many loonies that use alternative mediums to spew bullshit to large audiences (which isn't to say that "traditional" media guardrails are functioning that well right now), but I (we) seem to be on the trailing edge here I guess.

[Alefroth]

Trump thinks Pence wasn't in any danger, doesn't condemn chants to hang him.

https://www.axios.com/trump-hang-mike-p ... 862be.html

Jonathan Karl: "Were you worried about him during that siege? Were you worried about his safety?"

Trump: "No, I thought he was well-protected, and I had heard that he was in good shape. No. Because I had heard he was in very good shape. But, but, no, I think — "
Karl: "Because you heard those chants — that was terrible. I mean — "

Trump: "He could have — well, the people were very angry."
Karl: "They were saying 'hang Mike Pence.'"

Trump: "Because it's common sense, Jon. It's common sense that you're supposed to protect. How can you — if you know a vote is fraudulent, right? — how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress? How can you do that? And I'm telling you: 50/50, it's right down the middle for the top constitutional scholars when I speak to them. Anybody I spoke to — almost all of them at least pretty much agree, and some very much agree with me — because he's passing on a vote that he knows is fraudulent. How can you pass a vote that you know is fraudulent? Now, when I spoke to him, I really talked about all of the fraudulent things that happened during the election. I didn't talk about the main point, which is the legislatures did not approve — five states. The legislatures did not approve all of those changes that made the difference between a very easy win for me in the states, or a loss that was very close, because the losses were all very close."

[LordMortis]

Wait, so now he's saying Pence knew the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent?

God I wish he'd just have have a stroke and die already. It's a shameful thing to think but boy do I think it.

Edit: Interview is from From March 18th, so he's believed this all along. Did Q say anything about Pence being a baby eater whom Trump was going to out? There's gotta be a master plan somewhere, where Trump knowingly took in Pence, the traitor, to expose him, right?

[Carpet_pissr]

Love this guy: "Anybody I spoke to — almost all of them at least pretty much agree"

Try to imagine:
working with
being married to
parent of
kid of

someone that talks and thinks like that all the time? Just a barrage of word hedging, with so much ambiguity there is ALWAYS room for an out.