Jan. 6 Prosecutors Threatened Oath Keepers With Life Sentences, Raised Treason Analogy https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-prosecutors-threatened-oath-keepers-with... Members of the Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy were told they could face life in prison, according to a letter discussing plea deal negotiations obtained by The Epoch Times. Police and protesters outside the U.S. Capitol's Rotunda in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images) Nine members charged with conspiracy were told that a lack of recommended sentencing for the charge means the court would apply the sentencing guidelines for the most analogous charge. “The United States takes the position that the most analogous offense to seditious conspiracy is ‘treason,'” prosecutors said. Treason carries a potential death penalty, though prosecutors indicated the defendants would face a life sentence if they did not plead guilty. That’s despite the seditious conspiracy charge itself only carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The threat was contained in a letter that said the government would stop negotiating plea deals on May 6. None of those nine Oath Keepers pleaded guilty before the deadline. The attempted link to treason “is absurd,” Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law emeritus at Harvard Law School, and who is representing a Jan. 6 defendant who is not an Oath Keeper, told The Epoch Times in an email. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia declined to comment. The government could have trouble with its position, since it noted in a recent filing that the late Sen. Lyman Trumball, the sponsor of the bill that first made seditious conspiracy a crime in 1861, said the bill’s purpose was to “to punish persons who conspire together to commit offenses against the United States not analogous to treason.” “The Conspiracies Act provided a middle option to address serious criminal conduct that did not rise to the level of a capital offense, including conspiracies to commit acts of treason, insurrection, or obstruction of government functions that failed to achieve their purpose,” prosecutors added in their brief. Ben Glassman, a former U.S. attorney in Ohio, told The Wall Street Journal—which first reported on the letter—that the government “has an obligation to set out that kind of worst-case scenario for a defendant because … it is important for a defendant to understand the possible risks of going to trial.” Jonathon Moseley, who has been representing one of the Oath Keepers Kelly Meggs, but is on caretaker status due to his recent disbarment until his client secures new counsel, said that the letter was part of a series of actions by prosecutors that are designed to get defendants to accept plea deals, including quick production of evidence bolstering the cases against the defendants and lagging presentation of evidence that could exonerate them. “It definitely seems like everything about the case here is to try to pressure people into pleading guilty,” Moseley told The Epoch Times. Meggs, facing seditious conspiracy and five other charges, would have considered agreeing to a deal, but only if the government dropped the more serious charges, as is typical in reaching an agreement. Lawyers for the eight other defendants either declined to comment or did not respond to queries. Three other members of the Oath Keepers pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy before the deadline, though it’s not clear if any received the same or similar letters. Joshua James pleaded guilty on March 2, Brian Ulrich pleaded guilty on April 29, and William Todd Wilson pleaded guilty on May 4. Overall, nearly 800 people have been charged in the breach on the district or federal level. Approximately 248 have pleaded guilty to federal charges. Only a handful of trials have been completed. All defendants who have gone before juries have been convicted on all charges; those who went before judges received split or full acquittals.

The "January 6th Committee" is nothing but a partisan fraud, a storybook launched staffed and written by Pelosi picks, yet another attempt at trying to create any false narratives they can, desperate to stave off impending Democrat doom in 2022 elections, biased Media Cabal dutifully gobbling up all PrimetimeTV hours to hide continuing failures of the Biden Presidency. Jan. 6 Committee Being Used To "Abolish Electoral College", "Cover Up" For Pelosi: House Republicans https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-committee-is-used-to-abolish-electoral-c... https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-presser-kick-starts-counter-programming-to... https://www.theepochtimes.com/pelosi-says-she-hasnt-provided-any-info-to-jan... https://www.axios.com/2022/06/05/january-6-committee-electoral-college-refor... https://www.theepochtimes.com/pelosi-republican-representation-on-jan-6-comm... https://www.theepochtimes.com/dc-national-guard-chief-pentagon-delayed-deplo... https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/se/date/2022-01-06/segment/02 House Republicans on Wednesday spoke out against the Jan. 6 Committee, accusing the entire effort of being a “partisan witch hunt” used by Democrats to abolish the Electoral College as well as to help cover up what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) does not want the public to know about matters surrounding the events of Jan. 6, 2021. “This committee is not about seeking the truth. It is a smear campaign against President Donald Trump, against Republican members of Congress, and against Trump voters across this country,” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the House Republican Conference chair, said at a press conference—the first of several events pushing back against the Jan. 6 Committee’s public hearings that are set to begin Thursday. “It does not serve any true legislative or oversight purpose. And it is not about finding out why Nancy Pelosi left the Capitol so ill-prepared that day … and it will not prevent another January 6 from happening,” she added. Stefanik had previously accused the Jan. 6 panel of being a political weapon “used to cover up for Nancy Pelosi’s failures.” House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) (C) speaks at a press conference, was joined by House Republican Whip Steve Scailse (R-La.) (L) and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), following a Republican caucus meeting, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, on June 8, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) Stefanik also accused Democrats and the Biden administration of “scrambling to change the headlines, praying that the nation will focus on their partisan witch hunt instead of [Americans’] pocketbooks,” noting how Americans are currently facing soaring gas prices, high inflation, and a shortage of baby formula. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters on Wednesday, “Regarding January 6, I think the goal is been stated. Mr. Raskin stated that their goal is to end the Electoral College and the goal is to stop President Trump from running in 2024, plain and simple.” Rep Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks at a press conference following a Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, on June 8, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) said that “based on reports over the weekend, that the committee is being used to advance the radical Democrat agenda that includes abolishing the electoral college.” The two Republicans’ remarks come after Axios reported on June 6, citing anonymous sources, that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) “has argued that the Electoral College should be abolished”—a stance reportedly concurred by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) but opposed by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), per the outlet. The Epoch Times cannot independently verify the details reported by Axios. The Jan. 6 panel, which has nine members, has been criticized for its apparent partisanship, in part because the only two Republicans on the panel—Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Cheney—are both known for their strong opposition to Trump. “This [Jan. 6] committee is unconstitutional. It is illegitimate. It was not put together according to the rules of the House,” Stefanik said, in reference to how Pelosi had selected Kinzinger and Cheney after refusing to seat Jordan and Banks on the committee. The two were selected to be on the panel by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), but Pelosi rejected them, saying at the time: “As legislation allows, I didn’t accept [Jordan and Banks] as they had made statements and taken actions that I think would impact the integrity of the commission of the committee.” Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) speaks at a press conference following a Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, on June 8, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) ‘A Cover Up’: Rep. Banks Banks said on Wednesday that the Jan. 6 Committee is not just a “partisan witch hunt” or a potential attempt to abolish the Electoral College, but “also a cover up.” “Speaker Pelosi blocked us because she’s afraid of what a real investigation would uncover,” Banks said while Jordan stood behind him. “She doesn’t want Americans to find out what really happened on January 6, and leading up to it. And she doesn’t want anyone asking questions about her role and her responsibilities and securing the United States Capitol.” Banks said that the committee is “refusing to answer basic questions about January 6, in fact blocking these questions from even being asked questions that must be answered to keep the capital safe, and to prevent another riot or incident like January 6, from ever happening again in the future.” He listed some of the questions at the press conference. “First of all, Capitol police officers we now know were half-staffed on January 6, ‘because of COVID.’ How is that?” Banks asked. Banks asked about why some Capitol police officers were under-equipped, with some officers having had to use expired helmets or no helmets at all while they faced some rioters. He also asked why the U.S. Capitol police “never trained to deal with riots after all of the riots that were going on in the summer of 2020.” “Did Speaker Pelosi communicate with the house sergeant at arms on January 6, or in the days leading up to the riot?” he asked in a fourth question. “Five—was Speaker Pelosi involved in the decision to delay the National Guard assistance on January 6?” Banks said. Maj. Gen. William Walker, who was then the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, said in March 2021 that deployment of guardsmen was delayed on Jan. 6, 2021, after the breach of the U.S. Capitol building, because of a memo issued a day prior that barred the use of the Guard’s “Quick Reaction Force” without approval. The memo was issued by then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. Walker, who is now the House sergeant-at-arms, had said that if the memo wasn’t issued, he would have immediately sent troops to the Capitol following the breach. Instead, it took him over three hours to get the approval from Pentagon officials to deploy that day. Pelosi on Jan. 6, 2022, told CNN that it was “inexplicable” why the National Guard took so long to deploy. She said that she, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), were on the phone “fighting to get the National Guard and it was very hard.” Banks had three more questions he relayed to reporters on Wednesday. “Six—why didn’t the Capitol Police intelligence unit raise the alarm about potential violence when they had evidence and intelligence for weeks leading up to January 6 that something violent could happen at the Capitol that day? “Seven—why did the FBI deploy commandos to Quantico on January 3, with shoot-to-kill authority, but failed to send the U.S. Capitol Police a single threat assessment or intelligence bulletin? “Eight—why did the House Sergeant-at-Arms refuse to cooperate with the Senate Homeland Security’s bipartisan January 6, investigation?” Banks said that he and Jordan were prepared to ask the above questions if they had not been blocked from the Jan. 6 Committee by Pelosi. “Pelosi blocked us because she knows that those questions leave a trail of breadcrumbs right back to [her] office.” “The American people are sick and tired of what they’re getting out of this … they’re tired of the theatrics. They want their congressmen and women to focus on the issues that matter most to them. But instead, this is what we’re left up to. It’s a shame. And I believe that will backfire big time on these Democrats as we near the election to come.”

https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1541598258505580545 Michael Stenger, Senate Sergeant at Arms on January 6th, was found dead today...

https://rumble.com/vuumjk-january-6-who-unlocked-the-magnetic-doors-for-geor... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10959599/Senate-sergeant-arms-Micha... There's video of cops waving people past the barricades so the cops certainly could have opened the doors as well. https://www.facebook.com/cgtnamerica/videos/tiktok-video-shows-police-on-us-... Undercover feds were among protesters, the national guard wasn't brought in, etc. They allowed the riot to breach the building as a means of creating the politically useful "coup" narrative.

their Jan6 "committee" is a total partisan sham.

Former Federal `Informant' Warned of Antifa, BLM Infiltrators at Capitol on Jan6 https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-federal-informant-warned-of-antifa-blm-... Law enforcement aware large crowds would be travelling to Capitol from the Ellipse, documents show The man whose posting on social media warned authorities that agent provocateurs from Antifa and Black Lives Matter would be at the U.S. Capitol dressed as Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, is a self-described government informant tied to former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein warned about a “soft coup” against then-President Donald Trump in fall 2020. On Jan. 4, 2021, an account under the name @JohnHereToHelp posted on Twitter that Antifa and BLM agitators were being bussed from Baltimore to Washington to cause trouble at the Capitol on the day of Trump’s speech at the Ellipse. Epoch Times PhotoEpoch Times Photo Jon McGreevey is running for U.S. Senate in Maryland. (Ballotpedia) “Pantifa/BLM, Balt./DC branches, are already bussing people in to disturb Jan. 6,” the post read. “Orders [were] given to dress like ‘MAGA,’ blend in [and] cause trouble, especially around cameras. At night, arson has been ordered. All to be blamed on Trump supporters attending. Please be careful.” The post caught the attention of an assistant commander in the Intelligence and Counterterrorism Branch of the United States Park Police, who forwarded it to officials at the U.S. Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies. The now-suspended Twitter account belonged to Ryan Dark White, also known as Jon McGreevey. McGreevey has described himself in court papers and interviews as a former Department of Justice informant who supplied information on corruption in the federal government, law enforcement, and the Trump administration. He once used the name Ryan White as a cover but now identifies as McGreevey. He is running for federal office in Maryland. JohnHereToHelp’s original post was shared more than 6,000 times before it hit the radar of the Park Police. At the time, McGreevey had more than 120,000 followers on Twitter, according to an archived version of his page stored at the Wayback Machine. Twitter later suspended his account. “There are multiple replies to this comment that says BLM/Antifa will wear MAGA hats backwards, wear camo, and attempt to blend in with MAGA crowd,” the Park Police official wrote to his colleagues on January 5, 2021. The Wayback Machine archive of White’s post shows nearly 600 replies, but the replies are not visible from links on the website. Infiltrator Warning The emails, part of a trove of documents obtained in 2021 through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch, show that federal law enforcement knew that infiltrators could be among the crowds at the Capitol. They also back up anecdotal reports of BLM and Antifa activists from Oregon, Maryland, and other states causing disruption and committing vandalism on Jan. 6. Trump supporters tangled with alleged Antifa provocateurs in several spots on Jan. 6, including the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol. Victoria White of Rochester, Minnesota, scuffled with a man attempting to break an arched window adjacent to the Capitol’s tunnel entrance. As the tightly-packed crowd chanted “[expletive] Antifa,” White wrestled for control of the red wooden club wielded by the man, who wore a green helmet with Trump stickers. “I'm like, ‘We don't do that. We don't do that. Trump supporters, we don't do that,’” White told The Epoch Times in an interview for an upcoming documentary, “The Real Story of January 6,” on Epoch TV. “And then there's other people [who said] ‘No, we're all on the same team.’ I'm like, ‘No. No, we're not.’ Epoch Times PhotoEpoch Times Photo Victoria White lunged to grab a club from a protester as the crowd shouted "[expletive] Antifa!" at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Screenshot via The Epoch Times)“Who brings something like that to a Trump rally, let alone to break out the Capitol windows?” White said. “That's not us. That's not what patriot Americans do. We don't do that stuff.” After another man got control of the club and began smashing the window, White helped pull him down before she was pulled away by other bystanders. Members of the crowd vented anger at the vandals. “We are not Antifa!” one protester shouted. A man with a green stocking cap pulled over his MAGA hat pulled what appeared to be a stereo speaker from a backpack, spurring more howls of protest from the crowd. At the same window, the crowd shouted at a man dressed all in black. “No, no, Antifa!” a woman yelled from the crowd. “Antifa’s breaking the windows! Antifa’s breaking the windows!” While conducting a live stream on January 6, independent journalist Tayler Hansen recognized a protester in a gas mask from her appearance at riots in Portland, Oregon. “I recognize you from Portland,” Hansen told the woman as she quickly turned away from the camera. “So you’ve got Antifa here, too. You have Antifa and Trump supporters within the same vicinity here for the same thing. This is absolutely [expletive] crazy.” IFrame The documents obtained by Judicial Watch include other disclosures that run counter to the prevailing Jan. 6 narrative that a mob incited by Trump rampaged to the Capitol to storm the building and upend the counting of Electoral College votes. A “Daily Operational Snapshot” circulated by U.S. Park Police on Jan. 5 noted multiple events planned for the area around the Capitol. “Large crowds expected to gather at and travel between the Ellipse and the U.S. Capitol,” the document said. Epoch Times PhotoEpoch Times Photo This map shows the multiple events planned at or near the Capitol on January 6. (Wayback Machine/Screenshot via The Epoch Times) Other scheduled events included a Freedom Rally, Jericho March, the March for Trump, and the “Wild Protest.” A MAGA Rally Map Guide said of the Wild Protest: “We the people must take to the U.S. Capitol lawn and steps and tell Congress #DoNot Certify on #Jan6!” U.S. Park Police circulated a copy of the map to other agencies. The WildProtest.com website said, “The Congress cannot certify this fraudulent Electoral College. Our presence in Washington D.C. will let Members of Congress know that we stand with Rep. Mo Brooks and his colleagues in the House of Representatives who will bravely object to the certification of the Electoral College.” The activist group ShutDownDC circulated a statement asking people to call hotels and demand they cancel reservations of “people coming to town to undermine democracy on Jan. 6.” Whistleblower Role? McGreevey posted on social media and his own website that he was a longtime informant for the Department of Justice. He said he worked under Rosenstein, who became a central figure in the Trump Russiagate scandal. According to McGreevey, Rosenstein ran what was nicknamed the “Dirty Tricks Squad” out of the Baltimore office of the U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington did not respond to a request from The Epoch Times for comment on McGreevey’s warning about Antifa or his allegations about Rosenstein and the Department of Justice. McGreevey accused the federal government of conducting illegal surveillance on journalists, federal judges, political rivals, and other Americans, planting evidence in criminal cases, and other criminal acts. In August 2020, he warned of a “covert coup” to be carried out by Democrats via the forthcoming presidential election. McGreevey also made other explosive allegations in 2021 court papers, accusing Vice President Mike Pence, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and others of sexual impropriety. McGreevey said the DOJ had scrubbed online and offline records of his academic achievements and military service. He is one of 10 Republicans on the ballot in the primary for the U.S. Senate in Maryland. The primary will be July 19.

1984 Democrats Military Takeover Force, Spies, Corrupt Regime Agencies, Compliant Military What Is Adam Schiff Hiding? https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/14/what-is-adam-schiff-hiding/ https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-secret-commandos-shoot-kill-authority-wer... https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/Rosen%... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1545097239135240193?s=20&t=84jMPjxzKJVdO1ibvG6-hA https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/15/during-january-6-hearing-schiff-doctore... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-apparently-pranked-by-russian-radio-... https://law.stmarytx.edu/academics/faculty/jeffrey-addicott/ https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-leader-mccarthy-readies-staffers-for-post... https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf Schiff tucked an amendment into the National Defense Authorization Act that would prohibit any evidence collected in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act from being used in investigations. Why? Jeffrey Rosen had a secret on January 6, 2021. The then-acting attorney general—Rosen was appointed on December 24, 2020 to replace departing Attorney General William Barr—had assembled a team of elite and highly skilled government agents at Quantico, a nexus point between the FBI and U.S. military, the weekend before Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. At the same time he was rejecting President Donald Trump’s last-minute appeals to investigate election fraud, Rosen was managing a hush-hush operation in advance of planned rallies and protests in Washington on January 6. “Rosen made a unilateral decision to take the preparatory steps to deploy Justice Department and so-called ‘national’ forces,” Newsweek reporter William M. Arkin disclosed in a bombshell report earlier this year. “There was no formal request from the U.S. Capitol Police, the Secret Service, or the Metropolitan Police Department—in fact, no external request from any agency. The leadership in Justice and the FBI anticipated the worst and decided to act independently, the special operations forces lurking behind the scenes.” Those assets, according to Arkin, included “commandos” with shoot-to-kill authority. And among them were members of the military. “The presence of these extraordinary forces under the control of the Attorney General—and mostly operating under contingency plans that Congress and the U.S. Capitol Police were not privy to—added an additional layer of highly armed responders,” Arkin writes. “The role that the military played in this highly classified operation is still unknown, though FBI sources tell Newsweek that military operators seconded to the FBI, and those on alert as part of the National Mission Force, were present in the metropolitan area.” Little else is known about Rosen’s secret mission. His testimony to the House Oversight Committee in May 2021 was just as obscure. Rosen, who publicly bragged to the January 6 select committee about his attempts to deter Team Trump from pursuing vote fraud days before the Capitol protest, said the FBI opened a multi-agency operation center, which included the Department of Defense, at FBI headquarters on January 5. “Each of these federal agencies supplied personnel to staff the [center] 24/7 beginning on January 5 and 6, and continuing for a period thereafter,” he said. To avoid “interfering” in ongoing investigations, Rosen then declined to answer any questions from lawmakers at the time. But if the military engaged in any civilian law enforcement activity, including surveillance or intelligence collection, before or during January 6, it would represent an egregious violation of the military’s code of conduct and federal law. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, military personnel cannot be used as local cops or investigators: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” (Certain exclusions, such as the president’s invocation of the Insurrection Act and any use of the National Guard, apply.) The law is both vague and specific at the same time—which brings us to Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Irrefutably the least trustworthy member of Congress, Schiff tucked an amendment into the massive National Defense Authorization Act that would prohibit any evidence collected in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act from being used in a number of proceedings, including criminal trials and congressional investigations. The amendment’s timing, like everything else related to the infamous Russian collusion huckster, evidence forger, and nude photo seeker (to name a few of Schiff’s special talents), is highly suspect. Why would Schiff need to outlaw evidence collected unlawfully? Why is Schiff relying on this relatively arcane statute passed during Reconstruction that is rarely, if ever, enforced? “No one has ever been convicted of violating PCA to my knowledge,” Dr. Jeffrey Addicott, a 20-year member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps and director of the Warrior Defense Project at St. Mary’s College, told American Greatness last week. What is Adam Schiff, on behalf of the Biden regime and Trump foes in the U.S. military, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, trying to hide? It is not a coincidence that Schiff introduced the amendment just a few months before a predicted Republican landslide in November, which will give control of Congress back to the GOP. House Minority Leader and presumptive Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is planning to conduct multiple investigations into the Biden regime next year including of the deadly and distrastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan; the Daily Caller reported this week that Republican lawmakers are “flooding the Biden administration with ‘hundreds of preservation notices’ asking that relevant documents be preserved.” But one can easily see how Schiff’s amendment could be used as legislative cover to prevent production of any materials from Biden’s Department of Defense. After all, according to a 2018 congressional analysis of Posse Comitatus, “compliance [of the act] is ordinarily the result of military self-restraint.” So, too, is enforcement: “The act is a criminal statute under which there has been but a handful of known prosecutions,” the same report explained. This is the sort of vehicle that Democrats know how to use and exploit for political advantage. If interpretation and enforcement is totally arbitrary, who decides? Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin? The Justice Department? Biden’s White House lawyers? Imagine how Democrats could conceal the use of military personnel related to the events of January 6. Congressional Republicans send a request to Austin seeking all records, documents, and communications pertaining to the military’s involvement before and during the Capitol protest. Austin replies that he has determined the military—under control of President Trump at the time, no less—violated Posse Comitatus and therefore the requested materials cannot be produced under authority of the Schiff amendment. Republicans can howl and scream but they have no legal remedy. Austin won’t investigate and Attorney General Merrick Garland won’t prosecute. This scenario could be repeated for every Republican inquiry into Biden’s Defense Department. Does anyone really think this regime will hand over information to GOP investigators and committees without pulling every trick in the book, starting with Schiff’s amendment? On Thursday afternoon, the House narrowly passed Schiff’s amendment by a vote of 215-213; every Republican and two Democrats voted no. (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi came to the floor to vote in a rare move.) Passage in the Senate is uncertain. If his amendment fails to advance, Schiff nonetheless has done Republicans a tremendous favor; he’s tipped off the GOP that there’s plenty of digging to be done at the Department of Defense, where a trove of scandals awaits political sunshine. Republicans would be wise to take his cue—and start with January 6.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ac4pyM37tJnb Patriot Purge - Full Docu 1:09:59 https://tuckercarlson.com/show/tucker-carlson-originals/ https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=patriot+purge Capitol Police Use of Force Reports Expose Brutality of Unprovoked Attacks Against Jan. 6 Protesters Conflicting timeline reports and identical language used by numerous officers in separate reports raise questions A 104-page report issued three months after the events at the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021, said the Capitol Police’s Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) was ordered by supervisors not to use “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” like flash bangs. However, video evidence—along with Capitol Police Use of Force Reports obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times—exposes conflicts in timelines, the brutality of the unprovoked attacks against Jan. 6 protesters, and how leadership ordered the deployment of munitions on a peaceful crowd. The Video Evidence Victoria White According to Police1, the "#1 resource for law enforcement online," which promotes "the highest standards of business ethics," police are trained to target large muscle groups like legs, chest, abdomen, and arms with batons. Intentionally striking areas like the head, sternum, and spine are considered to be the same act of deadly force as firing a gun. However, a video shows Jan. 6 defendant Victoria White being beaten over the head 35 times with a metal baton and punched in the face by an officer of the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia. White, seen wearing a Trump hat, is unarmed and posed no threat to the officer. She raises her hands in defense during the brutal attack, collapsing more than once, only to be stood up by other officers to be maced and beaten again. According to a Use of Force report filed 1/7/21 by Officer Dante Price, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times, "approved strike areas" for use of a baton "include arms, legs and large muscle groups." Injuries suffered by Dante's victim required hospital transport. Another report of an injury caused by use of a baton, filed 1/8/21 by Officer Ryan Kendall, states "approved target areas" include the "upper abdomen." “To add insult to injury," her legal team said at a Jan. 6, 2022 press conference, "she was indicted for being pushed into the tunnel entrance and for daring to put her hands up in a defensive posture while getting beaten by the police.” White has filed a $1 million lawsuit against D.C. Police Chief Robert Contree and seven unnamed officers, including one known as “Officer Whiteshirt,” given the moniker as it is believed his clothing identified him as an officer in a position of authority. Roseanne Boyland Another video obtained by The Epoch Times shows D.C. Metro Police Officer Lila Morris beating an unconscious 34-year-old Roseanne Boyland of Kennesaw, Georgia with a steel baton and then with a large wooden walking stick. According to witnesses, Boyland lost consciousness and stopped breathing after being crushed beneath the weight of other fallen protesters. Being unconscious, Boyland was no threat to the officer. Video still from bodycam footage showing Officer Lila Morris picking up a wooden stick that she uses to beat Rosanne Boyland.Video still from bodycam footage showing Officer Lila Morris picking up a wooden stick that she uses to beat Rosanne Boyland. Video still from bodycam footage showing Officer Lila Morris picking up a wooden stick that she uses to beat Rosanne Boyland. (Metropolitan Police Department/Graphic by The Epoch Times) A DC medical examiner claims Boyland died of an accidental overdose of Adderall, a suspicious ruling that sparked outrage from Boyland’s friends and family. Her father, Bret Boyland, said his daughter had been taking Adderall for about 10 years to treat an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Epoch Times PhotoEpoch Times Photo Luke Coffee plans to fight the Jan. 6 charges brought against him by federal prosecutors. (Dixie Dixon/For The Epoch Times) The Epoch Times reported on Feb. 10, an investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau cleared Morris of any wrongdoing and deemed her beating of the unconscious Boyland as “objectively reasonable.” A separate report describes how Morris first used the wooden stick while beating Boyland to strike 41-year-old filmmaker Luke Coffee on the left elbow. A second swing missed before she sprayed him in the face with pepper gel. "Morris then inexplicably turned her fury on the motionless Boyland, striking her in the ribs once and twice in the head," the report said. Ashli Babbitt Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old unarmed Air Force veteran and ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump was shot and killed by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. While news media has labeled Babbitt as a violent “insurrectionist” who was trying to breach the Speaker’s Lobby, a frame-by-frame analysis of the video from The Epoch Times shows Babbitt tried to stop the violence against the Speaker’s Lobby at least four times before she was fatally shot. Moments before being shot to death, Ashli Babbitt confronts three police offers for not stopping the vandalism outside the U.S. House.Moments before being shot to death, Ashli Babbitt confronts three police offers for not stopping the vandalism outside the U.S. House. Moments before being shot to death, Ashli Babbitt confronts three police offers for not stopping the vandalism outside the U.S. House. (Video Still/Tayler Hansen) Two reports, filed by two officers who were with Byrd at the moment he shot Babbitt, were also obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times. According to a report by Paul McKenna of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) Uniformed Service Bureau, as protesters "began pounding" on the "East door of the lobby" and breaking the glass, he drew his weapon along with Byrd and Officer Reggie Tyson. He "yelled `stay back' `get back' several times during the incident." "A woman climbed through the far left window pane, which had been broken out by the group," McKenna attested. "Lt. Byrd fired one shot hitting the woman. She fell back out of the window and I continued yelling at the group to get back and away from the doors." McKenna claims the incident happened between 1430 and 1500 hours (2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.). The report was signed by McKenna on June 9, 2021. It was signed by his supervisor five months earlier, on Jan. 7, 2021. Use of Force report regarding the shooting of Ashli Babbitt by Lieutenant Byrd at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, signed7/9/21 by Paul McKenna and 01/09/21 by his supervisor.Use of Force report regarding the shooting of Ashli Babbitt by Lieutenant Byrd at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, signed7/9/21 by Paul McKenna and 01/09/21 by his supervisor. Use of Force report regarding the shooting of Ashli Babbitt by Lieutenant Byrd at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, signed7/9/21 by Paul McKenna and 01/09/21 by his supervisor. (United States Capitol Police Use of Force Report/The Epoch Times) In the second report, filed Jan. 7, 2021, Tyson said he heard "shots fired" over his radio some time after 1440 (2:40 p.m.). In an attempt to protect himself, Tyson said he withdrew his weapon and made his way to the lobby east side of the capitol along with Byrd and McKenna. "A protester tried to climb through the broken window where she was shot one time as she fell back." Tyson claims the time of the incident was around 1500 hours (3:00 p.m.). In another report, USCP Officer Tyler Stoyle claims he responded to "a shots fired" call over their his radio at "1400 hours" (2:00 p.m.), 40 minutes earlier than Tyson claimed to have heard the call of "shots fired." A separate report filed by USCP Officer Jason McGinnis, said he "responded to the North side of Crypt" at "approximately 1400 hours" and drew his baton to "hold the line of unscreened individuals that were trespassing." However, it wasn't until "after the initial surge had ended" and McGinnis "was moving trespassers out of the South Door" that he claimed "there were reports of shots fired in the Speaker's Lobby Stairs to the second floor." During an interview with NBC, Byrd also claimed to hear "shots fired." However, Byrd was the only one to fire a weapon on Jan. 6, 2021. This, and the conflicts in times reported by police regarding when they heard "shots fired," raises questions. Use of Force Report filed by Reggie Tyson of the United States Capitol Police regarding the shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the United States Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 by Lieutenant Byrd.Use of Force Report filed by Reggie Tyson of the United States Capitol Police regarding the shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the United States Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 by Lieutenant Byrd. Use of Force Report filed by Reggie Tyson of the United States Capitol Police regarding the shooting of Ashli Babbitt by Lieutenant Byrd in the United States Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021. (United States Capitol Police Use of Force Report) According to a July 25 report by The Epoch Times, Stan Kephart—a 42-year law enforcement veteran and former director of security for the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics who has testified in court more than 350 times as an expert witness on policing issues—said Babbitt was “murdered … under the color of authority.” However, a review of the reports filed by Tyson and McKenna, the Bureau Commander found "the circumstances support the Use of Force" and did not recommend any further investigation. Ashli Babbitt (upper right) begins to fall back after being shot by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021.Ashli Babbitt (upper right) begins to fall back after being shot by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021. Ashli Babbitt (upper right) begins to fall back after being shot by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on Jan. 6, 2021. (Sam Montoya/Screenshot via The Epoch Times) Byrd also told NBC he yelled verbal warnings so hard that his throat hurt for days after. Neither of the reports filed by Tyson or McKenna corroborate his claim. Byrd cannot be heard shouting anything on the video either. Byrd insisted he opened fire on an unarmed Babbitt only as a "last resort." “I know that day I saved countless lives,” Byrd said. In August 2021, the U.S. Capitol Police investigation cleared Byrd of any wrongdoing. Use of Force Reports According to a report released March 7 by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), "the January 6th attack on the Capitol raised concerns" about the preparedness of USCP "to respond to violent demonstrations." Key findings from the report: * Eighty officers "identified concerns related to use of force, including that they felt discouraged or hesitant to use force because of a fear of disciplinary actions." * Approximately 150 Capitol Police officers reported 293 use of force incidents on Jan. 6. All were deemed justified by the department. * These incidents involved pushing (91), batons (83), withdrawing a firearm from its holster (37), chemical spray (34), other physical tactics (22), pointing a firearm at a person (17), less-lethal munitions (7), a diversionary device (1) and firing a firearm (1). Of the 293 Use of Force (UOF) reports filed, The Epoch Times has obtained 161 of them, including the ones filed by Tyson and McKenna regarding the shooting of Babbitt by Byrd. `Less Than Lethal Munitions' UOF Reports According to one UOF report, dated 1/7/21, Officer Adam Descamp said he was ordered by Deputy Chief Eric Waldow "to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol. "I deployed multiple FN303 projectiles from the FN303 launcher, administered strikes with the PR-24 baton and utilized the Sabre red pepper spray to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex," Descamp wrote of his actions at "approximately 1215 hours" (12:15 p.m.). Waldow was incident commander of the Civil Disturbance Unit on Jan. 6, which was reported to be highly disorganized and woefully unprepared. At "approximately 1215 hours," Officer Melissa Lee also reported on 1/7/21 that she "was ordered to the scene by Deputy Chief Waldow to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol Building," using nearly the same, identical verbiage as Descamp. "I deployed multiple FN303 projectiles from the FN303 launcher to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex," she wrote. A report filed by Officer Matthew Flood, also "at approximately 1215 hours," also states he was ordered by Deputy Chief Waldow "to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol." "I deployed multiple projectiles from the FN303 launcher, and chemical agent spray," he wrote, using language remarkably similar to that of Descamp and Lee, "to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex," he wrote on his report, also date 1/7/21. "At approximately 1215 hours," Officer Tina Cobert also reported on 1/7/21 that she "was ordered to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol by Deputy Chief Waldow. "I deployed multiple projectiles from the FN 303 Launcher to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex," she also wrote. Also "at approximately 1215 hours," Officer Christopher Sprifke reported he "was ordered to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol by Deputy Chief Waldow. "I deployed multiple PepperBall projectiles to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol building," he wrote in his 1/7/21 report. "At approximately 1215 hours," Officer Shauni Kerkhoff said she was also "ordered by Deputy Chief Waldow, Eric to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol. "I deployed multiple projectiles from the PepperBall launcher to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex," she wrote in his report, also dated 1/7/21. In February 2021, the U.S. Capitol police union issued an overwhelming no-confidence vote for a half-dozen of the force's top leaders, including Waldow. Instead of leading his team of officers, Waldow chose to physically engage rioters, a move many of his fellow officers saw as wrong. In October 2021, Waldow submitted paperwork for his resignation. At "approximately 1400hrs," Officer Patrick Kahl reported that he "discharged multiple 40mm baton rounds after individuals began and continued fighting with USP Officers while trying to gain unlawful access to the United States Capitol Building through the Rotunda Door." At 1500 hours, Officer Justin Green reported launching a flash bang "to disperse the crowd" in an effort to "rescue" one of the department's sergeants who was "pinned in the center of the crowd." He fired a second flash bang as demonstrators were "breaching the Rotunda door." Conflicting Reports These UOF reports contradict the report issued by then-Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton, who said the CDU was ordered by supervisors not to use less than lethal munitions and that “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including flash bangs, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership.” In addition, every report filed by police regarding the deployment of munitions claims there were no injuries. However, a witness said 55-year-old Kevin Greeson, an unarmed pro-Trump protester who died of a heart attack on Jan. 6, was struck by a projectile fired by Capitol Hill police just prior to his death. Despite claims that munitions were launched to "gain compliance from rioters that were aggressively attacking officers," numerous videos show tear gas and flash bangs were launched into a peaceful crowd, even into an area where women, children, and elderly people were standing behind police barriers. Several reports, including one by The Epoch Times, suggested the use of munitions was an intentional effort to incite violence, not to "gain compliance." Video footage, analyzed by Ray Dietrich of Red Voice Media, shows the violence began on Jan. 6, 2021 "the moment either stun grenades or tear gas canisters were deployed into the crowd of protestors.” “The question I have, after a 20-year career in law enforcement, is why were these munitions deployed?" Dietrich asked rhetorically, saying he had "picked this video apart" and "cannot see why the USCP used this force against the crowd." "There is no fighting and no violence, so why did they target these people with less-lethal weapons?” He asked, noting that "what happened next" was “chaos" and "violence" as "the crowd fought back" and "the Capitol was breached." EpochTV's documentary "The Real Story of Jan. 6" contains a number of new videos showing that munitions were used on a primarily peaceful crowd, injuring many people. Contradictions between videos and police UOF reports regarding munitions also raise questions. None of the officers involved in these UOF attacks, some of which resulted in hospital transport or death, faced any charges. Considering the evidence, The Epoch Times reached out to the GAO, asking how the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) could determine that every use of force was justified. Gretta Goodwin, a director in GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice team, told The Epoch Times they "reviewed Capitol Police use of force and crowd control policies, procedures, and training materials," and "analyzed officer use of force reports for January 6, 2021, which describe the types of force used, as well as supervisors' determinations on whether the force was justified." "As you noted, and as we reported, Capitol Police determined that each the 293 use of force incidents reported from January 6, 2021 were justified," Goodwin explained. "According to Capitol Police policy, officers are required to complete a use of force report for any incident that meets one or more of three criteria: (1) unintentional firearm discharge; (2) the withdrawal of a weapon from its holster or pointing a weapon, including a firearm, at an individual or animal; or (3) any use of force greater than, and including, empty hand control techniques. Further, its policy requires officers to complete the use of force report, if possible, prior to the end of the officer's tour of duty (i.e., the day of the incident)." None of the reports were completed and submitted on Jan. 6, 2021. "Capitol Police policy calls for use of force reports to be reviewed by the reporting officer's supervisor for accuracy and completeness," Goodwin stated further. "The supervisor is required to indicate whether the use of force was supported by the circumstances, or whether more investigation is needed. For either designation, the supervisor is to forward the report to the Office of Professional Responsibility for final investigative review. According to the Capitol Police, Office of Professional Responsibility investigations that identify wrongdoing can result in disciplinary actions and criminal investigations. Of the 293 use of force incidents reported, one incident required more investigation by the supervisor. This incident was the sole use of force incident involving the firing of a firearm, which the Capitol Police determined to be justified after additional investigation." This was the shooting of an unarmed Babbitt by Byrd. No explanation was provided for why the actions of Officer Morris and “Officer Whiteshirt” were deemed justified. "We made five recommendations in our report," Goodwin said, "some of which focus on ensuring that the Capitol Police take actions to better understand officers' comprehension of the department's expectations and policies related to the use of force, and as appropriate, make changes to policy, guidance, and training. Capitol Police agreed with all five of our recommendations, and when we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to our recommendations, we will provide updated information on our website." The Epoch Times also reached out to the USCP's OPR but received no response. https://www.police1.com/less-lethal/articles/training-to-develop-knockdown-p... https://rumble.com/vr9uhp-brutal-victoria-white-pummeled-by-police-officers-... https://americangulag.org/victoria-charity-white/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121309-baton-hostital-transport https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121311-batonabdomeninjury https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases https://www.theepochtimes.com/we-dont-need-to-do-this-protester-shouted-as-r... https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2022/02/11/Boyland_Morris_Stick... https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2022/06/09/DSC_4278bw_fnl-1200x... https://www.theepochtimes.com/police-beating-of-unconscious-rosanne-boyland-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/luke-coffee-says-god-told-him-to-stand-in-the-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/babbitt-tried-to-stop-attack-on-capitol-speake... https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2022/01/18/Ashli_Confronts-1200... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22120686-byrdshootingbabbit https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2022/07/25/PaylMcKennaUseOfForc... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22120687-byrdshootingbabbitt2 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22120701-shotsfiredbabbitt-34 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22120703-mentionsbabbittshooting-fir... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-c... https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2022/07/25/ReggieTysonUseOfForc... https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnewnebrasks/ashli-babbitt-was-murd... https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2022/07/24/Ashli_Shot_byMontoya... https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/uscp-completes-internal-inv... https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104829 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121337-fn303projectiles https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-police-report-proves-plainclothes-el... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121338-fn303projectiles2 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121341-munitionsdischarge1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121342-munitionsdischarge2 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121343-pepperball https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121344-pepperball2 https://www.wgbh.org/news/national-news/2021/02/16/u-s-capitol-police-union-... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121348-rubberbullets1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22121336-flashbangs https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/capitol-police-riot-report.ht... https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-committee-takes-aim-at-trump-alleging-a-... https://trib247.com/articles/report-capitol-police-incited-jan-6-crowd-by-fi... https://teaparty.org/video-footage-shows-capitol-police-fired-flash-grenade-... https://www.worldtribune.com/report-capitol-police-incited-jan-6-crowd-by-fi... https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-electronic-surveillance-unit-was-illegal... https://americanfaith.com/new-videos-emerge-appearing-to-show-capitol-police... https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/did-the-capitol-police-instigate-viole... https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary_4596670.ht...

Documentary: The Real Story of January 6 https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary_4596670.ht... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TroqEgsFtEU https://epochtv.com/ https://bitchute.com/ https://locals.com/ ...

"Coup" Means Whatever The Regime Wants It To Mean https://mises.org/wire/coup-means-whatever-regime-wants-it-mean http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/powell-thyne-JPR-2011.pdf https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/07/22/should-donald-trump-be-pros... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321719888857 In the immediate aftermath of the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, many pundits and politicians were eager to describe the events of that day as a coup d'etat in which the nation was "this close" to having some sort of junta void the 2020 election and take power in Washington. The headlines at the time were unambiguous in their assertions that the riot was a coup or attempted coup. For example, the riot was “A Very American Coup” according to a headline at the New Republic. “This Is a Coup” insists a writer at Foreign Policy. The Atlantic presented photos purported to be “Scenes from an American Coup.” This general tactic has not changed since then. Just this month, for example, Vanity Fair referred to the January 6 riots as "Trump's attempted coup" Last month, Vox called it "Trump's cuckoo coup." Moreover, anti-Trump politicians have repeatedly referred to the riot as a coup, and "attempted coup" has become the standard term of choice for the January 6 panel. At the time, it was obvious that if the riot was a coup at all, it failed utterly. Thus, the debate is now over whether or not it was an attempted coup. On January 8, 2021, I argued the riot was not an attempted coup. Now, 18 months later, after months of "investigation" and testimony to the January 6 committee, we've learned new details about the events that occurred that day. And now I can say with even more confidence: the January 6 riot was not an attempted coup. It was not an attempted coup because it simply wasn't the sort of event that historians and political scientists—the people who actually study coups—generally define as a coup. Even the Justice Department admits that virtually all of the rioters were, at most, guilty only of crimes such as trespassing and disorderly conduct. Among the tiny minority of those charged with actual conspiracy—11 people— they lacked any sort of institutional backing or support that is necessary for a coup attempt to take place. Nor is this just some meaningless debate over semantics. Words matters and definitions matter. This should be abundantly clear to anyone in our current age of debates over what terms like "recession" or "vaccine" or "woman" mean. In fact, the use of term "coup" has been thoroughly weaponized in that outside academic circles it is employed largely as a pejorative to discredit political acts designed to register discontent with a ruling regime or to oppose a ruling coalition. For many, the term coup is now used increasingly to describe political acts one doesn't like. But if the term "coup" ultimately means "political thing those bad guys did" then it ceases to have any precise meaning at all. But, the use of the term in this way does explain why so many pundits and politicians routinely use the term to label their opponents coup plotters. It's basically name calling, and really only tells us about the user's political leanings. What Is a Coup? In their article for the Journal of Peace Research, “Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset,” authors Jonathan M. Powell and Clayton L. Thyne provide a definition: A coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive. Although the terms "military" and "coup" are routinely employed together, Powell and Thyne emphasize military involvement at early stages is not necessary: [Other definitions] more broadly allow non-military elites, civilian groups, and even mercenaries to be included as coup perpetrators. This broad definition includes four sources, including [a definition stating that coup] perpetrators need only be ‘organized factions’. We take a middle ground. Coups may be undertaken by any elite who is part of the state apparatus. These can include non-civilian members of the military and security services, or civilian members of government. Moreover, it is not necessary that violence actually be used. The presence of a threat issued by some organized group of elites is sufficient. This definition is helpful because there are many types of political actions that are not coups, even if the intended outcome is a change in the ruling regime. The definition offered by Powell and Thyne is useful because it avoids "conflating coups with other forms of anti-regime activity, which is the primary problem with broader approaches." For example, popular uprisings that force ruling executives from power are not generally coups. Intervention by a foreign regime is not a coup. Civil wars initiated by non-elites or other outsiders are not coups. Why the Jan 6 Riot Was Not a Coup In the case of the January 6 riot, the rioters had no institutional backing, no promises of help from elites, and no reason to assume they had access to any coercive tools necessary to seize and hold control of a state's executive apparatus. Nor was Donald Trump even in a position to promise such things. As noted by Elaine Kamarck at the Brookings Institution: we now know that Trump did not even have the support of his own family and friends nor his handpicked White House staff. To pursue his plans, he had to rely on a close group of advisors known as “the clown show” led by Rudi Giuliani, a pillow manufacturer, and a dot-com millionaire—none of whom was in government and none of whom controlled the most important “assets” (guns, tanks, planes etc.) needed to take over a government. In contrast to most successful coups in history, Trump had no faction of the military, no faction of the National Guard, and no faction of the District of Colombia Metropolitan Police at his disposal. In other words, the rioters had no avenue to calling upon any faction of the state or group of elites to secure backing. Kamarck continues: As we learned in some of the most recent hearings, it was Vice President Mike Pence who was in contact with the military and the police, and most importantly, the military and the police were taking orders from Pence not Trump, the commander in chief! Given that Trump didn't attempt to actually attempt to secure any government agency to secure power for himself, we can guess Trump knew no branch of the federal government was about to step in to illegally secure an extension to his tenure as president. We can never know for sure what Trump was really thinking on that day, but even if Trump sought to encourage a group of protestors to somehow put pressure on Congress—even if by violent means—that's not a coup. It's a popular uprising. The Bolivian "Coup": The Anti-Morales Protestors in Bolivia The protests that followed the 2019 elections in Bolivia provide an interestingly similar case to the January 6 riot and demonstrate that it's often quite debatable as to what constitutes a coup. As the Bolivian election neared its end on October 24, sitting president Evo Morales began to claim victory. Numerous opponents, however, claimed Morales's supporters had engaged in electoral fraud. Both sides refused to accept the results of the election, and protests and riots soon erupted across the nation. Morales and his supporters accused the opposition of staging a coup. The opposition accused Morales of the same. Or, more precisely, they accused Morales of attempting an "autocoup"—autogolpe in Spanish—in which Morales was attempting to hold on to power via illegal means. Ultimately, Morales ended up resigning after he failed to maintain control over the police and military. High ranking officials from those institutions "recommended" Morales resign, and Morales did so soon after. Morales went into exile and Mexico and the opposition became the de facto governing coalition in Bolivia. There remains no agreement, however, as to whether or not the actions of either side in Brazil constituted a coup (or autocoup.) Morales's supporters—mostly leftists—refer to the political crisis following the election as a coup. Those who are convinced Morales did indeed lose the election refer to his efforts as an autocoup. But many also refer to the events as a popular uprising. For many, the situation in Bolivia in 2019 remains ambiguous, and we can see how it shares many elements in common with the events surrounding the January 6 riot at the Capitol. It began with claims of election fraud, and ended with a group of protestors attempting to pressure congress to change the outcome. This is not fundamentally different from the popular uprisings in Bolivia, except that in the US the outcome was never really dubious. There was never really any doubt as to whether the Pentagon would he helping Trump push through an autocoup. Trump never had any real reason to believe he could hold on to power, even with 900 mostly unarmed protestors trespassing in the Capitol. "Coup" Now Means "Thing I Don't Like" The Bolivia situation also helps to illustrate how the term "coup" is used selectively for political effect. The fact that Morales's leftist supporters are generally those who favor the use of the term to describe Morales's removal from office is no coincidence. Those who support one side say it's a coup, while the other side does not. We see the same dynamic at work in the US, and we should not be surprised that the media has rushed to apply the term to the riot. This phenomenon was examined in a November 2019 article titled “Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research?,” by Leiv Marsteintredet and Andres Malamud. The authors note that as the incidence of real coups has declined, the word has become more commonly applied to political events that are generally not coups. But, as the authors note, this is no mere issue of splitting hairs, explaining that “The choice of how to conceptualize a coup is not to be taken lightly since it carries normative, analytical, and political implications.” Increasingly, the term really means "this is a thing I don’t like." It's clear the January 6 panel in Congress, and countless anti-Trump pundits use the term in this way to express disapproval and also to justify regime crackdowns against pro-Trump opponents of the regime. It's easier to justify harsh prison sentences for a disorganized group of vandals if their acts can be framed as a nearly successful coup and therefore a threat to "our democracy." Moreover, if the situation were reversed, and if protestors invaded the Capitol to support a leftwing, pro-regime candidate, we can be sure that the vocabulary used to describe the event in the mainstream press would be quite different.

Repression, Terror, Fear: The Government Wants To Silence The Opposition https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary... https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/uk/julian-assange-extradition-order-intl/inde... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling http://www.wnyc.org/story/militarization-american-police-departments/ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/08/police_in_f... https://theintercept.com/2016/11/27/arrests-of-journalists-at-standing-rock-... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/22/confederate-monument... http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/us/charlottesville-lee-monument-spencer-protes... https://www.propublica.org/article/police-stood-by-as-mayhem-mounted-in-char... https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-in-charlottesville... https://www.propublica.org/article/police-stood-by-as-mayhem-mounted-in-char... https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c869fb_a573de9ad4f04b0491b927ca9d48252c.pdf http://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf https://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-America-War-American-People/dp/1590795229... https://www.amazon.com/Erik-Blair-Diaries-Battlefield-Dead/dp/1954968027/ “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” - President Harry S. Truman Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Lockdowns. This is not the language of freedom. This is not even the language of law and order. This is the language of force. This is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who speak out against government corruption, misconduct and abuse. These overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation and fear. We didn’t know it then, but what happened five years ago in Charlottesville, Va., was a foretaste of what was to come. At the time, Charlottesville was at the center of a growing struggle over how to reconcile the right to think and speak freely, especially about controversial ideas, with the push to sanitize the environment of anything—words and images—that might cause offense. That fear of offense prompted the Charlottesville City Council to get rid of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that had graced one of its public parks for 82 years. In attempting to err on the side of political correctness by placating one group while muzzling critics of the city’s actions, Charlottesville attracted the unwanted attention of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and the alt-Right, all of whom descended on the little college town with the intention of exercising their First Amendment right to be disagreeable, to assemble, and to protest. That’s when everything went haywire. When put to the test, Charlottesville did not handle things well at all. On August 12, 2017, government officials took what should have been a legitimate exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turned it into a lesson in authoritarianism by manipulating warring factions and engineering events in such a way as to foment unrest, lockdown the city, and justify further power grabs. On the day of scheduled protests, police deliberately engineered a situation in which two opposing camps of protesters would confront each other, tensions would bubble over, and things would turn just violent enough to justify allowing the government to shut everything down. Despite the fact that 1,000 first responders (including 300 state police troopers and members of the National Guard)—many of whom had been preparing for the downtown rally for months—had been called on to work the event, and police in riot gear surrounded Emancipation Park on three sides, police failed to do their jobs. In fact, as the Washington Post reports, police “seemed to watch as groups beat each other with sticks and bludgeoned one another with shields… At one point, police appeared to retreat and then watch the beatings before eventually moving in to end the free-for-all, make arrests and tend to the injured.” “Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville,” reported ProPublica. Incredibly, when the first signs of open violence broke out, the police chief allegedly instructed his staff to “let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.” In this way, police who were supposed to uphold the law and prevent violence failed to do either. Indeed, a 220-page post-mortem of the protests and the Charlottesville government’s response by former U.S. attorney Timothy J. Heaphy concluded that “the City of Charlottesville protected neither free expression nor public safety.” In other words, the government failed to uphold its constitutional mandates. The police failed to carry out their duties as peace officers. And the citizens found themselves unable to trust either the police or the government to do its job in respecting their rights and ensuring their safety. This is not much different from what is happening on the present-day national scene. Indeed, there’s a pattern emerging if you pay close enough attention. Civil discontent leads to civil unrest, which leads to protests and counterprotests. Tensions rise, violence escalates, police stand down, and federal armies move in. Meanwhile, despite the protests and the outrage, the government’s abuses continue unabated. It’s all part of an elaborate setup by the architects of the police state. The government wants a reason to crack down and lock down and bring in its biggest guns. They want us divided. They want us to turn on one another. They want us powerless in the face of their artillery and armed forces. They want us silent, servile and compliant. They certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully, whether it’s protesting politically correct efforts to whitewash the past, challenging COVID-19 mandates, questioning election outcomes, or listening to alternate viewpoints—even conspiratorial ones—in order to form our own opinions about the true nature of government. And they definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices. Why else do you think Wikileaks founder Julian Assange continues to molder in jail for daring to blow the whistle about the U.S. government’s war crimes, while government officials who rape, plunder and kill walk away with little more than a slap on the wrist? This is how it begins. We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts. In the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, “domestic terrorism” has become the new poster child for expanding the government’s powers at the expense of civil liberties. Of course, “domestic terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye phrase, to be used interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist,” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.” This unilateral power to muzzle free speech represents a far greater danger than any so-called right- or left-wing extremist might pose. The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association. Watch and see: we are all about to become enemies of the state. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, anytime you have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by fiat, you’d better beware. So what’s the answer? For starters, we need to remember that we’ve all got rights, and we need to exercise them. Most of all, we need to protect the rights of the people to speak truth to power, whatever that truth might be. Either “we the people” believe in free speech or we don’t. Fifty years ago, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas asked: “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet… [A]t the constitutional level, speech need not be a sedative; it can be disruptive… [A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” In other words, the Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials. Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence). Somehow, the government keeps overlooking this important element in the equation.

Internet Sting Operation ‘J6 DELETED’ Exposes How Twitter Manipulated Jan. 6 Narrative ‘In Real Time’ https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-j6deleted-internet-sting-operation-e... https://www.j6deleted.com/

Feds Had Informants In Proud Boys And Oath Keepers For J6 https://amgreatness.com/2022/11/14/feds-had-informants-in-proud-boys-and-oat... https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/HJC_STAFF... https://www.thedailybeast.com/oath-keepers-got-ammo-discount-for-post-electi... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/us/politics/fbi-informants-proud-boys-jan... If Republicans eke out a win in the House of Representatives—which now seems likely—GOP leaders have promised to investigate numerous government scandals, including the irredeemably corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation. One path of inquiry is how the bureau manufactures data to promote the phony narrative that “domestic violent extremists,” i.e., supporters of Donald Trump, pose a security threat to the country. Whistleblowers recently disclosed how the FBI is “misrepresenting the scale of domestic violent extremism nationwide by categorizing January 6th-related investigations as organic cases stemming from local field offices, instead of all related to one single incident,” according to a report by GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee. Shortly after the Capitol protest, FBI Director Christopher Wray designated the four-hour disturbance as an act of “domestic terror”; federal prosecutors routinely compare January 6 defendants to terrorists, enabling the government to seek—and receive—extended jail time for misdemeanors convictions and justify indefinite pretrial detention for nonviolent offenders. During his Senate testimony in March 2021, Wray described members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, two groups involved in the events of January 6, as “militia violent extremists.” When Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.) asked Wray whether he considered either group a domestic terror organization, the director refused to answer directly, instead insisting “individuals” associated with both groups are “domestic terrorists.” Those comments alone should be fireable offenses. Set aside Wray’s excuse-making for leftist rioters—in 2020, Wray laughably refused to apply the same label to Antifa, calling it a “movement or an ideology,” not a terror organization—no evidence exists to support Wray’s accusations that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys mimic terror cells comparable to al Qaeda. Of the nearly two dozen members of both groups now facing charges tied to January 6, only one is accused of using a weapon (a riot shield) and it is alleged he used it to break a window, not harm a person, that afternoon. Members of the Oath Keepers who drove to Washington to attend the president’s speech left their legally transported weapons at a Virginia hotel rather than violate the city’s strict gun control laws. Worst “militia” ever. And no one in either group carried a firearm into the building or on Capitol grounds. But Wray, conveniently, left off another vital detail about these “militias”: the number of FBI confidential human sources embedded within them both before and during the Capitol protest. Prior to the September start of the seditious conspiracy trial against members of the Oath Keepers, prosecutors finally disclosed that at least five FBI informants were embedded in the groups weeks and months before January 6. Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia handling over 900 January 6 cases, sought to prevent the jury from hearing about the informants’ “activities or involvement in past investigations.” None testified as a witness for the government. But the defense wanted to call to the stand the vice president of the Oath Keepers, a man who worked directly with Stewart Rhodes, the founder and head of the group. Greg McWhirter is a former sheriff’s deputy and current owner of a tactical shooting range and gun shop in Montana. McWhirter also is an FBI informant. According to a bombshell piece in the New York Times, McWhirter was “secretly reporting to the F.B.I. about the group’s activities in the weeks and months leading up to the Capitol attack.” Reporter Alan Feuer further revealed that McWhirter had suffered a medical emergency boarding a plane to Washington to testify and required hospitalization. (Prosecutors asked the presiding judge to find out who leaked the information about McWhirter’s role, under court-ordered protective seal, to Feuer. Defense dropped him as a witness.) Not only did McWhirter work for the FBI, he lured Oath Keepers to his remote business by offering discounts to buy guns and ammunition before the 2020 election—presumably, at the behest of the FBI to produce evidence of a self-styled “militia” even though no crime was committed. All of it reeks of the FBI-engineered plot to “kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, an entrapment scheme underway at the very same time the FBI utilized informants in the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers before January 6. In the Whitmer fednapping hoax, Dan Chappel, the lead informant, acted as the “commanding officer” of an imaginary militia—revealed during trial as a fabrication of the FBI—to lure the FBI’s targets into the trap. Further, another Oath Keeper turned informant called the FBI tip line in November 2020 over fears the group planned to go “to war with the United States government” but investigators didn’t contact him until March 2021. But unlike the Whitmer fednapping plot where the FBI arrested their targets before any attempted “kidnapping” could occur, the FBI did not use any foreknowledge about possible violence on January 6 to prevent what happened that day despite connections to several informants. The question is—why not? The FBI also ran informants in the Proud Boys before January 6. Last year, Feuer revealed that the FBI embedded one informant in the group in July 2020; the informant was involved in the first breach of the restricted area. “As scores of Proud Boys made their way, chanting and shouting, toward the Capitol on Jan. 6, one member of the far-right group was busy texting a real-time account of the march,” Feuer reported in September 2021. “The recipient was his F.B.I. handler.” Another FBI informant was associated with a separate chapter of the Proud Boys that also participated in the events of January 6. Now it appears that the FBI had multiple assets dispersed among the Proud Boys. A last-minute discovery dump last week by prosecutors includes at least 500 pages of possibly exculpatory evidence related to the FBI’s confidential human source operation within the Proud Boys. (Jury selection for the first trial is scheduled to start December 12.) The Times reported late Monday night that at least eight FBI informants were placed in the Proud Boys. According to one defense motion, the Justice Department held this material for more than a year only to release heavily redacted versions of the pages one month before trial; one defense lawyer noted that even page numbers had been redacted. Defense attorneys have now asked U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly to take action. Counsel for Zachary Rehl, a Proud Boy from Pennsylvania, asked Kelly to “dismiss the indictment in this case and impose such other sanctions as are just and proper on the grounds that the government has violated Mr. Rehl’s rights to a fair trial and to the due process of law by failing to produce until this past week information ‘favorable to’ Mr. Rehl that is ‘material either to guilt or to punishment’ under Brady v. Maryland.” Even more outrageous is that Rehl and three of his co-defendants have been behind bars under pre-trial detention orders since early 2021; Kelly, a Trump appointee, has consented to their indefinite incarceration as the Justice Department plays last-minute games to either force plea agreements or delay trial once again. Gamesmanship aside, it’s now evident the FBI infiltrated these two “militia” groups well in advance of January 6. So, only one of two explanations is possible: either the FBI hired lousy informants, all of whom failed to tell their handling agents that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys planned to overthrow the government that day or, more likely, the FBI replicated the Whitmer fednapping—informants worked with supervising agents and FBI hierarchy to concoct another “domestic terror” attack to bolster Wray’s unsubstantiated warnings about domestic violent extremists for political reasons. In other words, they wanted to sabotage Donald Trump. In either case, where is the outrage among January 6 propagandists that the FBI, contrary to Wray’s public assertions, had plenty of resources devoted to collecting intelligence about the Capitol protest? Why did Wray’s surveillance operation fail so spectacularly? Who are the handling agents responsible for such widespread failure? Why haven’t heads rolled? Where is Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) calling for Wray’s resignation? That these questions remain unanswered—and, more importantly, unasked—is a telling sign.

Corrupt FBI caught pushing its disinfo manipulation via Twitter. 'Walk Away' Founder Brandon Straka Sues MSNBC Hosts For Defamation Over False Statements https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23466304-straka-v-msnbc Two MSNBC hosts have been sued for making false statements about a man who pleaded guilty and was sentenced for taking part in the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Brandon Straka, founder of the #WalkAway Campaign, speaks at the CPAC convention in National Harbor, Md., on Feb. 28, 2020. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times) Chris Hayes and Ari Melber, the hosts, committed defamation when they made the statements on-air, Brandon Straka says in the new complaint. Straka, a Democrat-turned-Republican, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. In exchange, a slew of other charges were dropped, including impeding a law enforcement officer during a civil disorder. Hayes, on his MSNBC show on Dec. 17, 2021, claimed that many people associated with former President Donald Trump “appear to have been smart enough not to commit the Federal crime of storming the Capitol live on television.” “Brandon Straka is the exception,” Hayes said. Hayes also quoted Straka as saying during the tumult at the Capitol, “Take it away from him. Take the shield!” And Hayes also claimed that Straka had broken into the Capitol. The statements are false because Straka did not commit the federal crime of storming the Capitol, did not utter the supposed quotation, and never entered the Capitol building, the new defamation complaint states. The evidence to support the case includes a statement of offense from an FBI agent, which says clearly states that Straka was on Capitol grounds but did not enter the Capitol. The plea agreement also says Straka was on Capitol grounds but does not say he went inside the building. “Comparing the Hayes Statements to the truth, it is beyond peradventure that the Statements are materially false,” Straka’s complaint states. The documents do say that Straka uttered “take it, take it,” but not the full quote attributed to him by Hayes. Melber, meanwhile, talked about Straka during a segment of “The Beat with Ari Melber” on Oct. 19. Melber, during an interview, with Straka’s image on screen, said that Straka “was convicted in connection with the January 6 insurrection” and “was found to have been trying to help attack police officers.” According to the plea agreement, Straka recorded people trying to take a U.S. Capitol Police officer’s shield but did not participate in the action. The agreement was for a guilty plea for a single charge, disorderly conduct on the Capitol grounds. Melber also claimed: “His name is Brandon Straka. He confessed. He confessed to being guilty. He was found to [have been] helping attack police.” “The Melber Statements are materially false because Straka did not confess and was not found by any Court to have helped attack police officers or to have attempted an attack on any police officer,” the new complaint states. “Indeed, the public record, reviewed by MSNBC and Melber prior to publication, demonstrates beyond cavil that Straka did not engage in any acts of violence or encourage anyone to commit violence on January 6, 2021. Rather, he was filming events outside the east side of the Capitol in a journalistic capacity.” Damages The false statements caused damages to Straka, his lawyers said, referencing the recent verdicts against InfoWars founder Alex Jones. “As was true in the Alex Jones cases MSNBC, Hayes and Melber’s actions caused Straka to be inundated with threats and subject to intense harassment and hate messages,” they said. “Invitations to appear on television and podcasts and to participate in events went cold due to the toxicity of Defendants’ false Statements. Straka suffered insult, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, injury to his reputation, loss of income and career damage.” Melber’s statements were made during an interview with Matt Schlapp, the chair of the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual event where Straka has spoken a number of times. Melber “intentionally poisoned the opinion of an important and powerful colleague of Straka,” the complaint states, adding later that “MSNBC and Melber deliberately attempted to end Brandon’s career and destroy Brandon’s relationships with high-profile political figures.” The statements were also made to millions of followers on Twitter, and to more people on YouTube, the complaint notes. Read more here...

'I Also Orchestrated It': Uncharged J6 Witness Ray Epps Transcript ... Ray Epps, the uncharged man identified as a key instigator behind the January 6, 2020 Capitol Breach for telling people to storm the Capitol, said in a text message to his nephew that he "orchestrated" things, according to newly released witness transcripts from the January 6th Committee.. On January 6, 2021 Ray Epps texted his nephew to say, "I WAS IN THE FRONT WITH A FEW OTHERS. revolvernews

https://twitter.com/hodgetwins/status/1612218060638658560 Brazil has their own damn shaman too 🤣

US Democrats Entire Jan6 Narrative and Committee gets DESTROYED... Massive political and public blowback against Dems as yet more truths about Democrats Corruption Lies Fraud Censorship get revealed... Proud Boys J6 Sedition Trial Halted After Leaked Chat Logs Show FBI Agent Said Her Boss Ordered Her To "Destroy Evidence" https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63637 Authored by Chris Menahan via Information Liberation, https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1633818502476726272 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23699515/678-nordean-m-re-impeachment... https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/09/classified-info-proud-boys-trial-00... https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63631 https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63241 The feds’ political persecution of the Proud Boys took a wild turn after unintentionally leaked chat logs from FBI Special Agent Nicole Miller revealed she said she was ordered by her boss to “destroy” “338 items of evidence.” The leaked chats also suggest Miller failed to reveal relevant communications to the defense, potentially spied on privileged attorney-client communications and was asked by another agent to “edit out that I was present” during a meeting with a Confidential Human Source Informant. Concealing evidence. Doctoring evidence. Destroying evidence. Violating attorney-client privilege. What's sad is this will be ignored even by conservative media and Congress simply bc they are members of the Proud Boys. That's not a crime no matter how many times Wray says it. pic.twitter.com/IeXGj4gV7t — Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 9, 2023 The shocking revelations were shared in a filing by Proud Boy Ethan Nordean’s (aka Rufio Panman) defense team on Thursday: The feds are now claiming some of the leaked messages are “likely classified” in what appears to be a bid to hide this bombshell evidence from the jury.

From Politico, “‘Spill’ of classified info derails Proud Boys trial”:

As part of her testimony, prosecutors shared with defense lawyers a set of internal FBI messages that [FBI Special Agent Nicole Miller] had sent and received from colleagues related to the case — a standard production of evidence in criminal cases. To compile those exchanges, FBI headquarters sent Miller a spreadsheet of her messages — culled from a computer network classified at the “secret” level. Miller then reviewed the messages and filtered them to ensure only relevant, unclassified exchanges were included. Miller sent her final list to prosecutors, who then packaged the messages into an Excel spreadsheet that they provided to defense lawyers. But unbeknownst to them, the messages Miller initially filtered out — including some that DOJ officials say are likely classified — were left in the final document as “hidden” rows in the Excel spreadsheet. Defense counsel stumbled upon them and began grilling Miller about them in front of jurors in the case. But unbeknownst to them, the messages Miller initially filtered out — including some that DOJ officials say are likely classified — were left in the final document as “hidden” rows in the Excel spreadsheet. Defense counsel stumbled upon them and began grilling Miller about them in front of jurors in the case. Overnight, Justice Department attorneys told the defense team they were concerned there had been a “spill” of classified information in the hidden messages they accessed. And on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Tim Kelly paused the trial — already in its third month — to determine how to handle the error. It’s the latest hiccup in a seditious conspiracy trial that has been marked by excruciating delays and extended legal disputes. Prosecutors say Proud Boys chair Enrique Tarrio and four leaders of the group schemed to prevent the transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. The group, according to the Justice Department, split into teams that helped engineer the breach of police lines and, ultimately, the building itself, when one of the defendants, Dominic Pezzola, smashed a Senate-wing window with a stolen riot shield. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jocelyn Ballantine, who is supervising the case for the Justice Department, acknowledged the likely “spill” of classified information Thursday morning. She raised particular concerns about a message sent to Miller by another agent who works on covert activity — and who she said did not work on the Proud Boys case — describing a supervisor’s order to “destroy 338 items of evidence.” “That could impact a classified equity,” Ballantine said. Defense lawyers cried foul, though, noting that the government’s claims of “classified” material arrived just as the defense sounded the alarm about the content of some of the inadvertently disclosed messages. While Miller testified Wednesday she had produced about “25 rows” of messages, defense lawyers said there were thousands of rows of hidden messages that included contents they contended were directly relevant to their case. Some of the messages appeared to reveal that FBI agents accessed contacts between defendant Zachary Rehl and his attorney, which led Miller to tell a colleague she thought Rehl would take his case to trial. In another message, an FBI agent tells Miller, “You need to go into that CHS report you just put and edit out that I was present.” After defense attorneys began to press Miller about the attorney-client messages on Wednesday afternoon, prosecutors objected, and Kelly halted the trial to permit the parties to debate the matter. This case was a fraud from the very beginning and it’s an absolute disgrace that it wasn’t thrown out. You can see in the leaked texts above the FBI agents questioned whether they could make out a valid “conspiracy and not make a fool of ourselves.” Though they have made fools out of themselves, whether that even matters in this DC kangaroo court still remains to be seen. In a just country, corrupt Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Chris Wray would be the ones on trial for their seditious conspiracy against the January 6th defendants and the American people as a whole.

jailing political dissidents and free speech, same as every other shithole country...

"Free Jacob Chansley": Musk Backs 'QAnon Shaman' After New J6 Footage Emerges

Tucker Carlson Unbound: Setting Fire To The Uniparty https://www.realclearwire.com/articles/2023/03/13/tucker_carlson_unbound_set... https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/02/27/the_left_is_right_to_f... https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/03/09/taibbi_at_twitter_files_h... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/capitol-police-officer-brian-... In my last column, I compared Fox News host Tucker Carlson to the CBS journalist Edward R. Murrow, who used his reporting in the 1950s to change the course of history. For that comparison I apologize. It is now apparent that Carlson far exceeds Murrow in his courage, his thoughtfulness, and his stubborn refusal to accede to pressure. Let’s get this straight. Murrow was a brilliant journalist, but his reputation as a dedicated war correspondent during the Battle of Britain also made him a beloved figure to his fellow reporters and to the politicians whom he covered. Thus, when he stood up against the bullying tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Murrow knew he could count on the support of CBS, other journalists, and even senators who had been the target of McCarthy’s blind rage. In a very real sense, it was McCarthy’s own character flaws that brought him down, to the detriment of his anti-Communist crusade, which had accurately identified the very real threat of Soviet sympathizers who had infiltrated the federal government. Murrow was just the catalyst, and he was lauded for his efforts. On the other hand, Tucker Carlson’s decision last week to air previously unseen video of the Jan. 6, 2021, confrontation between protesters and Capitol Police put his own career at risk and has made him the subject of bipartisan scorn. Some even speculate that he was silently punished by his bosses at Fox News, but Carlson doesn’t seem worried about being fired, and the condemnation he has received from both the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate has only emboldened him. It will probably take years to fully understand the importance of Carlson’s challenge of the “official Washington” narrative of Jan. 6 as a “deadly insurrection,” but Carlson wasted no time last Monday in laying out the framework of his complete rejection of the “accepted truth” pushed by the Biden Department of Justice, the House Select Committee on January 6, and the mainstream media. Only a tiny fraction of the thousands of hours of surveillance video released to Carlson by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was shown last week on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” but you only need a small pin to burst a large balloon, and by the time the week was over, all the president’s men couldn’t put the Humpty-Dumpty story of a “Trump-surrection” back together again. “The images you will see were recorded 26 months ago today on January 6, 2021,” Carlson began. “Until now, politicians have kept this tape hidden from the public. There is no legitimate justification for that and there never has been.” The powers that be would have you believe that Carlson had jeopardized national security by playing the tapes – probably 30 minutes out of the 41,000 hours. Now, it is true the tapes provided some interesting counterbalance to the non-stop harassment of Trump supporters that has taken place for the past two years, but if truth be told, the evidence on the tapes was much less significant than the reaction to them. What you really want to know now is, if 30 minutes of video has the Uniparty crowd so scared, what else are they hiding? I think much more than the video, the Censorship-Industrial Complex (as journalist Matt Taibbi has accurately tabbed it) wants to shut down any information or even belief that goes counter to the official narrative, and that’s where Carlson got so deep under their skin that they were willing to rip themselves to shreds in an effort to get at him. Everything Carlson said about Jan. 6 for three days last week was a threat to their power, and he knew it. “The protesters were angry. They believed the election they had just voted in was unfairly conducted. They were right. In retrospect, it is clear the 2020 election was a grave betrayal of American democracy.” He didn’t go beyond that in explaining the illegitimacy of the election, but he didn’t have to. The “it is clear” speaks volumes to those who haven’t bought into the official narrative that the 2020 election was “the most secure” in the nation’s history. Yeah, it was secure if you don’t believe the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that election law was violated en masse in those states. It was secure if you don’t have any concern about billionaire Mark Zuckerberg spending hundreds of millions of dollars to gain access to voter rolls and ensure that likely Biden voters were goosed to get their butts out of the chair and their ballots in the drop boxes. It was secure if you don’t care about Twitter and Facebook colluding with the federal government to make sure that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop was falsely painted as Russian disinformation in the weeks leading up to the election. Although Democrats and the rest of “official Washington” claim the election was secure, they spent zero hours proving that case. Instead, they seized on the disruptions on Jan. 6 as the real threat to democracy and gave their clients in the lapdog media the spectacle of the select committee’s show trial. What is most hurtful to the Democrats and RINOs who wrote the narrative is that their two years of work propping up the infrastructure of a “deadly insurrection” was undone in less than 60 minutes by Carlson, who didn’t deny that violence had been done on Jan. 6, but committed the unforgivable sin of putting it in perspective. Thus, where the Jan. 6 committee saw the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War, Tucker Carlson showed pictures of protesters walking in the door of the Capitol and milling around, as he said, like sightseers. No matter how many times Carlson said he was not excusing any violence, the proponents of the “deadly insurrection” narrative claimed that showing non-violent protesters was an affront to their efforts to demonize Trump voters as terrorists. And, of course, they were right to worry. But it wasn’t just the images by themselves that overturned the official narrative; it was the muscular words of Carlson as he held to account not just the select committee, but also congressional leaders, Capitol Police, and the Department of Justice. This was a rarely seen J’accuse moment in which the system’s irresponsible scapegoating of the Deplorables was held up to the light. “Committee members lied about what they saw,” Carlson said, “and then hid the evidence from the public as well as from Jan. 6 criminal defendants and their lawyers. That is unforgivable.” The most important video came in four specific batches, each of which puts a dent in the official story. As explained by Carlson, they were as follows: – Shots of Jacob Chansley (the QAnon Shaman) being escorted through the Capitol by a number of police and never being arrested or prevented from moving about freely. As Carlson points out, the video raises questions about whether the Department of Justice violated Chansley’s rights to a fair trial because he was denied potentially exculpatory evidence. The video plainly raises questions about whether Chansley was an intruder or a guest in the Capitol. Carlson questioned whether similar footage could have assisted many others charged with Jan. 6 crimes by showing that the “deadly insurrection” was nothing of the kind. – Shots of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick apparently waving protesters out of the building, raising serious questions about the honesty of the many media and political figures who claimed Sicknick’s death was caused by the protesters. In the footage, Sicknick appears to be unharmed and wearing a helmet some time after he was reportedly murdered by having his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick died the next day as a result of a stroke caused by blood clots at the base of his brain. The medical examiner found no external or internal injuries and ruled that Sicknick died of natural causes. – Shots of Ray Epps, the mysterious figure who urged protesters to “go IN to the Capitol” both the night before and the day of the mob scene. Epps testified before the Jan. 6 committee that he left the riot prior to texting his nephew that he had “orchestrated” the attack, but Carlson found footage of Epps a half hour later still in the middle of the mob, although suspiciously not following his own insistent advice to enter the Capitol. Carlson and others have questioned whether Epps was a federal agent or informant who was provoking the attack as part of a political scheme to create chaos. At the very least, it appears that Epps should be charged with lying to Congress, and if a serious investigation is ever done by anyone other than Tucker Carlson, we should try to find out why the man who said he “orchestrated” the Jan. 6 attack was never charged with any crime. – Shots of Sen. Josh Hawley exiting the Capitol under the direction of the Capitol Police. In some ways, this footage is the most damning example of the purely partisan political nature of the Jan. 6 committee. Video of Hawley, who had been one of the leaders of the movement to challenge the 2020 election due to irregularities in six or more states, was shown to a national audience for comic effect as it appeared that the senator was being entirely selfish as he fled from the protesters. The effect of watching Hawley running across a Capitol hallway like a shooting gallery rabbit was so humorous that it was put on a loop for the national TV audience to get a good chuckle. Hawley was held up for ridicule by late-night comedians and cable TV “news” hosts. But when Carlson pulled the full video, he discovered that the Capitol Police had ushered dozens of senators and staff out of the building at high speed for their own protection. Hawley, as it turned out, was one of the last to leave, and not the coward he was portrayed to be. Nothing better illustrated the Jan. 6 select committee’s “narrative building” exercise than this attempt to humiliate a U.S. senator who made the mistake of “running” as a Republican. As Carlson noted at one point, “By controlling the images you were allowed to view from January 6, they controlled how the public understood that day. They could lie about what happened and you would never know the difference. Those lies had a purpose. They created a pretext for a federal crackdown on opponents of the Uniparty in Washington.” It is that crackdown which has occupied the Biden administration, the FBI, and much of Congress for the last two years. Can the heroic resistance of one TV journalist turn those efforts around and restore a sense of justice to the land of the free? I’ll believe it when I see it, but in the meantime it’s nice to have someone to root for.

jailing political dissidents and free speech, same as every other shithole country...

"Free Jacob Chansley": 'QAnon Shaman' Backed After New J6 Footage Emerges

McCarthy Says He Will "Slowly Roll Out" Jan. 6 Footage To News Outlets https://www.theepochtimes.com/mccarthy-says-he-will-slowly-roll-out-jan-6-fo... https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322436291112 https://www.theepochtimes.com/speaker-mccarthy-gives-tucker-carlson-jan-6-su... https://www.theepochtimes.com/it-was-a-mistake-for-fox-news-to-let-tucker-ca... https://www.theepochtimes.com/mccarthy-agrees-to-full-public-release-of-jan-... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-mccaul-face-the-nation-transcript-03-12... https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-march-12-2023-n1303517 House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he will “slowly roll out” the security footage recorded during the Jan. 6 Capitol breach to news outlets. “We will slowly roll out to every individual news agency, they can come see the tapes as well,” McCarthy told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” “Let everyone see them to bring their own judgment,” he added. “The first thing I found is that the January 6 committee was not honest with us. That it’s not 14,000 hours of tapes, there’s 41,000 hours of tapes.” McCarthy has provided Fox News host Tucker Carlson exclusive access to 41,000 hours of surveillance footage from Jan. 6. The host then aired some of the clips on March 6. “Taken as a whole, the video record does not support the claim that January 6 was an insurrection,” Carlson said during his program. “In fact, it demolishes that claim.” Footage shown by Carlson raised questions about “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley’s time in the Capitol and U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick’s death. McCarthy’s decision to share the footage with Carlson has been criticized by Democrats, including President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). When asked if he had any regret over sharing the footage with Carlson, McCarthy stood by his decision. “I didn’t give the tapes. I allowed him to come see them, just like an exclusive with anybody else,” McCarthy said. “My goal here is transparency.” The top House Republican added that it was important to have “equal justice,” pointing to protests after the death of George Floyd in 2020. “The one thing I understand in America, we should have equal justice,” he said. “What really raises the point with me is, why did I watch federal courts, why did I watch cities burn, federal agencies or something, and nobody arrested there? I think we should have equal justice across this country. “And it’s really concerning to me, since we’ve taken the majority, the things I have learned that government has done, that withheld information from the American people. That will not happen on our watch, regardless of what information says or doesn’t say,” he added. “I think transparency is best and allow the American public to see it all. And we need to have equal justice across this nation,” he concluded. Last week, in an interview with Breitbart News, McCarthy said that the security footage of Jan. 6 must go through a security review before a full public release. “We just want to make sure we go through them all, and it takes time,” he said. Police begin lobbing munitions into the huge crown on the west front of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty Images) Security Footage Separately on Sunday, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that McCarthy had assured him that the Jan. 6 footage would be made available to all media. “He has given me assurance, he’s going to turn it over to the entire media, I think. I believe in the fourth estate freedom of press, and I think the American people deserve to see all the footage from that day,” McCaul said. The Texas lawmaker warned that the footage is not going to show “tourism at the Capitol.” “It’s going to show a very dark, tragic day that I witnessed firsthand, that included our Capitol Police being assaulted, 140 of them injured, two pipe bombs,” McCaul said. “One Capitol Police officer killed, and a protester killed. That’s not—that’s not a good day.” He added that what happened on Jan. 6 could have been prevented. “I think it should have been prevented had we had good intelligence that day beforehand,” he said. Also on Sunday, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that McCarthy shouldn’t have released the footage to Carlson alone. “What I do regret probably as much as anything about the release of the 41,000 hours is it was released to one person in primetime who is, you know, rather sensational in his approach and rather than just releasing it to everybody,” Cramer said. He added: “I think transparency absolutely is the best way to go. I think Kevin McCarthy’s right to do it. I just wish he would’ve released it to everybody at the same time.” Cramer said he was frustrated that much attention is still being paid to what happened on Jan. 6. “We should be talking about the southern border,” Cramer said. “We should be talking about China and the challenge it possesses, and talking about inflation and a budget that drives up deficits forever. “Those are winning arguments for Republicans, not relitigating Jan. 6.”

https://twitter.com/EpochOriginal/status/1634381803900350467 What Really Happened on #January6? " #TheRealStoryOfJanuary6," a #documentary by @epochtimes, reveals the truth that has been hidden from the American people. 🔵Get “The #RealStory of Jan. 6” DVD Today 👇 ept.ms/3zd9gY3 https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary_4596670.ht... https://www.theepochtimes.com/special-live-behind-the-real-story-of-jan-6-an...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jacob-chansleys-lawyers-confront-dojs-claim-it... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23706141-us-doj-response-to-pezzola https://casetext.com/case/brady-v-state-of-maryland Jacob Chansley’s Lawyers Confront DOJ’s Claim It Didn’t Suppress Jan. 6 Evidence The Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) latest objection to allegations that it suppressed evidence in its prosecution of Jan. 6, 2021, defendant Jacob Chansley flies in the face of the Sixth Amendment, current and former attorneys of Chansley told The Epoch Times in separate interviews this week. “They are hiding. They affirmatively are electing not to disclose [exculpatory evidence],” Albert Watkins, Chansley’s former attorney who negotiated the Navy veteran’s 41-month sentencing agreement in 2021, told The Epoch Times on March 14, referring to the DOJ. “They’re doing so in a fashion which, in my opinion, gives rise to an inescapable conclusion that the Department of Justice has done more damage to our democracy by how it has treated Jan. 6 defendants than anything that had occurred on January 6.” Watkins was reacting to the DOJ’s March 12 court filing on another Jan. 6, 2021, defendant’s case, in which the government confronted, for the first time in court, the newly surfaced surveillance footage of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach aired by Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Among the footage was a clip showing Chansley, unarmed, walking along with several Capitol Police officers who didn’t attempt to remove him from the Capitol building, which Carlson said shows that Chansley was less violent on Jan. 6, 2021, than described by the government. Despite the video records of the Navy veteran’s behavior, Chansley’s current and former lawyers argued that the government violated Chansley’s rights by suppressing this evidence during his trial, in response to the DOJ’s claims to the contrary on March 12. The answer to this debate is important because it shines a light on the government’s prosecutorial conduct in handling Jan. 6, 2021, cases, many of which have ended with swift sentencing. Chansley is currently serving a 41-month sentence in federal prison after pleading guilty to an obstruction charge in September 2021. Government Shared All Evidence: DOJ In a filing on March 12, the DOJ stated that it provided the footage to Chansley’s attorney during the discovery phase of Chansley’s trial in 2021, therefore satisfying the requirement of producing exculpatory evidence, or evidence favoring the defendant, to the defense counsel. The filing was in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the attorneys of Dominic Pezzola, a Jan. 6, 2021, defendant currently on trial, which alleged that the footage shown on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” shows that the government “withheld” evidence in prosecuting participants of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach. Epoch Times Photo Attorney Steven Metcalf (2nd L), representing defendant Dominic Pezzola for his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach, arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse on Dec. 19, 2022. (Win McNamee/Getty Images) “The CCTV footage is core evidence in nearly every January 6 case, and it was produced en masse, labeled by camera number and by time, to all defense counsel in all cases,” the DOJ wrote in its filing. The department cited Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 case in which the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must make available to the defense counsel exculpatory evidence. As a part of that requirement, the DOJ cited Brady’s text establishing that a Brady violation requires the material in question to be “something that is being ‘[suppressed] by the prosecution.’” “Pezzola’s Brady claim therefore fails at the threshold, because nothing has been suppressed,” the DOJ wrote, basing it on the claim that it had provided Watkins with the “necessary tools” to identify relevant CCTV evidence notwithstanding the voluminous discovery. “Accordingly, the volume of discovery does not excuse defense counsel from making reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has been produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and inflammatory allegations of discovery failures.” DOJ Suppressed Evidence: Chansley’s Lawyers Chansley’s lawyers disagreed with the DOJ’s claims, saying that the bar for suppression is lower than what the government claims it to be. “Suppression … is not the nefarious burying of evidence,” Bill Shipley, Chansley’s current counsel, said in an interview with The Epoch Times on March 13. “It just means it wasn’t brought to light by the government. The government knew what was there and did not illuminate the fact that it was there.” He says the government may have violated Brady because they didn’t identify the footage and its nature as potentially exculpatory evidence during Chansley’s trial. Making them available without making sure the defendant knows of the existence of the footage may constitute suppression, he said. “Suppression simply means it went undiscovered by the defendant beyond a point at which it could be made use of,” said Shipley, who was a federal prosecutor for 21 years. “If the government produced thousands of hours of video and said, ‘There’s a minute of evidence that’s favorable to Jacob Chansley—good luck,’ that production is not an effective Brady disclosure.” The video footage is relevant for reasons beyond proving Chansley’s innocence or guilt, he told The Epoch Times, noting that it’s important to answer the question of whether Chansley’s sentence was fair under due process considerations. “The question is: Were Jacob Chansley’s rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel violated? Were the procedural requirements complied with such that the process and outcome of his case was a fair proceeding?” Shipley asked. “They’re clearly the kinds of videos that, had Judge [Royce Lamberth] seen them at sentencing, he might have concluded that Mr. Chansey is not the personification of evil in the way the government has made him out to be.” Lamberth presided over Chansley’s trial. “That might have caused Judge Lamberth to think that maybe 41 months was too much time to give him, taking into consideration all of his conduct, as opposed to just the precise conduct the government gave,” Shipley said. Not the 1st Time, Allegedly For Watkins, the DOJ’s filing on March 12 rung in his mind vivid images of deja vu that date to 2021, when the department recommended to the courts a 20-year sentence for Chansley for his alleged actions on Jan. 6, 2021. Watkins said the government lowered that sentence to 41 months only after Watkins requested Chansley’s military records that demonstrated his mental health problems. “Prior to entering into a plea, Jake was fighting for his sanity and life in solitary confinement. He had been diagnosed 15 years earlier by the government with a mental health issue, but the government never told him of the diagnosis,” Watkin told The Epoch Times, noting that that the government had records of Chansley’s mental health issues since about the time that Chansley was in the military, but withheld that record before offering a 20-year sentencing after Jan. 6, 2021. chansley Jacob Chansley (C) and other protesters are seen inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Manuel Blace Ceneta/AP Photo) “The government didn’t provide [Chansley’s mental health records] to me. They had control of that as well. I asked them for it, they did not give it. And it wasn’t until I literally, after screaming and yelling for help from the Department of Justice and from the Bureau of Prisons and from the court itself, I finally got out there with a very vulgar and high-profile characterization of many of the January 6 defendants, and lo and behold, within a matter of 24 hours or 48 hours, I get a call from the military record staffers, ‘Listen, I found them, I’m getting them to you right now.’ “It wasn’t until we got the medical records, and only after a very public involvement pleading for them, that we were able to convince the government that indeed, maybe Jake wasn’t the leader—that Jake wasn’t leading the charge into the Capitol.” He said Chansley’s mental health record, which he characterized as a piece of exculpatory evidence, was key to lowering the government’s 20-year sentencing recommendation to 41 months. Fast forward to March 12, Watkins said the DOJ’s rebuttal is erroneous and that the government has denied some of Chansley’s right to counsel as defined in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. “Not producing [exculpatory evidence] when you have it is suppressing it. And it’s not [just] suppressing it—it’s shrouded in secrecy, which is even more problematic,” he said. “When a criminally accused enters into the federal court system, that criminally accused has constitutional rights … [including] the ability to see the evidence that has been amassed by a prosecuting party prior to making a decision about whether to enter into a plea of ‘guilty,’ or to take a case to trial.” Epoch Times Photo Jacob Chansley, the so-called QAnon Shaman, was escorted around the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Fox News contended in a special aired on March 6, 2023. (U.S. Department of Justice/Screenshot via The Epoch Times) “The government, by not affirmatively discharging its duties to Jake, denied Jake his ability to enter into a plea agreement from a position of knowledge and to freely—knowingly, and in an informed and voluntary fashion—enter into that plea. Those requirements are vital. They are fundamental tenants of our federal judicial criminal system.” Judge Should Issue Show-Cause Order: Legal Expert Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, a legal nonprofit, echoed Shipley’s and Watkins’s view in an interview with The Epoch Times on March 15, noting that Lamberth should reopen the case and ask the government to explain their rationale for prosecuting Chansley. “The government violated Brady by failing to give Jacob Chansley reasonable access to the exculpatory video evidence played on Tucker Carlson’s show before Chansley pled guilty,” said Davis, a former clerk under Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Judge Royce Lamberth should issue a show-cause order. He should have issued it the day after Tucker Carlson aired those videos.” According to Davis, the government’s process of getting Chansley to agree to the 41-month plea deal constituted fraudulent inducement. “I would call this fraud in the inducement of the plea agreement. They had access to these videos and didn’t provide them, and they induced Jacob Chansley into a fraudulent plea agreement based upon this omission,” he said. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

Time For Republicans To Confront January 6 Lead Prosecutor https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/14/time-for-republicans-to-confront-january-... https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1656640557345538048 https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/18/justice-department-designates-obstruction... https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/DOI/SpecialReviewU... https://www.afj.org/article/afj-launches-new-clarence-thomas-must-resign-ad-... https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/21/a-trump-hating-backer-of-bidens-supreme-c... During the 2020 presidential election cycle, Matthew M. Graves donated $2,000 to the Biden-Harris campaign. The modest contribution was a no-brainer for Graves. Not only was he a domestic policy advisor for the campaign, he worked at the time for the same white-shoe law firm as Douglas Emhoff, Kamala Harris’ husband. Graves’ kowtowing paid off. In November 2021, Graves took the helm of one of the most politically-charged U.S. attorneys office’s in the country: the District of Columbia. Since then, Graves has escalated the pace and nature of the ongoing investigation into the events of January 6. His fixation on a four-hour disturbance that occurred more than 28 months ago has nothing to do with law and order and everything to do with using the full weight of the federal government to punish Americans who protested Biden’s election that afternoon. At the same time, Graves, who is in the unique position of prosecuting both local and federal crimes in the nation’s capital, has allowed D.C. to descend into violent chaos. Gun crimes and carjackings are skyrocketing: homicides are up nine percent over last year. Graves is under fire from community groups, police, and government leaders. The House Oversight Committee will hear from Graves on Tuesday morning. Finally. Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) threatened to issue a subpoena after the Justice Department first refused to make Graves available for questions. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, departing D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee, and city administrator Kevin Donahue also are expected to testify. But rather than press D.C. officials responsible for the lawlessness rampant in their city—important as that is—Republicans should instead use their time to confront Graves about his selective prosecution of January 6 defendants and force him to account for his actions publicly. The Biden regime’s double standard of justice runs directly through Graves’ office. Here is a partial list of questions for committee members to consider: 1) Mr. Graves, the Washington Post recently reported that you have one of the highest, if not the highest, declination rates in the country. According to one site that tracks crime data in D.C., you have refused to prosecute two-thirds of all criminal cases brought to you by police—double what it was in 2015. You blame a lack of resources for refusing to prosecute repeat, violent offenders who threaten the security of the nation’s capital. How many January 6 cases brought to you by the FBI over the past 28 months have you declined to prosecute? 2) Not only are you proceeding at full steam with January 6 cases, you told the Washington Post last year you planned to double the current caseload—currently more than 1,000 cases—to at least 2,000. What percentage of your office’s time is spent on January 6 cases versus the prosecution of local criminal cases? 3) In court documents, your office repeatedly refers to January 6 as a domestic terror attack. In some cases, you are asking for domestic terror enhancements at sentencing. Terror attacks always involve the killing of innocent individuals. Mr. Graves, how many January 6 defendants are charged with murder? To continue that inquiry, how many are charged with using a firearm or bringing a firearm inside the building? Explosives also are a common feature of terror attacks. Do you have an update on the pipe bombs found at the headquarters of both the RNC and DNC on January 6, which prompted the evacuation of adjacent House buildings and diverted law enforcement away from the Capitol? 4) In fact, Mr. Graves, most of the charges against Capitol protesters are misdemeanors, correct? According to your latest Capitol “attack” update, 80 percent of the plea deals you’ve extracted from January 6 defendants are for misdemeanor offenses. The most common charge is “parading or picketing” in the Capitol, a petty offense almost always handled in the D.C. Superior Court that results in a ticket and minimal fine. But your office is asking for prison time from between 14 days and six months for plea deals or convictions for parading. Could you explain why you are departing from precedent? 5) Mayor Bowser said last week that she would propose legislation to reform the city’s pretrial detention policies for repeat offenders arrested for new crimes. In response, you said recent dialogue related to pretrial detention—meaning denied bail—“has been over how can we have more people released because they have not been convicted.” But that isn’t the standard your office applies for those charged in the January 6 investigation, is it? You’ve demanded pretrial detention for dozens of Capitol protesters, the overwhelming majority of whom have no criminal record and some accused of committing no violent crime on January 6. A handful were in custody for nearly two years awaiting trials your office continued to delay. How many January 6 defendants are currently behind bars under pretrial detention orders sought by your office? 6) On that note, you seek excessive prison sentences for January 6 defendants. For example, Thomas Caldwell is a decorated and disabled Navy veteran with no criminal history. Mr. Caldwell was not charged with any violent crime on January 6. In fact, he never entered the Capitol Building. Nevertheless, you added a seditious conspiracy charge to his case shortly after taking office. After a jury trial, Caldwell was convicted of one obstruction count and one count of tampering with evidence. Yet you’re asking the judge to sentence Mr. Caldwell, who’s nearly 70 years old, to 14 years in prison, a sentence usually reserved for violent criminals who harm other people. Could you explain why you believe Thomas Caldwell deserves to die in jail? 7) In May and June 2020, rioters vandalized federal property and assaulted federal officers in Lafayette Square, a federal park across the street from the White House. According to the inspector general’s report, U.S. Park Police “reported that some protesters threw projectiles, such as bricks, rocks, caustic liquids, frozen water bottles, glass bottles, lit flares, rental scooters, and fireworks, at law enforcement officials. Overall, 49 Park Police officers were injured. The Secret Service also reported injuries to their personnel.” The violence was so bad it prompted the lockdown of the White House. Mr. Graves, are you still investigating damage to federal property and assaults on federal officers related to the riot at Lafayette Square? When was the last time your office charged a 2020 rioter for similar if not worse conduct than that of January 6 protesters? 8) In the statement furnished to the Senate prior to your confirmation, you disclosed pro bono work for a group called the National Women’s Law Center, a left-wing nonprofit based in D.C. The head of that group is Fatima Goss Graves. She is your wife, correct? In addition to promoting issues aligned with the Democratic Party, your wife is part of the current crusade against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Last month, she participated in a press conference on Capitol Hill to demand Justice Thomas’ resignation. Right before the 2020 election, her group donated $5,000 to the Women’s March to protest the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett and the reelection of Donald Trump. After the election, she said this of the 55 percent of white women who voted for Trump: “White women who support Trump are not blindly voting against their own self-interest. These Trump supporters, aided by a toxic mix of racism and disinformation, seem to be consciously supporting what they believe to be their own group interest, putting them on the same team as the White men society has been largely built to benefit.” Do you view your wife’s activism on behalf of the Democratic Party and disparaging comments about Trump supporters as a conflict of interest as you continue to use your office to charge and prosecute Trump supporters? Four months after taking control of the House, Republicans are overdue in holding Biden officials publicly accountable for the most political and vengeful use of the Justice Department in history. Tuesday’s hearing is a ripe opportunity to turn the tables on Graves. Let’s hope they do.

Congress demands answers about the J6 pipe bombs after former FBI Assistant Director admits that the FBI knows who is responsible. Multiple FBI whistleblowers have pointed out the devices weren’t operational and presented no danger to anyone. What is the FBI hiding? 55 560 19 1,205 @amuse @amuse May 24 Lawmakers demand FBI explain slow pace of investigation of pipe bombs at RNC, DNC in 2021. washingtontimes.com/news/202… 8 38 155 @amuse @amuse 3h SHOCK: We now know that the FBI knows who owns the car that was used to plant the J6 DNC pipe bomb but is unwilling to identify the suspect. Are they an HSI or FBI agent, contractor, or informant? thefederalist.com/2023/05/25… nitter.pw/i/web/status/166… May 25, 2023 · 6:15 PM UTC · Twitter Web App 8 40 1 102 Stormcommando @AStormtrooper3 3h Replying to @amuse John Seymour @JLSeymour3 3h Replying to @amuse "Are they an HSI or FBI agent, contractor, or informant?" A reasonable assumption until overwhelming evidence establishes otherwise. Senor Candelario @SenorCandelario 3h Replying to @amuse Is that a dildo bomb? Myra Fleener @myra_fleener 2h Replying to @amuse They can somehow identify every yahoo who was at the Capitol, but one of the most heavily surveilled cities in the world has no idea who this person is or where they came from. 1 GIF HB Harry @HBHarry69 2h Replying to @amuse Total fed op 1 JQhn TBIYTC 🇺🇸 @BlomeJQhn1 2h Replying to @amuse Not a conservative....thats for sure.

ProgDemSocs consider patriotism offensive to ideology, comprise most of USCP leadership and DC population... Capitol Police Halt Christian Children's Choir Performance, Apologize https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1664680115312422913 https://www.theepochtimes.com/christian-children-silenced-while-performing-n... US Capitol Police issued an apology for halting a Christian children's choir performance of the national anthem, which had been approved by the Speaker's Office. Screenshot According to a person associated with the choir, "certain Capitol police said it might offend someone or cause issues." Rushingbrook Children's Choir were singing the National Anthem in Statuary Hall in the US Capitol when they were interrupted by Capitol police. A representative from the choir was told that "certain Capitol police said it might offend someone/cause issues." pic.twitter.com/3J8BSBsBSu — Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) June 2, 2023 "Although popup demonstrations and musical performances are not allowed in the U.S. Capitol without the proper approval, due to a miscommunication, the U.S Capitol Police were not aware that the Speaker’s Office had approved this performance," said the US Capitol Police in a statement to the Epoch Times. "We apologize to the choir for this miscommunication that impacted their beautiful rendition of the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ and their visit to Capitol Hill," the statement continues. A viral clip shows the Rushingbrook Children’s Choir singing Francis Scott Key’s song, inspired by the persistence of American forces against the British during the War of 1812, in the building’s Statuary Hall—itself recently transformed by ideology after Virginia removed a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in 2020. Suddenly, the conductor, David Rasbach, is approached by a man who whispers something to him. Rasbach cuts off the performance before the children can deliver the song’s final line: “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” -Epoch Times According to Rasbach, the group received permission from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), in coordination with the office of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). In a statement, Reps. William Timmons (R-SC), Russell Fry (R-SC) and McCarthy denounced the incident, and confirmed that permission had been granted. "We recently learned that schoolchildren from South Carolina were interrupted while singing our National Anthem at the Capitol. These children were welcomed by the Speaker’s office to joyfully express their love of this nation while visiting the Capitol, and we are all very disappointed to learn their celebration was cut short," the lawmakers said. The Capitol Police deny telling the group that the performance could offend someone. "It is not accurate we told them the song could be offensive," they told the Epoch Times. Rasbach says that a staffer for Wilson told him to silence the children, after which he walked over to three Capitol Police officers, one of whom said that the group "may not continue singing." "This is considered to be a demonstration, and that is not allowed in the Capitol," she added. "Do you mean to tell me that a choir of children may not sing the National Anthem in the capitol of the United States?" Rasbach said he asked. "No, they may not," the officer responded, per Rasbach. "I left with a sense of utter disappointment, realizing that our country had certainly changed since the times when, as a child, my family visited the Capitol many times and could go up the grand front steps, unrestricted, roam the Capitol halls at will, ascend the grand, marble staircase and visit the balconies of the stately Senate and House chambers, all while feeling—even as a child—a deep sense of respect and pride that this great building and all that it represents is my birthright!."

News of the Democrat and Deep State Jan6 False Flag Operation continues to roll in piece by piece over months... Have you begun searching for the Truths, or are you happily keeping head in sand... FBI Had So Many Paid Informants In J6 Riot They Lost Track And Had To Perform Audit: Ex-Official https://nypost.com/2023/09/19/fbi-lost-count-of-number-of-informants-at-capi... https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bidens-coerced-burisma-founder-pay-10-mi... https://nypost.com/2023/05/15/durham-proves-that-hillary-and-the-fbi-tried-t... https://nypost.com/2023/05/15/fbi-doj-failed-to-observe-fidelity-to-the-law-... https://nypost.com/2022/10/12/fbi-offered-1m-to-christopher-steele-to-prove-... A former assistant FBI director has told lawmakers that the agency had so many paid informants at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 that it lost track and had to perform an audit, according to the NY Post's Miranda Devine. Steven D'Antuono, formerly in charge of the FBI's Washington field office, told the House Judiciary Committee in closed-door testimony that while his field office knew some of their informants would be at Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally across town, informants from other field offices were present at the Capitol that day, as well as other informants who had participated on their own accord. One fed informant was on the phone with his handler as he breached the Capitol. The fed-fest was so overwhelming that the Washington field office had to ask FBI headquarters to " do a poll or put out something to people saying w[ere] any CHSs involved," in order to figure out the scale of the agency's spying (and whatnot) at the event, according to D'Antuono. "We started getting responses back" from FBI headquarters, which he said helped identify which field offices had confidential informants in the crowd. One paid informant from the Kansas City field office was at the Capitol as the crowd surged inside and allegedly was in communication with his FBI handler, “while they were in the crowd, I think, saying that they were going in,” according to the former bureau brass. “They were trying to stop some of the action happening and they left or whatnot.” Asked how many informants the audit discovered were in the crowd that day, D’Antuono would only say “a handful”. -NY Post According to the Post, citing DOJ stats, the FBI spends around $42 million per year in payments to its Confidential Human Sources (like their mole in Burisma who said the Bidens coerced owner Mykola Zlochevsky into a $10 million bribe for political cover?). On Tuesday, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (D-OH) said D'Antuono's testimony was "extremely concerning," and suggests that "the FBI cannot adequately track the activities and operations of its informants, and that it lost control of its CHSs present at the Capitol on January 6." "These revelations reinforce existing concerns, identified by Special Counsel [John] Durham, about the FBI’s use of, and payment to, CHSs who have fabricated evidence and misrepresented information. "The Justice Department Inspector General also identified critical problems in the FBI’s CHS program," Jordan's letter continues. "including the FBI’s failure to fully vet CHSs and the FBI’s willingness to ignore red flags that would call into question an informant’s reliability." Jordan has asked Wray to provide a “substantive briefing” on how the FBI used paid informants on Jan. 6, 2021, and “any specific guidelines or admonishments that were provided to FBI CHSs prior to deploying”. Wray has also been asked to provide all debriefing documents received from Capitol riot informants. Jordan also wants source reporting documentation relating to former British spy Christopher Steele, who was responsible for a now-notorious “dossier of false allegations about the Trump-Russia hoax.” The number of FBI informants present during the Capitol riot has long been a controversial topic at trials of the hundreds of defendants apprehended since that day. -NY Post According to one of the "Proud Boys," the FBI had as many as eight informants spying on their organization alone, at least one of whom was with them at the Capitol that day, while former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund has said that the agency had at least 18 undercover agents in the crowd in addition to the paid informants, and estimated that at least 20 from the Department of Homeland Security were also present. "Hello fellow insurrectionists!"

Fools keep cheering for Islam and its Invaders, Islam has a special hatred for Leftists, Gays, and Jews, only a matter of time until Islam finishes using them to sneak inside, turns face, and kills them all too... Insurrection? Pro-Palestinian Protesters Occupy Capitol Building The far-left pro-Palestinian protests continue in the US with activists now occupying the Capitol, accusing lawmakers of having Palestinian blood on their hands. As with most leftist efforts, the first goal is a narrative shift in which the people who triggered the conflict are painted as victims. The Hamas soldiers who launched terrorist attacks killing thousands of civilians in Israel are dismissed down the memory hole, and now the focus is only on Palestinian tragedy. The most logical decision is for America to stay out of the conflict completely. However, rabid involvement by leftists on the side of Hamas may actually push a majority of Americans to throw full support behind Israel simply because any cause backed by woke organizations is a cause worth obstructing. The public will ask themselves: "When have these people ever been right?" There’s an insurrection happening now on Capitol Hill https://t.co/hBMIcv3pqW — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) October 18, 2023 The DC event adds insult to injury, considering Democrats have been accusing conservatives of insurrection for the past few years after occupying the Capitol. JUST IN: The United States Capitol has been taken over inside and outside by pro-Palestine protesters as Rep. Rashida Tlaib spoke with a crowd nearby. Are we only allowed to call people like this insurrections when they are Donald Trump supporters? Police are now making… pic.twitter.com/W0rttqIx51 — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 18, 2023 But of course, it's only insurrection when conservatives do it... INSURRECTION OH MY GOD THIS IS 9/11 ALL OVER AGAIN https://t.co/fyowFEho02 — Tim Pool (@Timcast) October 18, 2023

Noting many: Jan6th was a setup, an operation, by the Deep State, CIA, FBI, Democrats, Media, Social, to all remain in power, up against a free peoples who had come only to seek redress of grievance, to pause the Power State's forward game, to give time for the public to openly investigate things. The operations continue, from before Hilary's Hoax, through to this day. https://twitter.com/Paul_RevereJr/status/1736451707595338196 Rep. Clay Higgins tells reporter that he has SEEN VIDEO EVIDENCE of POLICE walking into rooms, and then RE-EMERGING, dressed as TRUMP SUPPORTERS and CONSTRUCTION WORKERS. Also, GROUPS of what appear to be TRUMP SUPPORTERS roaming the HALLS OF THE CAPITAL well before the BREACH!