Who stormed the US Capitol?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by James R, Jan 8, 2021.

  1. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Well, I tried to read your links to posts to get some perspective of things.

    May I suggest you grin and bear jamesR and he likewise for you.

    You have your way of explaining things, and jamesR has his way of doing so.

    I can only see this continuing indefinitely with you popping up now and again with things like ''No, he's just this guy I know, y'know? And again in another post of yours ''I can remember this guy,''

    Your posts would flow better if you would just say JamesR in each case, you seem to show an ill humour. Are you trying to mod a mod about sometihng you don't personally like??
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2021
    Seattle and billvon like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Think you hit the nail on the head here.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    I don't know that he cares about making his posts flow. He's too in love with his own words. (Why be clear and succinct when you can pontificate endlessly?)
    foghorn and Seattle like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    James, you already acknowledged↑ what you said. Moreover, you already had the quotes, so, yeah, that was pretty dishonest.

    Still, here are the quotes you asked for:

    "One thing that Trump's election should have taught all of us 'liberals' is that we shouldn't be merely dismissing the views of people who voted for him as obviously crazy, or motivated by racism or sexism or any of those other bad things."

    "I think this kind of paternalism and condescension is one reason why Trump was elected (but that's another discussion)."

    Like I said, James, a lot of people don't like being associated with the things they defend or sympathize with. Just like you don't like to be associated with the supremacism you defend. And you probably don't want your trumpfanning to suggest you're an actual Trump fan. In history, a lot of people make those mistakes. Most people, in fact. But if you really want to insist, "Whatever I wrote back then, chances are it wasn't an accident", sure, I'll believe you really were aiming to legitimize this stuff. And let's be clear, both of your statements wind back to questions of racism. If we follow back to an old question about whether someone left beccause Sciforums is "primarily for humoring cranks and racists", remember that your response↗ was to suggest the member left "because he received a 5-point warning for attacking another member using foul language, and calling that member a racist". Foul language is what it is around here, but issuing an infraction for calling someone racist is in line with Administrative history. An old story involves a moderator who deleted a post explaining why something he said was racist; he complained it was ad hom to argue his post was racist. The Administration never did explain why they condone such behavior, but the old episode is just one of however many little episodes along our merry way of humoring cranks and racists.

    If we had a good reason for what we did, that would be one thng. But it's true, in policy questions regarding supremacism at Sciforums, your sympathies are with supremacism. Per the notion that you might have made a joke at someone's expense, i.e., "The ones like me, you mean?" (#22↑), in more official matters we see where your effective sympathies are.

    The thing is, in the time since you said, "sciforums is not in the business of 'humouring' racists", it turns out to be maybe the second funniest thing you've ever said. In terms of accidents, after a while it gets hard to believe something is just a big, unfortunate misunderstanding. To wit, if someone wonders what your problem with "Black Lives Matter" is, you might indignantly sputter and pretend to not know what that is about, but compared to the typal defenses you offered for white supremacist equivocations, the question is not necessarily inappropriate. The Black Lives Matter theme even continues in its way, as it is not irrelevant to an episode from last year↗ that we're already considering elsewhere↗, and something about humoring cranks and racists.

    Now, there are, of course, arguments that this is just a coincidental appearance symptomatic of circumstance, and these are not necessarily wrong. But in its way, it comes back to the same point: Look at the behavior. Words are words, but the choice to make this or that bogus argument is anyone's decision, and the degree to which your regard for such decisions would seem to fret more on behalf of the feelings of cranks and racists, as the example has it, is apparent and makes its own points.

    Such as the actual point of our moment: Yes, really, the people who put up pretentious justifications or defenses of irrational attitudes and rhetoric that evolved to drive the Wednesday Putsch really ought to have known better; and, yes, that means those justifiers and defenders, those apologists, might in some future questions be doubted; and no, that doubt is not some cancel culture or retribution against their politics, but, rather, a measure of their reliability vis à vis reality.

    Additionally, yes, insofar as a lot of people don't like being associated with what they defend or show sympathy, we can presume to their behalf that the resulting appearance is an accident, a coincidental outcome symptomatic of circumstance not necessariy suggestive of what they don't want to be associated with. The appearance that what we really ought to be worried about is the hurt feelings of supremacists can certainly be some kind of accident, but it's also true that you can certainly convince me it isn't.

    Look, I've told you before that it can be difficult to discuss anything with you, James, and your dishonesty is one of those reasons. So, toward that, let me throw you another bone: Did the fourth↗ wall↗ get the best of you, again? It happens. Playing to an audience is one thing, but playing so boldly in contradiction of fact is about as clumsy as it gets. I mean, you had days to think about it, and that's what you came up with.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    So, this happened:

    The FBI on Thursday arrested Federico Klein, a former State Department aide, on charges related to the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, marking the first known instance of an appointee of President Donald Trump facing criminal prosecution in connection with the attempt to block Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's victory.

    Klein, 42, was taken into custody in Virginia, said Samantha Shero, a spokesperson for the FBI's Washington Field Office. Details on the charges against him were not immediately available.

    Klein worked on Trump's 2016 campaign and was then hired at the State Department. As of last summer, he was listed in a federal directory as serving as a special assistant in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs and was designated as a “Schedule C” political appointee ....

    .... Federico Klein served as a Marine in Iraq, his mother said. He held a top-secret clearance from 2014 to 2019, issued by the Defense Department, according to his LinkedIn page.


    The thing is, we already knew Trump campaign money and personnel↱ were involved with the rally; Trump himself encouraged the participants to violate their permit. Realistically, a low-level political appointee probably isn't some linchpin of conspiracy, except of course this is the Trump administration and campaign, and they have an extraordinary history with low-level players, so anything is possible.

    Still, maybe there ought to be some sort of award for this one: Marine, top-secret clearance, presidential administration appointment, insurrectionist.

    We'll have to see what comes.


    Gerstein, Josh. "Trump appointee arrested in connection with Capitol riot". Politico. 4 March 2021. Politico.com. 4 March 2021. http://politi.co/3qixTw4

    Hansen, Sarah. "Trump Campaign Paid $3.5 Million To Stop The Steal Organizers, Report Finds". Forbes. 10 February 2021. Forbes.com. 4 March 2021. https://bit.ly/3b61Nzr
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Steve Benen↱ considers emerging details about the arrest of a Federico Klein, a former State Deparment political appointee of the Donald Trump administration.

    To be sure, many of the individuals who've been arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 attack have explicitly said they were inspired by Donald Trump and his anti-election lies to commit acts of violence. But Federico Klein is the first official appointed directly by Trump to face these kinds of allegations.

    While the FBI would not discuss the details of the case, NBC News reported↱ that Klein was seen on video assaulting police officers during the attack on the Capitol: "The FBI says in court documents that Klein can be seen resisting officers, attempting to take items from them, and assaulting them with a riot shield. The documents allege he 'violently shoved the shield into an officer's body in an attempt to breach the police line.'"

    To be clear, an administration-appointed aide to the State Department, during his tenure, took part in the attack at the U.S. Capitol. Per NBC News, Klein is charged with six counts, "including violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds", "obstruction of Congress", and various charges "that deal with assaulting or impeding police".

    And, to be even more clear, no, there is not some grand conspiracy orbiting this joker, but it does occur to wonder if anyone has tried saying, "Hey, I was drunk; I'm sorry." Because just as a matter of basic professional competence, avoiding this sort of circumstance ought to be so basic there might be a reason they didn't explicitly include, "Do not attempt to overthrow the Republic", in the job orientation kit.


    Benen, Steve. "For the first time, Trump appointee arrested in connection with Jan. 6 riot". msnbc. 5 March 2021. msnbc.com. 5 March 2021. http://on.msnbc.com/2PxTALT

    Kosnar, Michael and Phil Helsel. "Former State Department aide arrested in connection with Capitol riot". NBC News. 4 March 2021. NBCNews.com. 5 March 2021. http://nbcnews.to/3sWyViW
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    So to answer the question of "who stormed the US capitol?" one of the answers is "Trump appointees."

    Can't wait to see Trump supporters spin this one. "He was Antifa! He didn't assault any cops. And if he did Trump didn't tell him to. He was a rogue agent! They got the wrong guy. He was BLM. He was radicalized by the mainstream media. He was just defending himself. Clinton did it first. IT WASN'T US!"
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Story Time

    In certain ways, the proverbial fun—or, as the translators insist, shitshow—just keeps coming. Today, we consider John Pierce, an attorney who appears to be collecting Wednesday Putsch clients. Scuttlebutt suggests his clientele are accused insurrectionists who could implicate a prominent Proud Boy named Joe Biggs. This part of the story seems both normal and suspicious, but it is easy to get distracted by that; as Emptywheel↱ put it, "John Pierce Tries to Hire His 18th January 6 Defendant while on a Ventilator with COVID-19".

    It's a lot of clients, something like seventeen, with two more having left him for new counsel. Again, Emptywheel: "Representing this many defendants would be an impossible feat, even for the most experienced defense attorney, and harder still for a civil attorney like Pierce." Moreover, there are apparent conflicts between the defendants that might complicate or challenge Pierce's standing to represent them all. Furthermore, the question might arise that an attorney is pitching to clients while hospitalized with Covid; to be clear, according to Ryan Marshall, who stood in Pierce's place this week, advised the court Mr. Pierce is "non-responsive". Nonetheless, in yesterday's hearing the court was advised that a defendent, Nate DeGrave, intended to release his public defender and take up the nonresponsive, ventilated Mr. Pierce as his attorney.

    And it is worth taking the moment to consider the idea of competent legal representation; with attorneys for Trump or arguing his cause facing court sanctions and even potential disbarrment, the broader spectacle is hard to describe, but there is at least a whiff in the air that some right-wing activists are so far out on a limb they require infamous and problematic defenses.

    It's one thing if, for instance, Trump-supporting election lawyers face sanctions including possible disbarment in Michigan, but stand-in Marshall, while apparently an attorney somewhere, does not have bar standing in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, the detail emerges↱ that Ryan Marshall is also awaiting trial in Pennsylvania, on what looks like twenty-two counts of fraud, theft, conspiracy, and racketeering, apparently arising from his conduct as a judicial clerk.

    And here we come to the crux of it, because we at Sciforums are familiar with rightist politics and their absurd excuses, and we see writ large what it all comes to in the world outside our virtual window. The January 6 insurrectionists generally cannot make arguments coherent unto themselves, justifying themselves with ad hoc arrangements of dubious, specious, and even notorious arguments that do not necessarily work and play well with each other. And if the putschskis, having achieved at least this climax, now find themselves unable to clean up the mess, it is not insignicant how much of their circumstance is brought by insupportable, specious pretenses of argument. It's one thing if reputable legal advice tells them they're in trouble, but look at what it takes to find a proverbial second opinion.


    It might seem strange, then, to reach back to the last century and remind of the Tulia debacle, when local law enforcement went after the town's black community on make-believe drug charges, on the word of a white deputy who could not provide any actual evidence of the drug transactions, and apparently used for himself the drugs he allegedly confiscated, and, oh, yeah, had been fired from his previous job in law enforcement for stealing from a sheriff's office.

    The point of recalling Tulia, of course, is simply to remind that the dysfunctionally low ethic is not new, and actually seems a hallmark of American conservatism, or, at least, traditionalism.

    To the one, sure, it seems and definitely felt in its time like a hard accusation, that the conservative ethic is somehow irredeemably broken; but over the last twenty-five years, at least, we have watched this spectacle go on. Many have even labored to abet it, pretending it would be somehow unfair to not equivocate falsehood in order to advance or, at the very least, refuse to disqualify it. Generally speaking, it's not unreasonable to reach back forty years; what emerged in conservative fits during the Nineties was distilled influence of the Reagan Awakening in 1980.

    Think of it this way: It is true that frailty is a nonpartisan human trait, but there is a clear difference between the person who is susceptible to particular harm and the person trying to inflict it. There is a difference between the person who can be deceived, and the person who seeks to deceive. In American politics, it's true you can find me a "liberal" dumbass, but the implications of being a dumbass of any political outlook are observably different from being one who knowingly propagates dumbassery. The failure to distinguish this basic difference between frailty and infliction, the fact of frailty and the exploitation thereof, is a significant factor in understanding much of the American conservative politic.

    And if we wonder where on the spectrum of victimhood and culpability these rightist-insurrectionists occur, it is one thing that they are frail enough to believe this or that swindle, but there is also the question of their willingness to inflict and propagate, and participate in the grift.

    Perhaps it seems like sweeping generalization to wonder about who benefits from the kind of confusion, futility, and antisociality on display in the Wednesday Putsch, but the Trump administration and subsequent insurrection are the fruit nourished by failure and cultivated of frailty.

    Or maybe it seems abrupt to point a finger at the stranger than fiction, previously unbelievable tales of attorneys like Alan Dershowitz ruining their reputations; or Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and others risking their actual credentials; or the spectacle of Rudy Giuliani—politically beloved American icon of law and order, a.k.a., "America's Mayor"—denigrating himself to the point of prosecutorial scrutiny; the question never really goes away.

    There is an idea that a justification tells us what we need to know about the ethic↗; the idea is a fairly straightforward observation of what seems problematic: Well, sure, but look at what I must [believe/accept/abet] in order to justify that outcome. An example would be the proposition that it would be "just plain stupid" to not lie on an official document, and, sure, we get it, but everything about the incident tells us something about the ethics involved. Funny thing about that, the example includes a Member of Congress widely named in murmur and buzz accusing a role in the insurrection, and that, too, would make some sort of point.

    And, yes, the idea of an arraigned racketeer not admitted to the local bar standing in for an incapacitated, nonresponsive, ventilated attorney tells us something about the conditions of these defendants' cases.


    Vis à vis the question who stormed the U.S. Capitol, it was, clearly, rightist Trump supporters, and what we are finding out over the time since is that they were, in fact, motivated by supremacism and assorted craziness↗, and, yes, it does seem something of a self-aware dysfunction. One of the problems we find when spelunking these rabbit holes is that excuses from culpability start to look and sound like pleading noncompetency; the difference between mark and grifter, between the fact of human frailty and their participation in the exploitation thereof, eventually starts to sound like they just couldn't help it because they weren't capable of understanding what was going on.

    For the rest of society, the question might be the same asa it ever was: What excuses can we make for these people, today?

    The story of what Mr. Pierce thinks he is doing is probably fascinating; and should he live through this as we hope he will, the question remains whether he would ever tell us, truthfully, what he was trying to do. The Hollywood version is likely a farce facing executive pushback for being unbelievable.


    @alanfeuer. "As it happens, Ryan Joseph Marshall, the lawyer who is handling John Pierce's cases as he fights COVID in the hospital, is awaiting trial in Pennsylvania on multiple charges of theft, fraud & conspiracy related to a prior job as a judicial law clerk." Twitter. 25 August 2021. Twitter.com. 25 August 2021. https://bit.ly/3guhT8o

    Emptywheel. "John Pierce Tries to Hire His 18th January 6 Defendant while on a Ventilator with COVID-19". The Empty Wheel. 25 August 2021. EmptyWheel.net. 25 August 2021. https://bit.ly/2XYcL5V
  12. dart_ship Registered Member

    it was i.
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    So 9/11 or September 11 has come and gone.

    After twenty years of America's War on Terror, where is America now with it? Back where it was two decades ago, but with a few more problems at home?

    Let's face it, the Trump-Pompeo deal with the Taliban was a hand grenade. That America and its military were blind to the consequences of the deal on the Afghanis morale, and their surrender to them rather than fighting, suggests that was kind of inevitable. The Americans are leaving us to fight the Taliban, well then we might as well give up and join the enemy.

    The West didn't see that one coming, so there is something wrong with perception here, somewhere.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Fourteen months later:

    Guilty on all counts.

    The defendant, 49-year-old Guy Wesley Reffitt of Texas, was found guilty of these five criminal charges: Transporting a Firearm in Furtherance of a Civil Disorder; Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Entering or Remaining in a Restricted Area or Grounds with a Firearm; Obstructing Officers During a Civil Disorder; and Obstruction of Justice—Hindering Communication Through Force or Threat of Physical Force.


    Refitt is the first Wednesday Putsch defendant to stand trial before a jury for his actions related to the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. While Refitt himself did not enter the Capitol building, the jury only needed four hours to convict. With over seven hundred defendants trying to respond to their own cases, the jury conviction will likely help prosecutors extract guilty pleas.

    In addition to what prosecutors described as a mountain of evidence, including Reffitt's own video and communications, the case against him included witness testimony from Rocky Hardie, a fellow Three Percent militia participant testifying with immunity, and Jackson Reffitt, the defendant's teen son, who told how his father threatened both him and his sister.

    At trial, prosecutors presented what they referred to as a "mountain of evidence." That evidence included text messages; extensive video, including some recorded by Reffitt's helmet-mounted camera on Jan. 6; a recorded Zoom meeting between Reffitt and members of his militia; as well as the audio recordings made by Jackson Reffitt. Prosecutors backed that evidence up with testimony from Capitol Police who tried to stop Reffitt's approach on the building; Rocky Hardie, the former member of the Texas Three Percenters who accompanied Reffitt on the trip to Washington and who was granted immunity for his testimony; and the defendant's son, Jackson ....

    .... The testimony of son against father made for the most dramatic and emotional day of testimony. Jackson Reffitt described the guilt and discomfort he felt about informing on his dad, and how he felt "terrified" when his father told him "traitors get shot." Jackson Reffitt has been largely estranged from his family since turning his father in to the FBI. At the beginning of his son's testimony, Guy Reffitt began sobbing in the courtroom.

    The defense, for its part, complained that the government rushed to judgment because his client is inherently unreliable: "Guy does brag, he exaggerates, and he rants," attorney William Welch explained. And Reffitt drinks, the attorney said, and takes a medication, so recordings in which he boasts of his guilt are unreliable. And his son? That was just for fame and fortune. After all, Reffitt didn't really have a gun with him, despite the testimony, video, and comms evidence showing otherwise.

    One thing that stands out, though, about this being the first Putsch case to reach a jury is how weak the defense was from the outset. What attorney Welch wanted was to trade out the range of charges as excessive, that the jury might convict his client of a high-end misdemeanor, "Entering or Remaining in a Restricted Area". For that, the firearm makes all the difference in the world. Thus, the testimony is corrupt, the video deep-faked, and the self-indicting communications records unreliable. We can only wonder for how many of those more than seven hundred defendants are things about to go very poorly.


    An interesting implication to watch is how the plea deals go. Passing time also finds growing concern among Democratic supporters and pretty much anyone who isn't a Republican, that the Justice Department is somehow treating all this too lightly. At one point a federal judge even made the point in open session that U.S. Attorneys seemed to be going easy on defendants. But if we look at the charges, it's possible to see where this goes: Obstructing Officers and Obstruction of Justice are not childsplay charges, but they're flexible and a defense attorney has a little bit of room to work. But there are also two firearms charges, no matter what else, these will complicate everything else. Think of it this way: People can be plead to multiple felonies and still get exceptionally light sentences, but that chance disappears when a firearm is on the conviction list. That is why the gun became so important to attorney Welch; he sees his client will be convicted, and sets about trying to minimize exposure. But that other charge, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, is something the People have been waiting for.

    Obstruction of an Official Proceeding: What proceeding? Congressional session. What proceeding within the Session? Certification of the presidential election. This is one of the basic charges for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, and it is now convicted at trial. Guy Wesley Reffitt has been convicted of attempting to overthrow the government.


    Fourteen months later, a few things are pretty clearly established about who stormed the U.S. Capitol in January, 2021. What seems mysterious is what we intend to do about it, or perhaps what passes for justice. The famous line from history is that we have a Republic if we can keep it; the Wednesday Putsch that can trace its American origins back to the colonies and even that vaunted Anglo-American tradition, would call off the Republic for all the same reasons. It's in our historical record; it's in the Constitution. And in my time, the only reason this could go so far is because so many people were willing to shepherd, or at the very least, allow it.

    Remember that people can justify pretty much anything simply by abandoning the principle against which it is compared.


    Dreisbach, Tom. "In the first Jan. 6 trial, a jury found Capitol riot defendant Guy Reffitt guilty". National Public Radio. 8 March 2022. NPR.org. 8 March 2022. https://n.pr/3MxN3tK
    Michael 345 likes this.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Updates: Tarrio, Grider, and Words That Matter

    Enrique Tarrio↑, previously outed as a federal informant↑, has been indicted and arrested for his role in the Wednesday Putsch.

    Enrique Tarrio, who was the chairman of the far-right extremist group the Proud Boys, was arrested and charged with conspiracy for his alleged role in planning the Jan. 6 attack, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday.

    He is one of the most prominent defendants yet to face charges over his alleged involvement in the insurrection.

    Although Tarrio is not accused of physically taking part in the breach of the Capitol – or even being in Washington D.C. at the time – the Justice Department said Tarrio "conspired to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, the certification of the Electoral College vote." ....

    .... Tarrio was indicted on one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and another count of obstruction of an official proceeding. He also faces two counts each of assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers and destruction of government property.


    Note the particular language: Obstruction of an official proceeding. This is what Guy Reffitt↑ was convicted of. It is among charges against Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes↱. And Ray Grider↑, who helped break the window Ashli Babbitt would die for, failed last month to see that charge dismissed:

    Grider's attorney, Brent Mayr, of Houston, was seeking to dismiss Count 4 of the indictment, which carries a maximum 20-year prison term. Mayr claimed the statute fails to state an offense, fails to provide adequate notice of what Grider is charged with and does not ensure that the grand jury has found "sufficient evidence of the necessary elements of the offense."

    U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the District of Columbia denied the dismissal motion … as other judges faced with the same motion from others arrested in the Capitol riot have done ....

    .... Count 4 of the indictment alleges Grider "attempted to, and did corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, a proceeding before Congress, by entering and remaining in the United States Capitol without authority and engaging in disorderly and disruptive conduct and destroying federal property." ....

    .... "Because the affidavit in support of the government's complaint alleges that Defendant 'knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt' used unlawful means to obstruct the certification of the Electoral College vote, it cannot be said that Defendant himself did not have fair notice that the statute criminalized the conduct alleged in the complaint," the judge wrote.


    While prosecutors in this case had been waiting for last month's ruling, passing time has not brought us any particular updates from the Department of Justice. It is unclear what attorney Mayr can do for his client at this time; with the Reffitt verdict logged, Grider's path forward seems narrow and unlikely, but insofar as arguing that the statute did not explicitly enumerate this or that behavior is insufficient, we might note two things: This is a charge that includes a potential twenty-year sentence; and the court views this particularly as obstruction of electoral certification. Obstruction of an official proceeding

    (c) Whoever corruptly—

    (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
    (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,​

    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    18 USC § 1512 (c)(2)↱, is the charge to watch.


    "18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant". United States Code. 2008. Law.Cornell.edu. 8 March 2022. https://bit.ly/3vQPGB6

    Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs. "Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach". United States Department of Justice. 13 January 2022. Justice.gov. 8 March 2022 https://bit.ly/3Mtqqqt

    Romo, Vanessa. "Enrique Tarrio, who led the Proud Boys, is arrested over the U.S. Capitol attack". National Public Radio. 8 March 2022. NPR.org. 8 March 2022. https://n.pr/3Ct1g6t

    Witherspoon, Tommy. "Judge denies Grider motion to dismiss count in Capitol riot case". Waco Tribune-Herald. 9 February 2022. WacoTrib.com. 8 March 2022. https://bit.ly/3tJtFkL
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Today, via Kyle Cheney↱:

    HAPPENING NOW: Heated sentencing hearing in case of Jan. 6 defendant James Bonet.

    DEFENSE LAWYER: Our president was inciting some people to do this.

    JUDGE SULLIVAN: But that's not a defense. The devil made me do it so I did it? That's crazy.

    Charged with a felony, Bonet has pleaded to a misdemeanor, and has been sentenced to ninety days incarceration; the government had asked forty-five days, compared to a potential year. Per Cheney, incarceration is scheduled to start in June so the convict can finish his semester in school; Judge Sullivan tried to throw Bonet a bone: "You're not a horrible person."


    @kyledcheney. "HAPPENING NOW: Heated sentencing hearing in case of Jan. 6 defendant James Bonet ...." (thread) Twitter. 9 March 2022. Twitter.com. 9 March 2022. https://bit.ly/3MA4SZh
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    proud | shame

    There is something about Tim Dickinson's↱ report for Rolling Stone that annoys almost sublimely:

    A documentary film crew attended an illicit, parking-garage meetup between the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in downtown Washington, D.C., on Jan. 5, 2021, according to a memo filed by prosecutors seeking to keep Enrique Tarrio locked up pending trial ....

    .... The 21-page memo lays out a detailed recap of the evidence against Tarrio, who is alleged to have organized and directed an undercover Proud Boys subgroup called the Ministry of Self Defense, or MOSD, whose members went on to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Tarrio "spearheaded" the conspiracy, the memo alleges. "Tarrio created the MOSD, and was instrumental in choosing its leaders and members and imposing a strict top down command model," it reads, adding that "Tarrio directed and orchestrated the MOSD's violent acts entirely remotely … in the weeks leading up to January 6, and on the day itself."

    Most intriguing, however, is the light the memo shines on a parking-garage meeting between the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers on the day before the insurrection. The existence of the meeting has been public for some time, but the memo reveals that at least parts of it were caught on tape. "A documentary film crew was present in the garage," the memo states, "and, at one point, picked up audio of a person referencing the Capitol." ....

    .... The memo hints that more of the meeting was recorded. It reveals that Tarrio told "another individual" to not worry about authorities having gleaned the Proud Boys' plans due to his arrest, "because he had cleared all of the messages on his phone," adding that "no one would be able to get into his phone because there were 'two steps' to get into it."

    There is a certain degree to which it is hard to explain that of course we knew it would come to this, but consider that for all the time people made excuses for supremacist rhetoric, scolding what they perceived as paternalism and condescension that only forced good people to make bad decisions, those ostensibly bad decisions took place in a period and circumstance when the purveyors of that supremacism became so comfortable they let other people record them planning crimes.

    It is difficult to properly describe the sort of self-assurance with which right-wing released recordings or chatlogs to scorch a rival within the cause. Amid power struggles, and repeatedly under stress of law enforcement investigation, rightists have turned on each other and given over records, to cops, journalists, and antifascist activists, that nobody in their position should have wanted to make or keep. But it seems to not have occured to them that they could get in any real trouble; it's one thing if someone ran to antifa with chat logs, but they do not seem to have worried about law enforcement, such that they even invited documentary filmmakers to record their doings.

    Think about the prospect that the great fear was a bunch of antifa cucks wringing their hands: ¡Pfft! Maybe someone would be embarrassed, or even lose their job, but at the end of the day they could just blame liberal cucks and cancel culture. So the idea of letting Andy Ngô witness Portland plotting, or Elle Reeve getting Chris Cantwell on video; the prospect that law enforcement might have an interest in this evidence does not seem to have clicked.

    The bail memo↱ does not identify the film crew recording the January 5 gathering of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, but the same paragraph on page eight clarifies that despite the film crew, Tarrio, who was violating a federal court order, "told another individual that he had cleared all of the messages on his phone before he was arrested", and "further stated that no one would be able to get into his phone because there were 'two steps' to get into it."

    It's one thing if some rightist didn't stop to think that someone would have a server-side chatlog; and maybe it just doesn't occur to people to think that their fellow cynical individualists might sell out the movement over petty jealousies and the gang equivalent of mod drama. But consider a meeting at which someone is breaking the law just to be there, that happens to conspire to facilitate future lawbreaking, and is so easily presumed illegal that one reassures others that he cleared his phone before being arrested for yet other lawbreaking, also protective of the current lawbreaking meeting conspiring toward other lawbreaking. And yet they've invited a film crew.

    Tarrio, as a result of his involvement in a crime, breaks the law to attend a meeting at which further illegality is planned, yet in all of this they are comfortable enough that someone called in a film crew.

    Perhaps those who supported and sympathized with the supremacists, or cried about free speech and denounced other people for calling racism by its name, might perversely think to take credit for the fact that rightists are pretty much serving up the evidence for their own indictments, but in truth society would have been better off skipping this whole debacle. We could have done without it. So those of you who didn't encourage supremacism, but just discouraged others from discouraging it, well, right, you're part of the reason they're so comfortable as to call in a film crew, or as so many others did post the evidence of their insurrection to social mdeia, but, really, we all would be better off had people properly rejected that rhetoric and behavior before. Yes, really, we all would be better off had society not gone out of its way to infantilize and coddle and assuage supremacists.

    They brought a fuckin' film crew, full stop.


    Dickinson, Tim. "Film Crew Recorded Illicit Pre-Insurrection Meeting Between Proud Boys and Oath Keepers: Court Document". Rolling Stone. 14 March 2022. RollingStone.com. 15 March 2022. https://bit.ly/3ibfvDY

    United States Department of Justice. "Government's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Detention". United States of America v. Enrique Tarrio. Southern District of Florida Miami Division. 14 March 2022. Scribd.com. 15 March 2022. https://bit.ly/34Jsb1J
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    They probably held the deluded belief in their supremacist bubble that they were doing/planning the right thing and if successful, history would show them as American hero's. Hero's that managed to get a failed President back into power. A daft exercise in supreme vanity.
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


Share This Page