It can't be called an Insurrection!

stumbler · Jul 6, 2022

It is both ironic and downright funny that Traitor Trump and treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans are sort of accidentally telling the truth when they try to claim the bipartisan J6 committee is "partisan." Because it is in one way at least. Every witness they have called so far are Republicans without a Democrat in the bunch. And they are all testifying about the armed insurrection and attempted coup.

Mick Mulvaney on Jan. 6 Hearings: When Republicans Testify Against Other Republicans, ‘Republicans Should Pay Attention’
By Colby HallJul 6th, 2022, 10:14 am
1088 comments

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Mick Mulvaney hasn’t quite yet achieved the status of Howard Baker, but he appears to be making a serious bid.

The former Tennessee Senator became famous for placing patriotism before party loyalty during the Watergate scandal, and his calling out former President Richard Nixon eventually led to the first and only resignation of a sitting U.S. president.

Similarly, Mulvaney wrote a column for the Charlotte Observer that criticizes Republicans for abjectly ignoring the stunning revelations that have recently emerged from the January 6th Select Committee hearings. The fact that Mulvaney served as Chief of Staff under the Trump administration, makes his interparty admonition even more noteworthy.

Mulvaney opens by reiterating comments he made via Twitter following the stunning testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide of Mark Meadows, also known as another former Chief of Staff under former President Donald Trump. Mulvaney writes:

The significance of last week’s Congressional Jan. 6 committee hearings cannot be overstated.

For the first time, evidence was presented that former President Trump knew some of the protesters were armed before encouraging them to go the Capitol, that right-wing extremist rioters communicated directly with the White House, that key Presidential advisers requested pardons, that the chief White House lawyer was concerned about getting “charged with every crime imaginable,” and that someone within Trump world may be trying to tamper with committee witnesses.

Serious stuff. But roughly half the country — the Republican half — isn’t watching. They object that the hearings are a made-for-TV show trial, designed to attack the former president and salvage the Democrats’ dismal prospects in the upcoming midterms.

And while he does allow that Republican critics are “correct” in dismissing some parts of the Select Committee’s hearings, he comes back with this salient point:

“That is because, despite all of the flaws in the structure of the heavily Democrat committee, almost all of the evidence presented so far is coming from eminently credible sources: Republicans.” He then proceeds to list who he believes to be credible Republicans, including former AG Bill Barr, Republican Speaker of the Arizona House Rusty Bowers, and the aforementioned Cassidy Hutchinson. None of whom can credibly be diagnosed with “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

Mulvaney ends his opinion piece with “When Republicans start testifying under oath that other Republicans lost the 2020 election and then broke the law to try to change that, Republicans should pay attention. Everyone should.”

Read the entire column here.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/mick-...republicans-republicans-should-pay-attention/

shootersa · Jul 6, 2022

Um, Deplorables or DINO (Deplorable in name only)?

cmon american hater. Admit it finally. Nancy's star chamber circus failed to show us the smoking gun we were promised.
Now we're just watching the clown show.

stumbler · Jul 7, 2022

Scotchlass said: ↑

Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party, rose to power on the back of his "Indian removal" platform, (native genocide), and preservation of slavery... He organized the "Trail of Tears", and the Democrats followed him from the Democratic-Republican party (which they abandoned), for the new Democratic Party on the basis of his successes regarding "Indian Removal" (genocide), and his support of continuing slavery, by creating new slave states to stack the representation in Congress, through his doctrine of "Manifest Destiny"... (Sorta, maybe, sounds like the Biden administration's desire to stack SCOTUS???)

In truth, "Insurrection" has always been conducted by the Left, beginning as far back as 1865... Despite a moronic and senile old man mumbling "fascist" and "traitor" as he heaps insults on Conservatives here, we all know on this side of the aisle that Democrats don't care about institutional racism... They embrace it... Literally continue to institutionalize racism on the day following July 4th... But since they claim it's now targeting white people, they're good with it. I would argue it's still institutionalized racism, isn't it?

Over the last couple of years, the Left has found BLM and Antifa instigators to be useful street soldiers, so most of those arrested during the summer of violence were never tried in court. Why did public officials in blue states ignore the violence? It's because they were certain it enjoyed majority support among their leftwing constituencies.

The KKK was founded as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to fight against Republicans specifically, over political power... They still are, just now they're rebranded as blackbloc. Yet the Left's new fashion statement is arguably still in violation of the 1871 KKK act...

Nearly a third of all confirmed KKK lynchings were white Republicans. Nearly all confirmed KKK lynchings were Republican activists and organizers... The KKK wasn't a racist anti-black organization. Like Antifa and BLM, it was an anti-Republican terrorist group... It never targeted any black Democrat activists or organizers... It was an organization of racist Democrats in the south, opposed to their loss of power as black Republicans were given the right to vote, helped by Republican activists and organizers...

So, as we watch protestors take "direct action" in Portland while burning American flags over this July 4th weekend (https://www.koin.com/news/protests/direct-action-lownsdale-square-jayland-walker-07042022/), we'll still see @stumbles posting about Conservative "traitors" and "fascists" and "racists," all the while ignoring the real damage his side is doing to the country and the Constitution.

So, yeah, I gotta ask: As the J6 committee grinds its foes into dust, who really are the insurrectionists here?

Who Are the Real Insurrectionists?
In truth, “insurrection” has been fueled by the Left since 2015.
By Victor Davis Hanson
July 3, 2022

For 120 days in summer 2020, violent protesters destroyed some $2 billion in property and injured 1,500 police officers in riots that led to over 35 deaths. Because blue-state mayors and governors saw BLM and Antifa instigators as useful street soldiers, most of those arrested were never tried in court. Street thugs paid no price for declaring themselves de facto owners of downtown areas of Seattle, which police themselves conceded were no-go zones. Why did public officials in blue states ignore the violence? They were certain that it enjoyed majority support among their leftwing constituencies.

Indeed, some leftist icons cheered on the violence. Well after the failed attempt to storm the White House grounds, in June 2020, the Democratic candidate for vice president Kamala Harris warned us that protestors were “not going to let up, and they should not.” What did Harris mean by “should not?”—when she knew numerous protests that summer had ended in terrible violence? Was she reckless in the manner Trump was said to be by encouraging a demonstration on January 6?

The architect of the “1619 Project” Nikole Hannah-Jones assured the nation that vast destruction of (someone else’s property) was not a real crime. CNN’s Chris Cuomo gushed that violent demonstrations and riots were American traditions. Were these national voices urging calm during weeks of violent rioting and looting?

There were no investigations, no congressional committees, and no voices of outrage from the left-wing establishment over months of such carnage. Indeed, much of the organization of the violent protests was facilitated by social media that was apparently unbothered that the medium under their stewardship was used to torch and loot.

The Attack on Norms and Customs
Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) urged her followers to tail, dog, and get in the faces of Trump government officials to the point that they would lose their freedom to even be seen in public. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she famously admonished.

Corporations began boycotting events deemed illiberal in fears of being boycotted themselves. Not saluting the flag for professional athletes was considered patriotic, saluting it insurrectionary. Mobs of leftists, cheered on by Democratic grandees, began tearing down statues of Confederate generals—but only as a preliminary to defacing the Lincoln Memorial and other statues of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Frederick Douglass.

From 2015-16, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with impunity had wiped away thousands of her supposedly personal emails on a likely illegal private server. To cover her tracks, she ordered her devices destroyed, despite many being under subpoena. Clinton also sought to warp the entire machinery of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Clinton’s skullduggery was hidden behind three firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins-Coie legal firm, and the Fusion GPS opposition research firm—to mask her likely illegal payments that enlisted a foreign national and ex-spy, Christopher Steele, to assist her campaign by destroying Donald Trump.

Steele proved a clumsy, grifting con artist who tapped Clinton’s money, her friends, and her former subordinates in concocting a fake “dossier” of gossip, lies, and slander aimed at rendering Trump unelectable. No matter—Steele used Clinton’s State Department contacts and former government clients to compile and seed the lies among a toady media to undermine her political opponent and later sabotage the Trump presidency.

The War Against Institutions
The Left, in revolutionary fashion, has waged a sustained and unapologetic attack on constitutional norms and long-held institutions—whenever it senses they no longer prove conducive to its own radical agendas.

Barack Obama declared during a funeral oration for the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) that the filibuster was racist and must end—although as a senator Obama had used it and declared it essential.

The Electoral College? When the so-called “blue wall” fell, it transmogrified from valuable to a bankrupt fossil. In fact, the Left has wanted to create two new blue states (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) to fast track four left-wing senators, and cram through a national voting law to make the states’ constitutional prerogative to require voter IDs illegal.

There is no border. For two years, Joe Biden, again in true revolutionary fashion, has simply abrogated federal immigration law by fiat. In less than two years, he has welcomed 3 million illegal aliens without audit—or COVID-19 tests or vaccinations—during a pandemic in which unvaccinated federal employees and military personnel faced dismissal. Biden had taken an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, but then shortly thereafter destroyed immigration laws as we knew them. No prior president has ever simply rendered an entire corpus of law null and void.

Fueled by leftist billionaires, the Left waged a multiyear effort to elect big-city district attorneys whose agendas were pure nihilism: to not enforce laws, to release arrested criminals without indictments, to end cash bail, and prematurely to release convicted and hardened lawbreakers. The guiding principle was the revolutionary theory that the law was a simple construct used against marginalized peoples and the poor, and therefore simply could be ignored or discarded.

There is no longer free speech on college campuses. Guests who voice minority opinions are in danger of being shouted down or put into physical danger—with the near certainty that their attackers will face few if any consequences.

“Safe spaces,” dorms, and graduation ceremonies are often racially exclusive—all knowingly in violation of the spirit and the letter of once vaunted civil rights legislation. At many colleges, faculty and potential faculty are asked to write “diversity statements,” apparently in emulation of the old McCarthy “loyalty oaths” that likewise served both to eliminate any dissent and to frighten would-be apostates. Any dissident professor will have his biography thoroughly scanned for thought crimes, and then be libeled as a “racist” or “sexist”—as a clear warning to others to keep silent.

There is a revolutionary war now being waged against the Supreme Court, because it no longer characteristically legislates from the bench. If the Court was once beloved as an iconic institution that was a sort of liberal judiciary, legislature, and executive all in one, it is now utterly despised as counterrevolutionary. Indeed, it is declared illegitimate, and its rulings to be ignored.

Former law professor Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) screams about a need to pack the Court—an insurrectionary attempt to end 160 years of judicial law and custom, that would be impossible without first ending the 180-year filibuster.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanagh by name at the doors of the Court, issuing biblical warnings of violence to both: “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

What sort of “force” did a U.S. senator refer to by screaming to a mob about what might “hit” the justices or when he further threatened, that the two “have released the whirlwind and [they] will pay the price”? What price? What whirlwind?

Did such physical threats incite would-be nuts to seek out a court justice—as in the recent case of 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske arrested armed near the home of Justice Kavanaugh and who currently faces a charge of attempting to murder an associate justice of the Supreme Court?

Illegally leaking rough drafts of future opinions is now not unlawful but a voice of conscience—as long as it is seen as another effective leftist tool to intimidate conservative justices.

Leftists, egged on by Democratic politicians, now routinely mass, circle, shout, and seek to intimidate at the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices—a felony violation that is never prosecuted. Joe Biden, who claimed Trump showed insufficient respect for the judiciary, now while abroad savagely attacks the U.S. Supreme Court in off-topic rants before his smiling foreign hosts. In sum, laws are said to be irrelevant and to be ignored by states, cities, and counties at will—depending on their usefulness or impediments to the Left’s agenda.

Indeed, leftists are at times states’ rights extremists. They attack the federal government’s authority on immigration issues and simply nullify it—as evidenced by 550 sanctuary city jurisdictions in blue states designed to render inert federal immigration law.

Yet at other times, the Left seeks to crush states’ rights. Currently it is calling for the federal government, in violation of the Hyde Amendment, to nullify states’ rights to establish abortion laws—by creating abortion clinics on federal military bases and national parks inside red states (that is, in states where about 10 percent of the nations’ yearly abortions occur). The common denominators are not principles—but only the retention of power, and the notion that law is fluid and gains legitimacy only when advancing leftist dogma.

Our Revolutionary Agencies
Former Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan both lied under oath—without legal consequences—to the Congress. The FBI itself has descended into a sort of revolutionary police force rather than a disinterested investigative body focusing mostly on intrastate and federal crimes. The fired former Director James Comey feigned amnesia or ignorance 245 times in his responses under oath to a House committee. The subsequent interim director Andrew McCabe admittedly lied three times to federal investigators and likely discussed wearing a wire to entrap the president of the United States. He was never charged with any federal crime. An FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered a federal affidavit to warp a FISA court hearing. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller claimed under oath that he had no idea what the Steele dossier or Fusion GPS was, even though, arguably, they were the goads that prompted his own 22-month-long investigation.

There is no need to review the creepy careers and texts of FBI lawyer Lisa Page and her paramour FBI agent Peter Strzok, other than to note both used FBI resources to advance political agendas. The entire agency was knee-deep in fueling the Russian collusion hoax, itself a veritable revolutionary attempt to destroy a political campaign, a presidential transition, and a presidency.

In the fashion of the former East German Stasi, the FBI hounds political opponents on the Right by surveilling parents at school board meetings, sending a SWAT team to arrest a flamboyant Trump supporter Roger Stone, arriving at the house of journalist James O’Keefe in the deep of night to confiscate his files and devices, and putting former White House advisor Peter Navarro in veritable shackles. The common denominator is the FBI devolving into a retrieval service for the Biden family syndicate, whether by putting on ice Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop or hounding out Ashley Biden’s lurid diary or intimidating Biden critics.

Yet when asked to produce relevant cell phones of possibly wayward agents, the FBI claims that such data was erased, shrugs, and does not comply. Apparently, the FBI leadership fears the progressive Washington political-bureaucratic-media nexus far more than it fears the consequences of violating the law it is sworn to uphold.

Retired four-star admirals and generals no longer just revolve out of service to woke corporate boards and lobbying firms. Now they must first prepare their trajectories by violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in damning their commander-in-chief and thus virtue signaling their bankable corporate orthodoxy.

As a result, the left-wing media and elite have dropped their traditional dislike of such federal authorities, be they the FBI, the CIA, or the Pentagon. Indeed, the Left has come to love those with badges and guns—but solely as a revolutionary force far more efficient than the clumsy Congress in greenlighting their progressive agendas and making life hell for their opponents.

Sort of Sacrosanct Elections, Sort of Not
As far as rejecting the outcomes of federal and state elections, for leftist insurrectionists the validity of an election hinges on whether the Left is a declared winner or loser. Once Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016, her opponent became “illegitimate.” She joined the “Resistance” and later advised Joe Biden to reject the ballot tally if he lost the popular vote. No one claimed she was endangering hallowed institutions or sounding insurrectionary.

For Time journalist Molly Ball, the billionaire effort to undermine the 2020 election by infusing hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money to usurp the work of selected county registrars was a giddy “conspiracy.” For former Obama Pentagon lawyer Rosa Brooks in 2017, the 11-day tenure of newly inaugurated President Donald Trump was already an occasion to weigh the relative advantages of either impeachment, invocation of the 25th Amendment—or a military coup to remove him.

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams became a left-wing cult figure by touring the country claiming she was the real governor of her state who somehow, nonetheless and illegitimately, had lost her campaign by 50,000 votes.

Good Threats of Violence
As far as violence goes, the Left has descended into full assault pornography over the last few years. Former vice president and “uniter” Joe Biden boasted that he would like to beat up President Trump: “If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him . . .” or “He’s the bully that used to make fun when I was a kid that I stutter, and I’d smack him in the mouth.” Do we remember when Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), another 2020 presidential hopeful, railed that, “My testosterone sometimes makes me want to feel like punching him [Trump], which would be bad for this elderly, out-of-shape man that he is if I did that. This physically weak specimen.” Robert De Niro similarly announced that he had his sights on Trump, “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

Do such threats have consequences? Maybe. On the day Trump was inaugurated, Madonna incited a crowd outside the White House by warning that she had thought of blowing up the White House. Comedian Kathy Griffin trumped that in a video in which she held up a facsimile of a decapitated Trump head. Few today remember James Hodgkinson—a former Bernie Sanders campaign worker—and his 2017 attempt to assassinate Republican congressmen at a practice for a charity baseball game.

So yes, let us fear that democracy is dying in media darkness. Real insurrectionists are seeking to dismantle the Constitution, to end centuries-long customs and traditions, to justify the use of political violence, and to disobey all the laws they find inconvenient.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/03/who-are-the-real-insurrectionists-2/
Click to expand...

Fired FBI official Andrew McCabe wins retirement benefits and back pay in settlement

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/14/1039690679/andrew-mccabe-lawsuit-trump-fbi

stumbler · Jul 7, 2022

Capitol rioter who stole papers from 'known congressman' pleads guilty

Sky Palma
July 06, 2022

A Virginia man has pleaded guilty to storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and stealing government property, Law&Crime reports.

Ryan Seth Suleski, 34, admitted on Wednesday that he stormed the Capitol and stole some documents he found on the floor of an empty hallway. He pleaded guilty to entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds and theft of government property. He faces up to one year in jail and a maximum $100,000 fine if he's convicted. His plea deal spares him the more serious charge of obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, which carries a prison term of 20 years.

After Suleski entered the Capitol, he repeatedly tried to open locked doors throughout the building. When he reached the third floor, he saw papers that belonged to a "known congressman" scattered on the floor, looked through them, and then rolled them up and put them in his backpack.

After leaving the building, Suleski was interviewed by the BBC.

IN OTHER NEWS: Pat Cipollone is 'a greatest hits package of crazy statements' by Donald Trump: legal expert

“That is just not how things are done in this country,” the reporter said to Suleski.

“Right,” Suleski replied.

“Lawlessness, storming buildings, even, and that is what happened today,” the reporter said.

“This nation wasn’t founded on civility,” Suleski said in response. “This nation was founded on revolutionary activity. We became civil after the government realized that they got overwhelmed.”

“So, what happens now?” the reporter asked.

“I guess now we wait and see if they take us seriously because they saw how easily we were able to breach their defense,” Suleski answered.

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-rioter-who-stole-papers-from-known-congressman-pleads-guilty/

stumbler · Jul 7, 2022

These domestic terrorists simply cannot believe their conservative Christian White privilege isn't protecting them. The cannot accept they are looking at prison for doing what Traitor Trump told them to do. And not a deadly weapon my ass. If I had to go up against someone with a baton give me a long poll every time. And killing them with it would be a very simple task.

Goshen man convicted of attacking cop on Jan. 6 asks judge to override jury on four counts

Chris McKenna, Times Herald-Record
Thu, July 7, 2022 at 3:01 AM

A Goshen man awaiting sentencing for assaulting a cop outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 is asking a judge to throw out four charges of which a jury convicted him, arguing the metal flagpole he brandished can't be considered a dangerous weapon.

A federal jury found Thomas Webster guilty on all six charges against him May 2, deliberating for less than three hours after a trial that lasted three days and included testimony from both Webster and the cop he tackled after charging past police barriers. Webster, a 56-year-old retired New York City police officer and former Marine, is set to be sentenced by District Court Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 2.

Thomas Webster, a former New York City police officer, is among those arrested and charged for participating in the Capitol riot.
In a motion filed last month, Webster's attorney asked Mehta to overrule much of the jury's verdict by acquitting him on the four counts that involved the use of a "deadly or dangerous weapon," a factor that raised the seriousness of each charge. The weapon was an aluminum pole that initially held a Marines flag and that Webster then wielded after smashing it in half on one of the bicycle racks police had lined up as a crowd barrier.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/goshen-man-convicted-attacking-cop-090135588.html

stumbler · Jul 8, 2022

'Tie all those pieces together': Former Trump lawyer draws a map for DOJ's criminal prosecution

Bob Brigham
July 07, 2022

White House Lawyer Ty Cobb (Courtesy of Hogan Lovells)

The attorney Donald Trump brought into the White House to manage his response to the Mueller probe revealed on Thursday the potential criminal activity in Trump's coup attempt that he thinks the Department of Justice should find "worthy" of investigation.

CNN's Erin Burnett played police bodycam footage of police executing a search warrant on Jeffrey Clark, who was wearing a dress shirt and underwear.

"The news coming as the DOJ's investigation appears to be picking up steam," Burnett reported. "Republican operatives are set to set turn over information as soon as tomorrow, the DOJ has issued numerous subpoenas in the past few weeks for information in all seven battleground states where Trump's campaign convened those fake electors."

"In the meantime, on Capitol Hill, the Jan. 6 committee is ramping up," she continued. "The Trump White House counselor Pat Cipollone will testify tomorrow before the Jan. 6 committee. He is, of course, a crucial witness. his testimony could be very important in helping the Justice Department when they hear it, determine whether criminal charges should be brought against Trump himself."

For analysis, Burnett interviewed Ty Cobb, who was a former federal prosecutor and white-shoe lawyer before joining Trump's White House.

“If the president asks you, you don’t say no. I have rocks in my head and steel balls," Cobb said in June of 2017.

Burnett asked the attorney if he thought Trump deserved blame for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"Yes, I think the president certainly deserves some blame for what happened. He charged up the crowd, you know there have been reports about, knowing they were armed and his refusal to take out some incendiary rhetoric where he urged the crowd to fight for him on the Hill," he said. "I think, you know, it's certainly justifiable and important that the country look into this and dig out the details but in a word, does the president deserve blame? Yes."

Cobb then basically drew a roadmap for Attorney General Merrick Garland to follow.

"I think that, from everything I've seen and heard, thanks to the good reporting on all of this, that there are some serious facts out there, the phone calls to [Georgia Secretary of State Brad] Raffensperger and [Arizona House of Representatives Speaker Rusty] Bowers concern me greatly, the demand to find 11,470 votes is of concern to me," he explained. "I think it sounds like, if true, Pat Cipollone advised the president that there were serious criminal concerns at issue before he took certain actions. I think that is very problematic."

"I mean I think, you've got issues of defrauding the United States with regard to the vice president issue and the 'Big Lie.' You've got potential obstruction, influencing a witness, and of course, you've got seditious conspiracy. If indeed, they can tie all of those pieces together," Cobb said. "I think that will be difficult on the sedition, but I do think there's certainly other criminal activity worthy of investigation."

Watch below or at this link.

https://www.rawstory.com/attorney-ty-cobb-trump/

stumbler · Jul 8, 2022

Trump's 'full-blown coup': What was Mike Flynn's plan? How much did Meadows and Giuliani know? What about Ginni? What happens next?

Chauncey Devega, Salon
July 07, 2022

President Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump, official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian.

The House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, has collected more than 140,000 documents and interviewed at least 1,000 people. It has held six televised public hearings so far (with another scheduled for July 12) which have been viewed by tens of millions of people in America and around the world.

A veritable legion of reporters, filmmakers, legal scholars, historians and other researchers have also been doggedly pursuing the truth about Jan. 6 and its larger implications. In a very real sense, the Capitol attack was the most documented crime scene in American history.

A great deal of information is already known about Donald Trump and his confederates' coup attempt, and about their escalating campaign to end American democracy. Nonetheless, there remain many unconfirmed rumors, unanswered questions, unexplained details and a variety of secrets not yet forced out into the light.

During the committee's hearing last Tuesday, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, gave testimony making clear that Trump and his closest advisers anticipated and welcomed the violence on Jan. 6. Trump was told by the Secret Service that his followers were armed with pistols, assault rifles, and other lethal weapons. Trump ordered that they be allowed to gather by the thousands on the Ellipse anyway. It appears highly likely that Trump intended to go the Capitol himself. Following the pattern of coups that have occurred in other countries, after his followers attacked the Capitol and disrupted the certification of the 2020 Election, Donald Trump would have announced himself as "president" for some indefinite time in the future because of a "national emergency" -- one that he and his confederates actually created.

So the question now is not whether Donald Trump and his confederates committed high crimes against American democracy and the rule of law, but whether they will ever be prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

To discuss that possibility and many other matters related to Jan. 6, I recently spoke with Hugo Lowell. He is a congressional reporter for the Guardian, and one of the sharpest observers of the House select committee's investigation. In this conversation, Lowell reflects on what it was like to hear Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony in person, and whether that marked a turning point in the Jan. 6 hearings and the country's possible reckoning with Donald Trump and his legacy.

Lowell says the committee has conclusively demonstrated that Donald Trump was (and remains) at the center of a violent plot to end American democracy and that he is responsible for his own actions and behavior. He also suggests that the Department of Justice may ultimately prosecute Donald Trump for financial crimes, just as the FBI often targets organized-crime figures for tax evasion.

Lowell also discusses how close Trump actually came to declaring martial law, and says many questions remain about the role of retired Gen. Michael Flynn and various right-wing paramilitary groups in the events of Jan. 6 and beyond.

Toward the end of this conversation Lowell ponders the questions that the House select committee has not yet addressed, most notably about the relationship between militia groups, Donald Trump and the members of Trump's inner circle who met in the "war room" at the Willard hotel on the eve of the Jan. 6 insurrection.

As someone who is reporting on the Jan. 6 hearings and related matters, how are you managing it all? How did you feel after last week's hearing and the testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson?

The testimony that Cassidy Hutchinson gave was truly extraordinary from a legal perspective, and for what it showed about potential criminal exposure on the part of Trump. But also think her testimony was extraordinary from an emotional perspective.

It was very powerful for me to hear Cassidy talk about how she felt that what Donald Trump was doing was unpatriotic and un-American, and how it saddened her. I thought to myself that it saddens me too, a great nation like the United States being reduced to talking about a president who is throwing dishes, sending armed people to the Capitol and trying to attack a Secret Service agent because he wouldn't drive him there. It was all actually quite sad. I just sat there for a minute contemplating what Cassidy was saying. As extraordinary as it was, it was also very disappointing. It really felt like America has regressed.

What does it feel like to see America brought so low by Jan. 6 and the Age of Trump more generally? And specifically, by what is being revealed by the House Jan. 6 hearings?

I disagree with your premise a little bit. I recently went to a British embassy event, a Jubilee celebration. I asked a senior person there, "What do you make of all this? Isn't this all crazy?" And she said, "Well, if I look at it from a God's-eye perspective, America's not even 300 years old and it has done so many amazing things. But there are obviously going to be some blips along the way."

Donald Trump and Jan. 6 were a blip in the lifespan of a nation. I think about where the U.K. was, 200 or 300 years after its founding: Civil wars, people getting decapitated. This was transient. It's temporary.

Jan. 6 and Trump was a blip in the lifespan of a nation. I think about where the U.K. was, 200 or 300 years after its founding. There were civil wars. People were getting decapitated. What happened with respect to the Capitol attack and Trump and the division of America was transient, in this person's opinion. It was temporary. It's just that America has condensed its history into a much shorter span than other countries. She was very optimistic about America.

The tired phrase "history was made" has been summoned up by many in the news media to describe Hutchinson's testimony. What history is really being made? And what does it mean, in the long term, in terms of Trump and his confederates being punished for Jan. 6?

The effect of that hearing was to jolt the American public, to wake them back up to the gravity and seriousness of Jan. 6. In my opinion, a type of collective fatigue had set in over the Capitol attack during these last 10 or so months. There's been a drip, drip, drip of news and some little investigative findings. We have heard some things from the House committee, but not much. People who are focused on what happened on Jan. 6 already knew a lot about Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and how it all culminated with the Capitol attack. In the broadest terms, most people know that Trump was responsible to some degree for inciting the Capitol attack. The Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee already uncovered most of what the Jan. 6 committee covered about how Trump tried to pressure the Department of Justice into overturning the election.

Hutchinson's testimony was like an electric shock to the collective public consciousness because the testimony was so riveting and so extraordinary and so appalling, and because what Trump did was so unbecoming of a president.

Yes, there were the tabloid dimensions, with the accounts of Trump throwing his lunch at the wall in anger and throttling a Secret Service agent. But the testimony was still so riveting because you can picture in your mind's eye Trump doing these things. What Trump did on Jan. 6 is objectively bad. Hearing Hutchinson explain what Trump did was a seminal moment for a lot of people. The committee was able to use her testimony to get the public focused back on Trump's conduct on Jan. 6 — what Trump was doing and what he wasn't doing and these questions of his criminal exposure.

What was it like to witness Hutchinson's testimony in person? How would you assess that moment as storytelling and theater?

The atmosphere before the hearing was unlike what it felt like before for any of the previous hearings, it was markedly different. You could sense this was a big deal. Through my reporting, even though we didn't know what Cassidy was going to say, we knew it was going to be bad.

Members of Congress went into a secure briefing room that's normally reserved for the House Intelligence Committee. They were in that room for hours before the hearing started. Everyone's very tightlipped about it. I got the sense that there were more Capitol police officers there as well. Everyone was on a higher stage of alert. It felt like the stakes were suddenly very, very high.

Hutchinson was sworn in, and she sat down and then she started talking. Almost every single sentence she said was new and it was riveting. The atmosphere in the room was very sharp, that is the best way to describe it. It wasn't like a thriller or a novel. There was a sense of anxiety and trepidation. It was almost like watching a horror film. You want to know what's about to happen. You know it's going to be bad, because the music is getting ominous and you want to look away, but you can't look away. That was how I felt in the room watching Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony.

Who is the main audience for the Jan. 6 hearings? Are observers such as myself just too cynical? To my eyes, we are learning new details, but the broad strokes of the Trump plot have been known for some time. What am I getting wrong with such an assessment?

These hearings are for the public — independent voters and suburban voters, especially — who might not already have a concrete idea in their minds about what happened on Jan. 6 and who was responsible for it. The salacious stuff about Trump is for the public audience as well.

The other audience is the Justice Department. The committee is presenting the evidence to them in great detail, so that the DOJ knows what evidence it will have when matters are turned over to them. Trump's response, when he was told that the crowd outside the Ellipse didn't want to go into the secure rally area because they didn't want to give up their weapons — he responded, "I don't fucking care. They're not here to hurt me. They can march to the Capitol from here." That was really revealing, from a potential criminal exposure standpoint. Not only does it show that Trump knew the crowd was armed, but that he knew they were armed to cause harm to someone, just not him.

He knowingly sent them to the Capitol. He encouraged the crowd to go to the Capitol, knowing full well before he took the stage that they were armed. In terms of incitement to violence and obstruction of congressional business, that was very significant.

The final audience for Hutchinson's testimony was the reporters. The reporters and the news media more broadly have been very cynical about these hearings and whether much of what is being presented is new information. Last Tuesday's hearing was very different. It spoke to me in a different way, and I thought I'd lost the ability to be shocked.

What is the relatively simple and direct story about Jan. 6 so far? How do we connect the dots for the American people, especially those who have not been following these matters closely?

We have now learned for the first time that Donald Trump incited armed people to go to the Capitol. We learned that Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows may have criminal exposure.

That the Capitol attack was the combination of this multi-pronged, multi-month effort by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the election. It was just one part of a multi-pronged strategy. But last week we learned for the first time how directly Trump was involved. We also learned more about how his top aides were involved in the plan. We always knew that Trump knew about the plans to overturn the election and how he was pressuring Mike Pence to be part of that plan.

But we have now learned for the first time, and under oath, that Donald Trump incited armed people to go to the Capitol. We also learned that Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, and Mark Meadows, his White House chief of staff, may have criminal exposure themselves. They were asking for pardons, which shows a consciousness of guilt. They were also in communication with Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, John Eastman and other high-ranking figures.

All of the pieces came together. We can now connect Trump and Meadows at the White House to Roger Stone and Michael Flynn and Rudy Giuliani at the Willard war room, and then we also tied it all to the rally. That was particularly significant.

Michael Flynn is central to the events of Jan. 6, both the coup plot and attack on the Capitol. What role did he play?

The short answer is, we don't know. The long answer is that a number of reporters, investigators and the Department of Justice are trying very hard to understand what Mike Flynn was doing in the weeks between Dec. 18, 2020, when his idea to seize the voting machines was discussed and not taken up at the White House, and Jan. 6. Flynn does not go away.

After he and Sidney Powell get thrown out of the White House, they don't go away. They hang around. The way I've been looking at Flynn and his involvement with Jan. 6 is how he pops up at key moments in the timeline. The first major point with Flynn is that he is present on Dec. 12 at a rally in Washington, the Jericho March. Flynn makes a speech in front of the Supreme Court. He is seen with the Oath Keepers and the 1st Amendment Praetorian, his personal protective security detail. These are volunteers, ex-military. That's the first time we see Flynn interact with the Oath Keepers. The leaders of the Oath Keepers have been indicted by the DOJ for seditious conspiracy.

We fast-forward to Dec. 18 where Flynn is pitching the idea of using Executive Order 13848, that would give the president effectively broad authority to use emergency laws in order to seize voting machines. We then fast-forward through to early January. Mike Flynn is at the Willard hotel, the same venue as Roger Stone and Rudy Giuliani. He has no obvious connection to Jan. 6, but he is at the Willard, and he is at the center of everything. It's almost like Flynn is gathering intelligence for his own purposes.

Cassidy's testimony revealed that on Jan. 5, Donald Trump told Meadows to call Flynn. On Jan. 6, Flynn's 1st Amendment Praetorian are seen around the Capitol. They don't really break into the Capitol, which is why they've not been charged. One of Flynn's operatives has been tracked at key events. Independent journalists have been doing this work.

Mike Flynn pops up at key moments in the timeline. He has no obvious connection to Jan. 6, but he is at the center of everything. He was there for something — we just don't know what.

The person in question was at the Dec. 12 rally, and then he's at the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6. He never goes inside, but he's got an earpiece in his ear and he's walking around the Capitol. You see him on the East Front earlier in the day. You see him on the West Front when the Capitol is actually being stormed by Trump's followers. You see him at various points. It's almost like he's gathering intelligence or is directing people somehow.

It's very difficult to figure out what Flynn wanted to do on Jan. 6, but he pops up at all these key moments. It is very strange. He was there for something. We just don't know what it is yet.

What do we know about Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas?

Internally, the committee for the longest time was not interested in Ginni Thomas. They do not believe that she played an active role in organizing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. They also don't believe that she played an active role in the legal memos that form the underlying basis for Trump's strategy to have Pence throw the election in his favor. They also don't believe that she was actively involved in writing the Georgia "proof of concept" letter that Jeff Clark wanted to use to weaponize the Justice Department. The committee has always seen her as a political activist. She would try to get herself involved in this because that is what she does. She's a right winger. She's offering help if it can be used.

Recently, the House committee got ahold of the final set of John Eastman emails and other communications. And according to one source — and this is why I've not reported it — but one source tells me that the text messages between Ginni Thomas and John Eastman are potentially incriminating, to the degree to which she ended up inserting herself into efforts to overturn the election. I think it's clear Ginni Thomas is not a key player. She might have had some involvement, but the committee is not focused on her is because she wasn't seen as a key player.

I think she's interesting. Her involvement is something for the Senate or House Judiciary Committee to investigate, because the wife of a Supreme Court justice is getting involved in election litigation. That's bad. But that does not necessarily mean that Ginni Thomas was a ringleader in organizing the Capitol attack, based on what we know so far.

Where is the committee in terms of holding the Republicans in Congress who appear to have been involved in the coup plot responsible? We now know that several Republicans actually requested pardons from Donald Trump for their role in the events of Jan. 6 and the larger attempt to nullify the 2020 election.

They're pending subpoena. Initially there was not much discussion about forcing subpoenas for Republican members of Congress. Some of the committee members were quite content for the Republicans to just ignore the subpoenas. In theory this would mean that if Republicans tried to subpoena Democrats in the next Congress, they could respond, "Well, you guys set our precedent and if you guys didn't have to appear for our subpoenas, then we're not going to appear for yours." That was the strategy at one point, at least among some members. That has changed. There's a real appetite now to try and get these Republicans before the committee. The committee members and the investigative counsel have had enough.

The email they obtained about Rep. Mo Brooks asking for pardons was part of that change. It's one thing to get testimony to say Republicans are seeking pardons. It's another completely different thing when you have the email that shows that Mo Brooks was asking for pardons on behalf of hundreds on them. The committee really wants to get to the bottom of why they were seeking pardons.

Were they seeking pardons just because Trump was hinting that he was going to give them out like candy, and therefore the Republicans thought it would be useful to have a pocket pardon? In and of itself, that is not a great explanation anyway.

Anytime you're asking for a pardon, it almost always shows some consciousness of guilt. But if it was because they genuinely thought they'd committed a crime and they needed protection, then for what crime? Was it for obstruction? Were these Republicans involved in some sort of seditious conspiracy? Was it because they had contacts with people who they thought might have criminal exposure? There are so many questions.

Based on the available evidence, what can we reasonably conclude about the role of violence and the attack on the Capitol in the overall coup plot?

It was the last-chance opportunity for Donald Trump to remain president, by hook or crook. He knew, and every one of his advisers knew, that the moment Congress certified the presidential election on the 6th, that was it. No more post-election litigation is possible after that, because Congress has certified it. They already blew through the "safe harbor" day, the Electoral Count Act deadline by which point post-election litigation is normally supposed to stop, but then they pushed it all way to Jan. 6. It was the last chance Trump had to make sure the certification didn't happen.

The Capitol attack was a Hail Mary play, a last chance for Trump to remain president, or at least kick it into the House. It was like, let's throw everything we have at the wall and see if it sticks.

The attack on the Capitol was a type of desperate ploy, a Hail Mary-type play, a last chance for Trump to remain president, or at least have the matter kicked to the House in a contingent election so the Republicans could return him to the presidency. Everyone in Trump World thought this was the final opportunity he had to get back to the White House for a second term, and so they threw everything at it. This is why you had Eastman admitting in emails that his whole strategy for Jan. 6 was unlawful: "But let's do it anyway, because we have no other choice and we have no other strategy left." It was like, let's throw everything we have at the wall and see if anything will stick.

How close did Donald Trump come to declaring martial law in order to remain in power?

We obviously know that people were in Trump's ear talking about it. We know for a fact that Mike Flynn and Sidney Powell were talking about martial law at the Dec. 18 meeting at the White House, where Powell was trying to become special counsel and get Trump to sign the document that said we can seize voting machines.

According to one of my sources, and again this is only one source, there was a discussion late in January, a few days before Inauguration Day, where another of his aides asked Donald Trump if he was going to declare martial law. In each case Trump demurred.

I don't think we will ever know how close Trump came, inside his own mind, to actually declaring martial law. Trump doesn't like to make big decisions. But he was certainly being told about it and being urged to do it by at least some people all the way from Dec. 18 through close to Inauguration Day. On the one hand, he thought martial law would be a very straightforward way to just get what he wanted. On the other hand, I think Trump knew deep down the implications of declaring martial law and that there was potential for it not to end up the way that he wanted.

At some prominent places in the news media we are still seeing questions such as "How much did Trump actually know? Did he ever explicitly give commands or orders? Was he really responsible?" You've seen all those qualifiers from the usual suspects. How do you put such claims to rest? It is clear that Donald Trump was at the center of the whole damn scheme.

My approach with all of this has been that you do not actually have to prove what Donald Trump knew. All you have to show is what a reasonable person could have known. Would a reasonable person have believed that the election was stolen if your attorney general says it wasn't? If your own campaign data experts say the numbers aren't there? If your own advisers are saying the evidence for fraud claims never materialized? The "earnest belief" defense flies out the window because Trump is being willfully blind to the fact that the election was not stolen.

The committee has done a very good job in laying that out, in terms of charges such as obstruction of an official proceeding or conspiracy to defraud the United States. We have also recently learned about fundraising fraud. Real, genuine fraud, with Trump trying to get people to donate to a fund that doesn't exist, and that Trump knew did not exist.

There are straightforward charges that carry heavy sentences that could potentially apply in Trump's case. One might never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in seditious conspiracy. Even if he had, for the sake of argument, the bar to prove it is so high that the DOJ may not want to bring that type of charge. But the DOJ can bring charges against Trump that have severe penalties but are not as sexy. You get the mafia boss on financial crimes and on fraud and RICO. The DOJ does not have to get Trump on seditious conspiracy.

I actually think there is a very good chance, especially with the testimony from Hutchinson, that the DOJ considers bringing indictments against Trump personally, but not for a big headline-grabbing crime such as treason. The penalties for fraud and other such crimes are very severe as well.

Here is my summary based on what we know about the attack on the Capitol. Please intervene if need be. Violence was a central part of the coup plot. Trump wanted to go to the Capitol. He unleashed his armed supporters. There were right-wing paramilitaries who actually breached the Capitol before the main attack force appeared. The ultimate plan was to disrupt the certification of the election.

In keeping with what authoritarians and demagogues do, it was political theater, a banana-republic moment. Donald Trump wanted to be at the Capitol, if not on the floor of Congress, to take over and declare the election null and void, whatever verbiage he wanted to use. The violence and mayhem by his followers were a means for Trump to declare himself president during a time of national emergency. Trump was enraged because the plan was disrupted and he wasn't allowed to go to the Capitol for the victorious moment.

I believe that you are correct. Trump knew that his supporters were armed. He knew they were likely to cause harm — just not to him. He knowingly sent them to the Capitol with the biggest incentive he could give, which is, "I'm going to be there with you." If he had gone to the Capitol and wasn't stopped by Secret Service and, let's say, had given a speech outside Congress, that would have incentivized his followers even further.

Donald Trump was not going to the Capitol to pontificate. His intentions were to go to Congress and forcefully stop that certification from taking place. That is the definition of a coup.

The fact that Trump did not go to the Capitol insulated him, in Pat Cipollone's words, from "being charged with every crime imaginable," because then you are actually at the scene of the crime. If Trump had gone into the House chamber, that would have almost certainly been a crime. He is obstructing Congress, and he is also at the place of the crime. The fact that he was stopped protected him from that. But in his mind, Donald Trump's intentions on Jan. 6 were to go to Congress and forcefully stop that certification from taking place.

Donald Trump was not going there to pontificate and make general remarks about how the election was stolen from him. Everything in Trump's conduct on the 6th was about sending his supporters to somehow make sure that certification didn't happen and that Biden wasn't certified as the next president by Congress. Trump had exactly the same conversation with his lawyers at the Willard hotel on the night of Jan. 5. If you put everything together, the picture you get is a president who should know he lost the election and trying to weaponize his supporters to forcefully stop the certification. That is the definition of a coup. Trump knew his followers were armed. That makes it a full-blown coup.

There are a lot of secrets still out there about Jan. 6, even after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. What questions do you want to see answered?

I'm fixated on the nexus of the militia groups, the White House and the Willard hotel figures. This is directly out of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. I want to know why Mark Meadows believed that the 6th was going to be, "I don't know, Cass, real bad." I want to know why Giuliani told her, "Things are going to be bad on the 6th." I want to know why the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys were being mentioned around the White House when Giuliani was there. I want to know why Trump directed Meadows to talk to Roger Stone and Mike Flynn on the night of the 5th. I want to know why Meadows desired so desperately to go to the Willard, but then instead just connected via a conference call.

What was it that compelled Trump to get Meadows to talk to his operatives at the Willard? What was it that compelled Rudy to discuss the militia groups at the White House? What was it that gave Meadows so much pause days before the insurrection? What was it that gave Rudy the excitement that something bad was going to happen? I think the Cassidy Hutchinson hearing posed brand new questions and gave us more questions than answers.

https://www.rawstory.com/trumps-coup/

Scotchlass · Jul 8, 2022

In his inimitable spittle spewing style, @stumbles issued the following challenge, By the way @Scotchlass are you going to show us any examples of "Imprison people for over 18 months without charging them..." or are you going to prove you are just babbling treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican bullshit lies. Your move.
Out of respect for people that his level of Special Needs deserve, I ignored him,
But he next followed this up with a mocking, Hey @Scotchlass where'd you go? Show us who has been in jail for 18 months without charges?

Sigh... So here goes. The following article comes from March 29 of this year when the author wrote, That event [J6] is now 15 months behind us. Why, in our land of “liberty and justice,” are many still detained? If @stumbles has any data which shows this has changed for the better since April...now is the time for him to respond...

Further, he writes, The DOJ has an incomplete, frighteningly suggestive reporting system, that indicates one case was dismissed, some resolved by plea, 70 adjudicated – but many are in perdition, facing seemingly eternal punishment and damnation, with no resolution on the horizon. Whether it's hundreds or “just 40” as one article argues, even one is too many.

The 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights promises “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” Despite the Bill of Rights, many individuals remain mysteriously detained and untried.
The 6th Amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial …” Has that occurred?
“.. by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed …” Has that occurred?
“…confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor …” Occurred?
“…Assistance of Counsel …” Occurring?

The answer? Who knows? I certainly don't, nor does the inimitable Mr. Stumbles. It is difficult to impossible to get information from the DOJ regarding this shameful situation. The record is strangely incomplete, access restricted, word barely getting out, and what we know is not reassuring.
Whether or not you agree with what these people are accused of, it's shameful that this is happening in the US.
The initial question above, why, is good question which, except for few individuals, and certainly not the media, is not being asked by either side.

Jan 6th Prisoners – Detained and Forgotten
Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2022 | By AMAC, Robert B. Charles

More than 800 Americans, among tens of thousands who protested irregularities in the 2020 election cycle, stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 – and were arrested. That event is now 15 months behind us. Why, in our land of “liberty and justice,” are many still detained? The point of this piece is not to relitigate the protest, election, charges, or anything to do with politics. It is to focus on a simple idea – due process and rule of law.

As a former US Court of Appeals clerk, New York, and DC litigator, and – rather ironically, former Assistant Secretary of State to Colin Powell for global issues, including law enforcement – the conditions and state of these cases, many unresolved, is a concern.

Reports flow in – through family, friends, official and credible channels – that these detainees are isolated, living in poor conditions, cannot meet with reporters, are increasingly invisible, just forgotten people. That is not how America works.

The Department of Justice has an incomplete, frighteningly suggestive reporting system, that indicates one case was dismissed, some resolved by plea, 70 adjudicated – but many in perdition, facing seemingly eternal punishment and damnation, no resolution on the horizon. Whether hundreds or “just 40” as one article argues, one is too many. See, e.g., Capitol Breach Cases; One Year Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol; At least 800 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all.; No, there are not ‘hundreds’ of Capitol riot defendants in DC jail.

How can this be, in a nation with a Bill of Rights, which promises “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (5th Amendment)? The Bill of Rights notwithstanding, many charged individuals remain untried, still mysteriously detained?

Consider the 6th Amendment. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial …” Has that occurred? “.. by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed …” Has that occurred?

Continuing: “…confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor …” Occurred? “…Assistance of Counsel …” Occurring?

The answer? Who knows? The record is strangely incomplete, access restricted, word barely getting out, and what we know is not reassuring. See, e.g., ‘We are rotting in jail’: Capitol rioter demands Trump give 6 January speech to back him and co-prisoners; D.C. officials stew after Jan. 6 prisoners’ complaints prompt federal pull-out from jail.

What we know, based on official reports of DC jails where many are held, is just conditions are incorrigible, in some cases objectively inhumane and indefensible. See, e.g., January 6 suspects’ D.C. jail complaints are hypocrital, but they’re not wrong;

Specifically, many seem to be isolated, facing poor health, living conditions, treated as if undeserving of the kind of constitutional standards they deserve. Members of Congress, notably Republicans, have decried conditions are intolerable. One noted: “What’s happening to these people being held in custody is wrong, it’s unconstitutional … a violation of their rights …” See, Congressional Report Details Squalid Conditions Faced By Jan. 6 Defendants; Congressional Republicans slam treatment of Jan. 6 defendants held at D.C. jail.

Even mainstream media and judicial authorities have begun to acknowledge things are not right. See, e.g., Problems at D.C. Jail Were Ignored Until Jan. 6 Defendants Came Along; The Crisis at the D.C. Jail Began Decades Before Jan. 6 Defendants Started Raising Concerns; A Judge Urged The Justice Department To Investigate Jail Conditions For Jan. 6 Defendants; Judge holds Washington, D.C., jail officials in contempt in a Jan. 6 riot case.

So, what can be done to assure that America – unlike Russia, China, and half the politicized legal systems of the world – does NOT hold, detain indefinitely, mistreat, forget, or otherwise leave an impression that political prisoners exist, part of a nefarious “two-tiered system?”

A lot.

First, the exact status of all cases should be made public now, and every succeeding day. That should not be hard. Every American is owed that clarity.

Second, reporters, family, friends, and concerned citizens should be able to meet with these indefinitely detained individuals. Not to do so raises serious suspicions, suggesting those in charge can do as they wish, are unaccountable. That is not good for the detained or any of us.

Third, counsel by name – for all detained individuals – should be made public. Like Fifth Amendment assurances of due process, Sixth Amendment guarantees are not negotiable.

Fourth, with the consent of the detained, televisions cameras, congressional investigators, members of Congress, relevant State officials should be permitted to see these individuals and conditions.

Fifth, especially in these cases, justice should return to being swift and fair, since the question now arises whether a Democrat-controlled federal and DC government, where anti-Trump feeling runs strong, could be intentionally disregarding these Americans, letting them languish.

Many years ago, as an Assistant Secretary of State, one of my priorities was assuring any influence America had to seed and preserve rule of law around the world, fair treatment, and generic respect for those arrested, charged and detained was understood by foreign officials.

Many times, these officials had a political agenda tied to holding prisoners. Aware, we stood against politics in the legal process. We must now hold ourselves and those in power to that standard.

Bottom line: The January 6 defendants deserve protection against the perception and fact of political punishment. Only that assures rule of law. Absence violates rule of law. They cannot be detained and forgotten, not in America. The time is now to insist on that standard and proof of it.

https://amac.us/jan-6th-prisoners-detained-and-forgotten/

stumbler · Jul 8, 2022

Scotchlass said: ↑

In his inimitable spittle spewing style, @stumbles issued the following challenge, By the way @Scotchlass are you going to show us any examples of "Imprison people for over 18 months without charging them..." or are you going to prove you are just babbling treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican bullshit lies. Your move.
Out of respect for people that his level of Special Needs deserve, I ignored him,
But he next followed this up with a mocking, Hey @Scotchlass where'd you go? Show us who has been in jail for 18 months without charges?

Sigh... So here goes. The following article comes from March 29 of this year when the author wrote, That event [J6] is now 15 months behind us. Why, in our land of “liberty and justice,” are many still detained? If @stumbles has any data which shows this has changed for the better since April...now is the time for him to respond...

Further, he writes, The DOJ has an incomplete, frighteningly suggestive reporting system, that indicates one case was dismissed, some resolved by plea, 70 adjudicated – but many are in perdition, facing seemingly eternal punishment and damnation, with no resolution on the horizon. Whether it's hundreds or “just 40” as one article argues, even one is too many.

The 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights promises “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” Despite the Bill of Rights, many individuals remain mysteriously detained and untried.
The 6th Amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial …” Has that occurred?
“.. by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed …” Has that occurred?
“…confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor …” Occurred?
“…Assistance of Counsel …” Occurring?

The answer? Who knows? I certainly don't, nor does the inimitable Mr. Stumbles. It is difficult to impossible to get information from the DOJ regarding this shameful situation. The record is strangely incomplete, access restricted, word barely getting out, and what we know is not reassuring.
Whether or not you agree with what these people are accused of, it's shameful that this is happening in the US.
The initial question above, why, is good question which, except for few individuals, and certainly not the media, is not being asked by either side.

Jan 6th Prisoners – Detained and Forgotten
Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2022 | By AMAC, Robert B. Charles

More than 800 Americans, among tens of thousands who protested irregularities in the 2020 election cycle, stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 – and were arrested. That event is now 15 months behind us. Why, in our land of “liberty and justice,” are many still detained? The point of this piece is not to relitigate the protest, election, charges, or anything to do with politics. It is to focus on a simple idea – due process and rule of law.

As a former US Court of Appeals clerk, New York, and DC litigator, and – rather ironically, former Assistant Secretary of State to Colin Powell for global issues, including law enforcement – the conditions and state of these cases, many unresolved, is a concern.

Reports flow in – through family, friends, official and credible channels – that these detainees are isolated, living in poor conditions, cannot meet with reporters, are increasingly invisible, just forgotten people. That is not how America works.

The Department of Justice has an incomplete, frighteningly suggestive reporting system, that indicates one case was dismissed, some resolved by plea, 70 adjudicated – but many in perdition, facing seemingly eternal punishment and damnation, no resolution on the horizon. Whether hundreds or “just 40” as one article argues, one is too many. See, e.g., Capitol Breach Cases; One Year Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol; At least 800 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all.; No, there are not ‘hundreds’ of Capitol riot defendants in DC jail.

How can this be, in a nation with a Bill of Rights, which promises “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (5th Amendment)? The Bill of Rights notwithstanding, many charged individuals remain untried, still mysteriously detained?

Consider the 6th Amendment. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial …” Has that occurred? “.. by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed …” Has that occurred?

Continuing: “…confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor …” Occurred? “…Assistance of Counsel …” Occurring?

The answer? Who knows? The record is strangely incomplete, access restricted, word barely getting out, and what we know is not reassuring. See, e.g., ‘We are rotting in jail’: Capitol rioter demands Trump give 6 January speech to back him and co-prisoners; D.C. officials stew after Jan. 6 prisoners’ complaints prompt federal pull-out from jail.

What we know, based on official reports of DC jails where many are held, is just conditions are incorrigible, in some cases objectively inhumane and indefensible. See, e.g., January 6 suspects’ D.C. jail complaints are hypocrital, but they’re not wrong;

Specifically, many seem to be isolated, facing poor health, living conditions, treated as if undeserving of the kind of constitutional standards they deserve. Members of Congress, notably Republicans, have decried conditions are intolerable. One noted: “What’s happening to these people being held in custody is wrong, it’s unconstitutional … a violation of their rights …” See, Congressional Report Details Squalid Conditions Faced By Jan. 6 Defendants; Congressional Republicans slam treatment of Jan. 6 defendants held at D.C. jail.

Even mainstream media and judicial authorities have begun to acknowledge things are not right. See, e.g., Problems at D.C. Jail Were Ignored Until Jan. 6 Defendants Came Along; The Crisis at the D.C. Jail Began Decades Before Jan. 6 Defendants Started Raising Concerns; A Judge Urged The Justice Department To Investigate Jail Conditions For Jan. 6 Defendants; Judge holds Washington, D.C., jail officials in contempt in a Jan. 6 riot case.

So, what can be done to assure that America – unlike Russia, China, and half the politicized legal systems of the world – does NOT hold, detain indefinitely, mistreat, forget, or otherwise leave an impression that political prisoners exist, part of a nefarious “two-tiered system?”

A lot.

First, the exact status of all cases should be made public now, and every succeeding day. That should not be hard. Every American is owed that clarity.

Second, reporters, family, friends, and concerned citizens should be able to meet with these indefinitely detained individuals. Not to do so raises serious suspicions, suggesting those in charge can do as they wish, are unaccountable. That is not good for the detained or any of us.

Third, counsel by name – for all detained individuals – should be made public. Like Fifth Amendment assurances of due process, Sixth Amendment guarantees are not negotiable.

Fourth, with the consent of the detained, televisions cameras, congressional investigators, members of Congress, relevant State officials should be permitted to see these individuals and conditions.

Fifth, especially in these cases, justice should return to being swift and fair, since the question now arises whether a Democrat-controlled federal and DC government, where anti-Trump feeling runs strong, could be intentionally disregarding these Americans, letting them languish.

Many years ago, as an Assistant Secretary of State, one of my priorities was assuring any influence America had to seed and preserve rule of law around the world, fair treatment, and generic respect for those arrested, charged and detained was understood by foreign officials.

Many times, these officials had a political agenda tied to holding prisoners. Aware, we stood against politics in the legal process. We must now hold ourselves and those in power to that standard.

Bottom line: The January 6 defendants deserve protection against the perception and fact of political punishment. Only that assures rule of law. Absence violates rule of law. They cannot be detained and forgotten, not in America. The time is now to insist on that standard and proof of it.

https://amac.us/jan-6th-prisoners-detained-and-forgotten/
Click to expand...

You said "Imprison people for over 18 months without charging them..." Which is just hilariously ignorant. I just laughed my ass off over that, In most jurisdictions if someone is held more than 72 hours without charges they walk free.

And here are the rules:

(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_5#rule_5_c

shootersa · Jul 9, 2022

What sticks out in this is that we don't know the status or conditions these 800 are being held in.

Not that it isn't legal, or justified.

Its that we don't know.

More secret police tactics.

anon_de_plume · Jul 9, 2022

stumbler said: ↑

“That is because, despite all of the flaws in the structure of the heavily Democrat committee, almost all of the evidence presented so far is coming from eminently credible sources: Republicans.”
Click to expand...

I think the term here searching for is Rino! There is no way a self-respecting Republican would put country before party.

vincenzz · Jul 9, 2022

stumbler · Jul 9, 2022

Feds Come for Youth Pastor Who Was Fired After Bragging About Storming Capitol

Tyler Ethridge, a Colorado youth pastor, was indicted Friday on felony and misdemeanor charges for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in a release. He is being charged with six counts, including civil disorder, obstructing an official proceeding, disorderly conduct, and more. Investigators were first tipped off by someone who knew Ethridge from Bible College and saw his social media posts bragging about being “outside Nancy Pelosi’s office,” according to a statement of facts. “I’m probably going to lose my job as a pastor after this,” the accused rioter said in one video he filmed. Ethridge allegedly lied to investigators about taking down barricades, of which they said they later found video evidence. While outside the West Plaza, Ethridge was pepper-sprayed and shot with rubber bullets, but that didn’t stop him from climbing media scaffolding and going inside the Capitol building, prosecutors said. In the months following the riot, Ethridge continued to post on social media, in one post telling friends to not “be afraid of what they sentence you with. I’m not. I’m ready for whatever I’ll be charged with. America is still primed and ready.”

Read it at United States Department of Justice

https://www.thedailybeast.com/color...dicted-on-felony-misdemeanor-charges?ref=home

stumbler · Jul 9, 2022

JUST IN: Biden Justice Department Reveals ‘Death List’ and Other Stunning Jan. 6 Investigation Details
By Tommy ChristopherJul 9th, 2022, 9:35 am
2664 comments

Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images.

The Department of Justice released several stunning details from its criminal probe into the actions surrounding the January 6 attack on the Capitol, including a “death list” and the presence of explosives in DC.

The bombshell January 6 committee hearings have focused chatter about Attorney General Merrick Garland’s criminal probe on whether former President Donald Trump could face prosecution, but Garland’s probe also continues to sweep up members of extremist groups who were involved in the attack.

And a new court filing Friday revealed new details — chilling ones. From CNN:

Among the new details in the government’s allegations is a document with the words “DEATH LIST” that the government says it found in Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell’s home through a search warrant in the weeks after January 6.

The handwritten list included the name of a Georgia 2020 election official and their family member who, according to the new court filing, were both targets of “unfounded conspiracy theories that they were involved in voter fraud.”

In a comment to CNN, Caldwell said “the DOJ’s claim that I sought to assassinate election workers is a 100% false and disgusting lie.”

The government also alleges that at least three chapters of the Oath Keepers held training camps prior to January 6, 2021, focused on military tactics.

Members from Florida held a training session on “unconventional warfare,” while the North Carolina chapter held a training session focused on setting up “hasty ambushes,” prosecutors say. Jessica Watkins, a leader of the Ohio chapter, stated “recruits” should attend “military-style basic” training class to be “fighting fit” by Inauguration Day.

As Garland recently pointed out, his department has already charged over 800 people in connection with the attack — and he’s far from finished.

“We are proceeding with full urgency with respect, as I’ve said many times before, to hold all perpetrators who are criminally responsible for January 6 accountable, regardless of their level or their position and regardless of whether they were present at the events of January 6. We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead,” Garland said in June.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/just-...d-other-stunning-jan-6-investigation-details/

stumbler · Jul 9, 2022

Treason is just all fun and games until the feds show up and catch you with your pants off.

Watch: Trump official who pushed the 'Big Lie' nabbed by cops in his underwear

Bob Brigham
July 07, 2022

Police bodycam (screenshot)

CNN on Thursday broadcast bodycam footage from the Fairfax County Police Department of its early-morning search warrant execution at Jeffrey Clark's home.

CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz obtained the video, which shows the Trump DOJ official in his underwear and a dress shirt.

A female officer then informs Clark she is with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General.

"Can you step outside with me, we have a search warrant and we need to speak to you," she said. "So can I get you to step outside for me?"

"Let's go, let's step outside," she repeated.

"Can I put my pants on first?" he asked.

"They are going to clear the house," he was told.

Watch below or at this link.

Jeffrey Clark www.youtube.com

https://www.rawstory.com/jeffrey-clark-underwear-boxers/

stumbler · Jul 11, 2022

Exclusive: Rally organizers issued a call for a bogus grand jury to indict Congress before Jan. 6

Jordan Green, Staff Reporter
July 11, 2022

Jan. 6 rally (AFP)

Days before the Jan. 6, 2021 attack, an ad hoc group known as the #1LoudVoice Coalition issued a call for a common-law grand jury to convene on the steps of the Capitol and issue an indictment, as Congress was meeting to certify the electoral vote of the 2020 presidential election.

The website for #1LoudVoice, which doubled as a hashtag used to mobilize Trump supporters to attend rallies across the country protesting the outcome of the 2020 election and ultimately the mass convergence in Washington, DC on Jan. 6, features a page listing “coalition members” that bears the names and logos of a at least half a dozen groups that were represented at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Among the listed coalition members is 1st Amendment Praetorian, a security group affiliated with retired Lt. General Michael Flynn; Latinos for Trump, whose president was present during a Jan. 5 meeting between Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes; a Bikers for Trump faction; and MAGA Drag the Interstate.

“Acting within our constitutional rights as We the People’s Grand Jury,” the 1LoudVoice website declares, “the signatures below represent those that endorse the public court held on the steps of the nation’s capitol on January 6th, 2021 at 9AM, and the subsequent indictment served by such public court jury composed of 25 or more of We the People.”

READ: Steve Bannon's defense accused of lying to a judge – in after midnight DOJ court filing: report

#1LoudVoice is described on the website as a coalition “united by our sense of duty to the scripture and constitution, as we navigate through a Revolutionary Refounding to restore American liberties.”

To be clear, a grand jury, as described on the website, has no legal authority or legitimacy. Walter Holton, a former US attorney appointed by President Clinton, told Raw Story that a grand jury must be sworn in and meet under the direction of a federal or state court in order to hold legitimacy and legal authority.

The “We the People’s Grand Jury” concept is drawn from the far-right Posse Comitatus, according to Devin Burghart, who has monitored far-right extremists for the past three decades and heads the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights. Initially conceived by Henry Lamont “Mike” Beach, a former member of the neofascist Silver Shirts, the “citizens grand jury” concept emerged in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1970s.

“In the 1990s, it returned thanks to groups like the Freemen in Montana and other ‘Common Law Court’ groups,” Burghart told Raw Story. “These ideas made a comeback during the pandemic, particularly among more militant COVID denial groups.”

READ: Lauren Boebert reported to FBI after 'terminate this Presidency' tweet

The 1LoudVoice website does not include any information about the coalition’s leadership, but the foremost promoter of the coalition in the days leading up to the Jan. 6 attack was a New Hampshire-based event organizer named Felisa Blazek. ThePatriotParty.rocks website, which promotes events organized by Blazek, includes a tab for a mission statement that includes the #1LoudVoice hashtag. The mission statement contains language about “seven spheres of influence” that explicitly references Seven Mountains dominion ideology, a belief that a select group of zealous Christians should take charge of all realms of society, including government, media and entertainment. The page for Patriot Party’s mission includes a header near the top that reads. “Our Coalition,” with a link to the 1LoudVoice website from which the call for a “We the People’s Grand Jury” was issued.

Blazek referenced #1LoudVoice as a group during a Dec. 30, 2020 conference call that featured Jason Sullivan, a social media strategist who had been briefly contracted by Roger Stone to work on the 2016 Trump campaign. In a recording of the conference call provided to Raw Story, one of the participants can be heard asking Sullivan what group he was with. After initially stating that he was not with any group, Blazek can be heard interjecting. Sullivan responded, “Well, yes. Thank you for correcting me. I just joined with 1LoudVoice. Yes, Felisa’s fantastic and I greatly admire her.”

During the conference call, Sullivan urged participants to “descend on the Capitol,” and to ensure that lawmakers inside the building “understand that people are breathing down their necks.” Earlier in the call, as previously reported by Raw Story, Sullivan said, “That’s why President Trump invited everybody there and said it’s going to be quote-unquote wild. It is going to be wild. All these people are implicated. And when they certify those states, they are certifying their crime…. If they knew that there was election fraud that took place and they were involved, or they witnessed it in some way, and they certified the state, they have sealed their doom.”

Then, Sullivan indicated that he was familiar with plans by the so-called “militia.” Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have since been indicted in two separate seditious conspiracy cases.

READ: House Jan. 6 committee reveals when Pat Cipollone's video testimony will become public

“There’s dates floating around for some of the people in the militia, okay?” Sullivan said during the Dec. 30 conference call. “They will not allow Biden to go into the White House. That’s a fact. I’m not a part of that. I don’t applaud that. I don’t endorse it. I don’t encourage it. But I do have my ear to the railroad. We have all the real-time social media intelligence you could imagine.”

Online researchers, including the Twitter accounts @BetoAngelMommas and @visionsurreal, have spent months uncovering information about the #1LoudVoice coalition.

Some of the organizations listed on the “coalition members” page on the 1LoudVoice website told Raw Story they were unaware that their names and logos had been used.

A group called Bikers for America told Raw Story in an emailed statement that representatives “declined this event weeks beforehand.” The statement continued: “We were not interested in speaking or any ‘Citizens Grand Jury.’ We were going solely to support/hear President Trump. Shocked they continue to use our name. We asked them to remove us. Their event was too far away from where President Trump was speaking. We were not going to travel that far and possibly miss his speech. After what happened, glad we refused.”

Paula Crowder Calloway, who organizes the annual Patriot Network Summit in southwest Virginia, told Raw Story she doesn’t know why the logo for her event is displayed on the page for 1LoudVoice coalition members.

“A lot of people contacted me prior to Jan. 6,” Calloway said in a Facebook message. “I can’t recall who they were. I traveled with my local girlfriends, not with any group or organization. As with any event, there is a lot of intentional confusion thrown out there in the weeks leading up. It is my experience that most if not all of this is 1) some idiot trying to get attention, 2) the other side creating division and drawing away focus, or 3) the feds looking to set something up. It’s sad really.”

A representative of Virginia Freedom Keepers, one of the groups listed on the “coalition members” page, told Raw Story that they were unaware of their name being used. Upon learning about it, “messaged the website and asked for our logo and any reference to our organization to be removed immediately.” As of Sunday, all references to Virginia Freedom Keepers were removed from the website.

READ: Cassidy Hutchinson realized her Trump-paid attorney was only 'there to insulate the big guy': report

Virginia Freedom Keepers co-hosted a rally outside the Russell Senate Office Building, one block north of the Capitol, from noon to 4 p.m. on Jan. 6.

Latinos for Trump, whose president Bianca Gracia was present during the Jan. 5 meeting between Tarrio and Rhodes, hosted a previous slot from 10 a.m. to noon.

A website with the URL MAGAFreedomRallyDC.com listed Virginia Freedom Keepers and United Medical Freedom Super PAC as the co-hosts of the noon-4 p.m. segment. Federal Election Commission records show that Virginia Freedom Keepers and Marsha Lessard, the organization’s founder, together contributed a total of $2,500 to the United Medical Freedom Super PAC in the days leading up to the event. United Medical Freedom Super PAC, in turn, paid $6,144 to a Maryland professional audio and staging company six months later.

“We work exclusively on informed consent legislation,” the Virginia Freedom Keepers representative told Raw Story. “We have no interest or involvement in anything election related.”

Asked how Virginia Freedom Keepers became involved in the Jan. 6 event, the representative wrote: “We hosted a medical freedom information stage on January 6th. We were literally permitted in the Russell Senate area. We were not hosting a ‘MAGA Freedom rally.’ We were not there for anything MAGA related. If anyone else created that branding it was not with our permission or consent.”

The website for the event shows Lessard and Christina Skaggs, Virginia Freedom Keepers’ director of operations and advocacy, speaking alongside Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Leigh Dundas, an anti-vaccine activist who vocally promoted the false claim that the election was stolen from Donald Trump in late 2020.

The Virginia Freedom Keepers representative said the group was forced to hold its event near the Capitol due to “road closures around our preferred location.” Asked to explain why Jan. 6, which coincided with Congress meeting to certify the electoral vote and President Trump speaking at the Ellipse, was chosen as a date for the “medical freedom” event, the representative referred further questions to the organization’s lawyer, Dave Warrington. An email to Warrington for this story went unreturned.

Photos of the rally on ThePatriotParty.rocks website, which has since been taken down, show Blazek and Sullivan at the rally with members of Bikers for Trump and Veterans for Trump.

One group listed among the “coalition members” appears to have embraced the “We the People’s Grand Jury.”

In an email sent out on Jan. 1, Veterans in Defense of Liberty Executive Director Scott Magill announced that his organization “has linked arms with #1loudvoice and will be ‘assembling’ with a multitude of Conservative groups in Washington, DC on America’s ‘Second Birthday — the sixth of January, 2021.”

The logistical details in Magill’s email aligned with the “public court” referenced on the 1LoudVoice website. Magill promised that “there will be a most historic ‘We the People’ event on the steps of the US Capitol at 0900 hrs (9:00 a.m.).”

Magill could not be reached for comment for this story.

In a 2017 video, Magill described a plan “to establish a cavalry division of veteran motorcycle riders.” Liberty Riders, he said, would “function as a peaceful rapid response team to anti-American protests, flag-burning ceremonies, snowflake rallies and et cetera et cetera.”

Blazek did not respond to multiple requests for comment by email and voicemail for this story.

But in an interview with a QAnon-friendly podcaster, she described a radicalization process that began with questioning the official narrative surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, but accelerated in early 2020 when a friend referred her to a conspiracy theory claiming that Americans’ birth certificates are held by the British royal family.

“ traced back to what the Federal Reserve actually is, and it’s just kind of, all roads lead to Geneva, Switzerland,” Blazek recounted. “And I just couldn’t understand all of that. And so, for quite a few weeks I just nose-dived as deep as I could all the way back to pre-Christ, and reconciled the truth. Digging and digging and digging. Consulting rabbis. Consulting ministers. Consulting other ministers who had gone that far. And then through each capillary kind of worked my way back up to the heart of the issue, and landed with the corruption of Deep State and how everything’s really been a lie.”

Blazek’s interest in birth certificates aligns with a tenet of sovereign citizen beliefs, as described by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Sovereign citizen researchers believe, according to the SPLC, that “the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral, by selling their future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans. This sale, they claim, takes place at birth. When a baby is born in the US, a birth certificate is issued, and the hospital usually advises the parents to apply for a Social Security number. Sovereigns say that the government then used that birth certificate to set up a corporate trust in the baby’s name – a secret Treasury account — which it funds with amounts ranging from $600,000 to $20 million, depending on the particular variant of sovereign beliefs.”

Ideas like the “We the People’s Grand Jury” publicized in the days before the attack on the US Capitol draw on a deep tradition of far-right activism reaching back at least five decades. Devin Burghart from the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights and co-author Robert Crawford described common-law courts in a 1996 report as “self-elected vigilante organizations that claim the authority of law.”

“Like the militias, common law courts are dominated by conspiratorial and bigoted ideas and favor tactics — armed confrontation, threats and pseudo-legal pronouncements — that attack the very basis of democratic society: the rule of law,” they wrote.

An early edition of the “Blue Book,” authored by Posse Comitatus founder Mike Beach, included a warning to officials who would defy common law authority, according to Burghart and Crawford. They would “be removed by the Posse to the most populated intersection of streets in the township and at high noon hung by the neck, the body remaining until sundown as an example to those who would subvert the law.”

Far from being an anti-government movement, as is commonly misconceived, Burghart and Crawford wrote, so-called “Christian Patriots” seek to replace the existing government with a more authoritarian version.

“Closely linked to militias, common law courts and citizen grand juries are part of a system of parallel institutions which constitute a virtual alternative government,” the two men wrote 26 years ago. “These institutions — the armed militias, the Posse Comitatus, common law courts and warehouse banks along with political, lobbying and media organizations — are intended to be the embryo of an exclusive white Christian republic.”

https://www.rawstory.com/jan-6-grand-jury/

stumbler · Jul 12, 2022

Pro-Trump groups planned to gather in DC for inauguration — then switched to J6 after his tweet: report

Matthew Chapman
July 11, 2022

Capitol rioters (Photo by Joseph Prezioso for AFP)

On Monday, Axios reported that the January 6 Committee will present evidence at Tuesday's hearing that pro-Trump groups originally planned to converge on D.C. on the date of President Joe Biden's inauguration — but changed their plans after a Trump tweet directing them to gather on January 6 instead.

"One of the central questions in the investigation has been how directly culpable Trump was in the violence committed by his supporters — something impeachment managers sought to answer in the weeks after the assault," reported Andrew Solender. "But the committee has substantial resources the impeachment managers lacked, including subpoena power and more than a year to gather evidence."

"The committee has evidence that some pro-Trump groups had initially planned to be in D.C. in the days after President Biden's inauguration to kick off the opposition to his administration, according to a source familiar with the findings," said the report. "The panel will contend that a Dec. 19, 2020, tweet from Trump calling supporters to the nation's capital for a 'big protest' on Jan. 6 — the now-infamous day Congress was set to certify electors — spurred supporters to change their plans, the source said."

According to the report, "At least one pro-Trump group allegedly changed its rally permit."

Trump appeared at a "Stop the Steal" rally on the National Mall immediately prior to the attack, and while he did not participate, he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified he actually wanted to join the rioters and attacked his security detail when they wouldn't take him there.

This comes as a former associate of Steve Bannon, Dustin Stockton, told MSNBC's Ari Melber that the organizers of the "Stop the Steal" rally were seeking to distance themselves from the extremists converging on the Capitol — and resentful that Trump got in the way of their efforts to diffuse tensions.

You can read more here.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2657650701/

stumbler · Jul 12, 2022

Says the guy already arrested and charged.

Peter Navarro Claims Pence Is ‘Guilty of Treason’ Because He ‘Stuck a Knife’ in Trump’s Back
By Michael LucianoJul 11th, 2022, 9:29 pm
298 comments

Peter Navarro said former Vice President Mike Pence is “guilty of treason” against Donald Trump.

Navarro has long claimed that as presiding officer over the certification of the 2020 election, Pence could have chosen not to certify Joe Biden as the winner and Trump could have remained in office.

Navarro told Eric Bolling on Monday’s The Balance that in the days before Jan. 6, 2021, he received a call from an aide explaining Pence wanted to speak with him.

“I get on the line and it’s crickets,” Navarro said. “And what happened, I think was that his Koch Brother chief of staff, Marc Short, intercepted the backed Pence off. And the reason why I think Pence is guilty of treason to at least President Trump and perhaps to this country is that he acted on the basis of a flawed legal opinion concocted by his own general counsel.”

Top legal experts in the administration told Pence he did not have the legal authority to thwart the certification of Joe Biden as the winner.

Bolling asked Navarro if he really believed Pence’s inaction on Navarro’s plan really constitutes “treason.”

“He had a duty to the commander-in-chief to share with President Trump and the White House legal counsel the flawed legal opinion Pence was acting upon,” Navarro claimed.

“That’s how process worked in the White House,” he continued. “He did not do that. Effectively, he hid that from the president and then went on his merry way and stuck a knife in the back of President Trump.”

Legal experts across the political spectrum have rejected Navarro’s claims about the election certification. Moreover, in the United States, a person cannot be “guilty of treason” against an individual.

Navarro is currently under federal indictment for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House Jan. 6. committee investigating the 2021 Capitol riot.

Watch above via Newsmax.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/peter-n...ason-because-he-stuck-a-knife-in-trumps-back/

stumbler · Jul 12, 2022

Cassidy Hutchinson testimony 'jolted' DOJ to discuss 'Trump’s potential criminal culpability': NYT

Bob Brigham
July 11, 2022

Cassidy Hutchinson and Merrick Garland. (J6 select committee and Senate Democrats on Flickr)

One night before the next public hearing by the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, The New York Times reports that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony from the last hearing has had an impact in the thinking by Department of Justice brass.

"For the past year and a half, the Justice Department has approached former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results with a follow-the-evidence strategy that to critics appeared to border on paralysis — and that limited discussions of his role, even inside the department," the newspaper reported. "The electrifying public testimony delivered last month to the House Jan. 6 panel by Ms. Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was witness to many key moments, jolted top Justice Department officials into discussing the topic of Mr. Trump more directly, at times in the presence of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow predicted the hearing would put increased pressure on Garland.

"In conversations at the department the day after Ms. Hutchinson’s appearance, some of which included Ms. Monaco, officials talked about the pressure that the testimony created to scrutinize Mr. Trump’s potential criminal culpability and whether he intended to break the law," the newspaper reported. "Ms. Hutchinson’s disclosures seemed to have opened a path to broaching the most sensitive topic of all: Mr. Trump’s own actions ahead of the attack."

Professor Laurence Tribe, who taught Garland constitutional law at Harvard, has urged Garland to prosecute Trump under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act law designed to go after the mafia.

"Department officials have said Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony did not alter their investigative strategy to methodically work their way from lower-level actors up to higher rungs of power. 'The only pressure I feel, and the only pressure that our line prosecutors feel, is to do the right thing,' Mr. Garland said this spring. But some of her explosive assertions — that Mr. Trump knew some of his supporters at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, were armed, that he desperately wanted to join them as they marched to the Capitol and that the White House’s top lawyer feared Mr. Trump’s conduct could lead to criminal charges — were largely new to them and grabbed their attention," the newspaper reported.

Read the full report.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-doj-merrick-garland/

shootersa · Jul 12, 2022

Well, but if the star chamber isn't going to give up it's secret stuff to the DOJ there will be problems getting trump.
They may get their perp walk, but not a conviction, if they hold out.
Maybe all the despicables want is a perp walk?
Nah. They want the whole monty.

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Scotchlass Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

anon_de_plume Porn Star

vincenzz Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

It can't be called an Insurrection!

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Scotchlass Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

anon_de_plume Porn Star

vincenzz Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

Useful Searches