FULL STORY: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1253490Man with foot up on desk in Pelosi's office at Capitol arrested
A man photographed casually sitting with his foot on a desk in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office at the U.S. Capitol while a pro-Trump mob rampaged the halls of Congress was arrested Friday, law enforcement officials said.
Richard Barnett, 60, of Gravette, Arkansas, was taken into custody in his home state on charges of entering and remaining on restricted grounds, violent entry and theft of public property, according to a Department of Justice official. Further details were not immediately available. ...
https://apnews.com/article/election...ctions-media-1dc11c4372a6f54c7322d9de83727434No truth to alleged ‘evidence’ that Capitol rioters were antifa activists
CLAIM: Photos prove that some of the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday were antifa activists, not Trump supporters.
THE FACTS: There’s no credible evidence to date that rioters who breached the Capitol in an effort to stop certification of U.S. presidential election results were supporters of antifa — a shortened form of “anti-fascists” that’s used as an umbrella term for far-left leaning militant groups. Steven D’Antuono, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office, told reporters Friday there’s “no indication” at this time that antifa activists were disguised as Trump supporters in Wednesday’s riot. ...
FULL STORY: https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...iots-arrests-3cd5b02adb60929afdd058aee620eea9EXPLAINER: Who has been charged in the deadly Capitol riot?
The top federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia has said “all options are on the table” for charging the rioters ... Investigators are combing through photos, videos and tips from the public to track down members of the violent mob. ...
A Capitol Police officer died after he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher as rioters descended on the building and many other officers were injured. A woman from California was shot to death by Capitol Police and three other people died after medical emergencies during the chaos.
Some questions and answers about the investigation into the Capitol breach:
HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CHARGED?
The U.S. attorney’s office for D.C., which handles both local and federal cases in the district, had filed 17 cases in federal court and at least 40 others in the Superior Court by Saturday. The cases in Superior Court mainly have to do with things like curfew violations and gun crimes. Those being tried in federal court, where prosecutors can generally secure longer sentences, are charged with things like violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, assaulting a federal law enforcement officer and threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Defendants facing federal charges include Richard Barnett, the Arkansas man shown in a widely seen photo sitting in Pelosi’s office with his boots on the desk. Barnett is charged with crimes including theft of public money, property or records.
Another man being tried in federal court, Lonnie Coffman of Falkville, Alabama, was arrested after authorities say they found guns and 11 Molotov cocktail explosive devices made out of Mason jars, golf tees and cloth rags in his pickup truck.
A Florida man identified as the person seen in a photo shared widely on social media carrying the speaker of the House’s lectern also was arrested Friday. Adam Johnson faces charges including theft of government property.
WHY HAVEN’T MORE PEOPLE BEEN CHARGED YET?
Prosecutors say these charges are just the beginning. Authorities said Friday that said additional cases remained under seal and dozens of other people were being sought by federal agents. ...
U.S. attorneys in several states, including Kentucky, Ohio and Oregon, said people could face charges in their home states if they traveled to Washington and took part in the riot. The FBI has released photos of people inside the Capitol, urging the public to help identify them. ...
COULD THEY FACE MORE SERIOUS CHARGES?
Michael Sherwin, acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said this week that prosecutors are not keeping anything out of their “ arsenal for potential charges.” As prosecutors gather more evidence, they can add more charges against those they’ve already arrested.
Experts say federal prosecutors could bring rarely used seditious conspiracy charges against some of the rioters. ...
"First amendment protests"???!!!
It may not have been as cogent, coherent and well organised as the best known political insurrections we might have learned about in history lessons, but the three operative words involved - 'violence' 'against' and 'government' - mean that it was by any legal and or dictionary definition an act of insurrection. Using the same standards, the remote encouragement of such activities is sedition. I think, from a strictly legal point of view, insurrection is seen as the attempt to affect government by attacks on institutions themselves, rather than outlying elements of its power - the boiler room, rather than the stoker. Therefore, violence against police on the street might lead to criminal charges, but not necessarily of insurrection (even though they are the sharp end of the process of the law as legislated and administered by government). But, violence deliberately targeting the centres of legal administration and record = insurrection.There are people calling the disturbance an insurrection. Oh good grief. Have people any idea what an actual insurrection looks like? I presume they don't teach history in schools any more...
Unfortunately, for a large swathe of the Qanon crowd, I think the answer is genuinely "yes". The Qanon Anonymous podcast always includes a ot of audio from Qanon followers and interviews at protests etc and that seems to have been their aim, the belief that their actions on that day would result in Trump remaining in office.Did anyone honestly think that such action would invalidate the election and re-seat Trump in the White House?
I suspect that the crux lies in the difference between a particular government/administration, and the institution of government/administration - and, in this instance, whether the former, or the former's proxies, attempt to undermine the due processes of the latter.Being pedantic; but for hypothetical purposes, was this an act of protest against the legislature, using both non-violent and violent protest to contest the electoral outcome, at the behest of the democratically elected, but outgoing, head of the executive arm of government?
I have no idea if that qualifies as insurrection.
Setting aside any political opinions as far as I can:Being pedantic; but for hypothetical purposes, was this an act of protest against the legislature, using both non-violent and violent protest to contest the electoral outcome, at the behest of the democratically elected, but outgoing, head of the executive arm of government?
I have no idea if that qualifies as insurrection.
I don't know if this is still taught in American schools, but when I was growing up, I was taught that the government is the institution and the laws, operating at the will of the people. The executive administration, congress, and supreme court at the moment are only the stewards of that government, not the government per se. Simplistic and idealistic perhaps, but a concept that often surfaces in times like this.I suspect that the crux lies in the difference between a particular government/administration, and the institution of government/administration - and, in this instance, whether the former, or the former's proxies, attempt to undermine the due processes of the latter.
I also suspect that someone will have explained that separation far better than I - and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if, somewhat ironically, it was one of the founding fathers.
It's simple when you correctly think of fifty countries instead of one.All the indications are that this was the fairest election ever held in the US, and was almost entirely free from fraud.
That's not saying much, considering the disparity between the popular vote and the electoral college vote. I'm not entirely sure why that disparity is allowed to continue, but a president who lost the popular vote was elected in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.
Idealistic it may be, but also essential - otherwise any elected government/administration, once in power, can dismantle the very machinery that got it into power in the first place, thereby guaranteeing that it never loses hold of it. A process for which there are clear precedents.I don't know if this is still taught in American schools, but when I was growing up, I was taught that the government is the institution and the laws, operating at the will of the people. The executive administration, congress, and supreme court at the moment are only the stewards of that government, not the government per se. Simplistic and idealistic perhaps, but a concept that often surfaces in times like this.
A self-coup.Idealistic it may be, but also essential - otherwise any elected government/administration, once in power, can dismantle the very machinery that got it into power in the first place, thereby guaranteeing that it never loses hold of it. A process for which there are clear precedents.