Capitol Riot arrests (1 Viewer)

[Bigdaddysaints]

Figured we should start a separate thread on the arrests and those involved in the storming of the Capitol. I know it has been talked about in the other thread a lot, but for the ones who just want to follow the ones arrested and/or charged, this will be an easier way to see updates on the investigations.

Link below is everyone who has been arrested. But we know there will be more.

Capitol Breach Cases

www.justice.gov

The website seems to be updated with new information daily.

The ones who are getting the most air time:

Notable Arrests After the Riot at the Capitol (Published 2021)

Dozens have been charged since a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

www.nytimes.com

Jake Angeli

Adam Johnson

Richard Barnett

Kevin Seefried

Eric Gavelek Munchel

Larry R. Brock
Lisa Eisenhart
Robert Keith Packer
Klete Keller
Aaron Mostofsky
Anthime Joseph Gionet
Peter Francis Stager
Christine Priola

 

[SaintForLife]

Yes, Sherwin. You may have referenced him only once, but every article that talks about the DOJ “walking back” on anything references his statements and their response. So, in effect, he is the same source being cited in multiple articles. It doesn’t seem to be a trend, just a single occurrence.

The zip tie guy isn’t the one I was thinking of, and the claim that he and the retired Air Force officer had picked up the zip ties at the Capitol came out within 24 hours of their pictures being circulated. So what inaccurate media narratives were repeated ad nauseam for weeks? I knew it almost immediately.

So which laws have democrats proposed in response to the insurrection that would increase surveillance and take away our privacy? It’s quite a claim you just made, that they are purposefully exaggerating it.

It was as bad as it could be. A whole bunch of people decided they didn’t want to honor our system of government, and wanted to overthrow the results of a certified election. Kinda hard to overstate that.
In fact, if anything, the media downplayed it initially. We found out gradually how bad it was as more and more video was publicized and we found out the extent of the officers’ injuries.

If anything is being sold here as a false narrative, it’s the one you are reading and believing. That it really wasn’t that bad. It was far more violent than any BLM demonstration this summer, and far more destructive to the country than anything that happened at those. Do you agree?

Interestingly, I just listened to a snippet of a podcast and have found out something that may explain some of why we are suddenly seeing a lot of pushback on these prosecutions. It was a former US Attorney, IIRC, and he explained that there is a somewhat controversial law that was put on the books in the 60’s in order to try to allow civil rights leaders like MLK to be federally prosecuted. It was actually put in by a famous segregationist from Louisiana. It wasn’t used much against civil rights leaders, but it was used against Vietnam protestors some. And then hasn’t been used since the 70’s.

Anyway, the Trump DOJ resurrected it to charge people who were violent against police this summer, and in keeping things similar, they are using it against some of these insurrectionists. This seems to not be sitting well with Republicans because that law was meant for black people and dirty hippies, not the MAGA crowd. Kinda amusing, really.

On his campaign website, Biden promised to “work for a domestic terrorism law that respects free speech and civil liberties, while making the same commitment to root out domestic terrorism as we have to stopping international terrorism.”

...In 2019, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced legislation that would allow certain crimes to be prosecuted as domestic terrorism if they were aimed at intimidating civilians, influencing government policy by intimidation or coercion, or violently disrupt government business.

Capitol Hill Assault Revives Calls for Domestic Terrorism Law, but Civil Liberties Groups Are Wary

Federal law enforcement already has powerful tools to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorism without any new laws, activists say.

theintercept.com

As Biden weighs domestic terrorism law, let's pause — and ask Merrick Garland

Our View: After Capitol attack, Congress wants to do something about homegrown terrorists. But would a federal law protect everyone's civil rights?

www.usatoday.com

Also, Sherwin wasn't a source for the Politico article I posted that talked about how very few of the Capital rioters will serve jail time. Sherwin was only referenced in the article about the judge calling him out for making claims that he couldn't support.

 

[SaintForLife]

BLM protests are/were not in support of violence, looting, and vandalism
that was not their raison d-etre
very few of the protests had violence, looting, and vandalism
and it is unclear if BLM protesters were 100% or even majorly responsible for violence, looting, and vandalism
otoh
100% of insurrection protesters were in support of insurrection

Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Attendees rallying on Wednesday are holding the first amendment rally, "to demand transparency and protect election integrity" on the same day Congress is set to officially approve the 2020 election results.

The March For Trump rally will not be an organized march from the Ellipse, according to the permit approved by the Department of Interior. The organization stated in the permit that some participants may leave their rally to attend other rallies at the United States Capitol to hear the results of Congressional certification of the Electoral College count.

Here's everything you need to know about the 'March For Trump' rally

President Trump is expected to speak at the Ellipse on Wednesday at 11 a.m.

www-wusa9-com.cdn.ampproject.org

The pro-Trump Silent Majority group is holding a rally to protest the election results and to show their support for Trump. The demonstration is taking place at the National Mall Center East-West Gravel Walkway at 13th Street, panel 17 and panel 16.

Silent Majority founder James Epley is scheduled to speak at 12 p.m., 2 p.m., and 5 p.m. each day. The group said this will be a static rally not involving any marches, and estimates between a crowd-size of 250-500. The group says they will be attending the event to conduct a rally to support first amendment rights.

Women for America First will hold a "March for Trump" to demand transparency and protect election integrity.

The demonstration will feature speakers from Women for America First, Congressional Representatives, Roger Stone, Julio Gonzalez, Rudy Giuliani, Diamond and Silk. Trump has tweeted that he plans to be there, as well, though he is not listed on the group's list of speakers.

A final permit was amended for the Women for America First rally on Wednesday on the Ellipse. The amendment changes the organizer's projected attendance from 5,000 to 30,000 people.

'Save America March' rally draws thousands on day two of demonstrations in D.C.

Thousands of people are gathering for the "Save America March" Wednesday on day two of planned demonstrations in the District. These demonstrations are happening on the same day Congress is expected to certify the Electoral College results for Joe Biden, which President Donald Trump continues to...

wjla.com

-Transparency
-Election integrity
-Hear the election certification results
-Protest the election results
-Support Trump

Yeah that sounds like a bunch of people who were supporting a violent uprising against the government.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yep.

And for what it's worth, to those who wanted a peaceful insurrection. I have a question for you. Let's consider this for a minute, suppose Pence went ahead and refused to certify the election, and suppose they managed to do some parliamentary maneuvers to somehow make Trump president. What do you think Democrats would do? You think they'd just roll over and accept it? You think that would happen peacefully? I don't. It would have been a legit civil war at that point.

So your friend who attended the rally and didn't storm the Capital supported a violent uprising against the government?

 

[SaintForLife]

Can you explain to me how this is false equivalency?

It's not, but he really wants it to be one.

 

[MT15]

SFL: Source isn’t the right word, I meant that every article used the DOJ statements about Sherwin as at least part of their support for the thesis of their articles that somehow this riot just wasn’t all that bad. Also, the Politico article’s thesis wasn’t actually that the riot wasn’t all that bad, but these articles are being used in that way by partisan sources, it seems.

How did you feel about Antifa being labeled “domestic terrorists” by the Barr DOJ? Did you have equal concern about that?

Your example of a proposed law is from 2019, don’t you think it’s a bit difficult to claim that is an outcome of this case? Or did they foresee this and want to get ahead of the curve?

The campaign website statement predated this event as well, most certainly, since the campaign concluded in November.

I don’t think the democrats have proposed anything new in the way of legislation over this attempt to overthrow a valid election. They still have time, though, and when it happens then we can discuss and critique. But to claim that they are participating in some sort of conspiracy to overstate the insurrection and that all the media is

 

[MT15]

It's not, but he really wants it to be one.

It absolutely is a false equivalency and it’s just crazy to try to deny that. Like Qanon, avoid reality, the election was stolen, Lin Wood is right crazy.

 

[SaintForLife]

It absolutely is a false equivalency and it’s just crazy to try to deny that. Like Qanon, avoid reality, the election was stolen, Lin Wood is right crazy.

Don't call me Qanon for saying it's not a false equivalency. I never said the election was stolen so stop with the strawman.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL: Source isn’t the right word, I meant that every article used the DOJ statements about Sherwin as at least part of their support for the thesis of their articles that somehow this riot just wasn’t all that bad. Also, the Politico article’s thesis wasn’t actually that the riot wasn’t all that bad, but these articles are being used in that way by partisan sources, it seems.

How did you feel about Antifa being labeled “domestic terrorists” by the Barr DOJ? Did you have equal concern about that?

Your example of a proposed law is from 2019, don’t you think it’s a bit difficult to claim that is an outcome of this case? Or did they foresee this and want to get ahead of the curve?

The campaign website statement predated this event as well, most certainly, since the campaign concluded in November.

I don’t think the democrats have proposed anything new in the way of legislation over this attempt to overthrow a valid election. They still have time, though, and when it happens then we can discuss and critique. But to claim that they are participating in some sort of conspiracy to overstate the insurrection and that all the media is

Calling someone a domestic terrorist is quite different than advocating for a domestic terrorism law which is totally unnecessary. The Politico article was about how very few of the Capital rioters would face jail time despite the hyperbolic rhetoric from prosecutors, Democrats, and the media.

Now the Biden administration is considering a new domestic terrorism law to crack down on homegrown violent extremism, something Biden promised during his campaign, well before the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.

Nevertheless, there has been a ringing, bipartisan clamor in Congress for a domestic terrorism law. "We have to do something," House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said during a hearing on the Capitol riot this month.

As Biden weighs domestic terrorism law, let's pause — and ask Merrick Garland

Our View: After Capitol attack, Congress wants to do something about homegrown terrorists. But would a federal law protect everyone's civil rights?

www.usatoday.com

 

[DaveXA]

So your friend who attended the rally and didn't storm the Capital supported a violent uprising against the government?

No, he supported a peaceful insurrection. Wishful thinking on his part, but, he did hope Pence would refuse to certify the election results.

 

[samiam5211]

Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Attendees rallying on Wednesday are holding the first amendment rally, "to demand transparency and protect election integrity" on the same day Congress is set to officially approve the 2020 election results.

The March For Trump rally will not be an organized march from the Ellipse, according to the permit approved by the Department of Interior. The organization stated in the permit that some participants may leave their rally to attend other rallies at the United States Capitol to hear the results of Congressional certification of the Electoral College count.

Here's everything you need to know about the 'March For Trump' rally

President Trump is expected to speak at the Ellipse on Wednesday at 11 a.m.

www-wusa9-com.cdn.ampproject.org

The pro-Trump Silent Majority group is holding a rally to protest the election results and to show their support for Trump. The demonstration is taking place at the National Mall Center East-West Gravel Walkway at 13th Street, panel 17 and panel 16.

Silent Majority founder James Epley is scheduled to speak at 12 p.m., 2 p.m., and 5 p.m. each day. The group said this will be a static rally not involving any marches, and estimates between a crowd-size of 250-500. The group says they will be attending the event to conduct a rally to support first amendment rights.

Women for America First will hold a "March for Trump" to demand transparency and protect election integrity.

The demonstration will feature speakers from Women for America First, Congressional Representatives, Roger Stone, Julio Gonzalez, Rudy Giuliani, Diamond and Silk. Trump has tweeted that he plans to be there, as well, though he is not listed on the group's list of speakers.

A final permit was amended for the Women for America First rally on Wednesday on the Ellipse. The amendment changes the organizer's projected attendance from 5,000 to 30,000 people.

'Save America March' rally draws thousands on day two of demonstrations in D.C.

Thousands of people are gathering for the "Save America March" Wednesday on day two of planned demonstrations in the District. These demonstrations are happening on the same day Congress is expected to certify the Electoral College results for Joe Biden, which President Donald Trump continues to...

wjla.com

-Transparency
-Election integrity
-Hear the election certification results
-Protest the election results
-Support Trump

Yeah that sounds like a bunch of people who were supporting a violent uprising against the government.

This election was stolen. They don’t have the courage to do what’s right. We’re going to go over there and tell them what we think.

that is paraphrasing the sentiments of the Presidents speech.

Don’t pretend they were there to promote voter ID laws. We’re not stupid, and neither are you.

 

[MT15]

Calling someone a domestic terrorist is quite different than advocating for a domestic terrorism law which is totally unnecessary. The Politico article was about how very few of the Capital rioters would face jail time despite the hyperbolic rhetoric from prosecutors, Democrats, and the media.

Now the Biden administration is considering a new domestic terrorism law to crack down on homegrown violent extremism, something Biden promised during his campaign, well before the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.

Nevertheless, there has been a ringing, bipartisan clamor in Congress for a domestic terrorism law. "We have to do something," House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said during a hearing on the Capitol riot this month.

As Biden weighs domestic terrorism law, let's pause — and ask Merrick Garland

Our View: After Capitol attack, Congress wants to do something about homegrown terrorists. But would a federal law protect everyone's civil rights?

www.usatoday.com

You’re not being very consistent here. Classifying a group as “domestic terrorists” is okay, but passing a law about domestic terrorism is not okay? Come on.

How does a “ringing, bipartisan clamor” in Congress for a domestic terrorism law translate into “the democrats”? Honestly you’re just all over the place.

And saying that protests over racial inequality equals the insurrection is just bending reality until it breaks. I‘m not saying you believe their exact bull, but the equivalence you are drawing is really no better rooted in reality than their stuff, IMO.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

It's not, but he really wants it to be one.

I brought you to the water
Your inability to drink is not my fault

 

[brandon]

So @SaintForLife and @Farb, just out of curiosity, why did you and all of the other conservatives here go completely silent for weeks after the insurrection?

Why did it take you so long to say anything?

 

[Saintamaniac]

Don't call me Qanon for saying it's not a false equivalency. I never said the election was stolen so stop with the strawman.

Did you not read what was posted? No one called you Qanon. It was simply stated that you were doing the same type of things that the Qanon followers do. If that riles you up then don't do the same type of things that the Qanon followers do. What you are doing is doing stupid things and when people point out that you are doing stupid things, you cry about being called stupid.

 

[Optimus Prime]

good article on how people have been identified and the danger of those methods
================================

Debra Maimone pulled down her American flag mask for a moment on Jan. 6 and gazed at the unruly mob of supporters of President Donald Trump overrunning the U.S. Capitol.

“Put your mask on,” warned her fiance, as the couple stood beneath an unblinking array of surveillance cameras. “I don’t want them to see you.”

It was too late.

That scene, recorded in a cellphone video Maimone posted to the social media site Parler, helped FBI agents identify the Pittsburgh-area couple and pinpoint their location inside the Capitol, FBI agents said in a federal criminal complaint filed before Maimone’s arrest last month.

Video cameras mounted throughout the complex also captured the pair from 10 different angles, the complaint says, as they allegedly stormed the halls of Congress, rummaged through a police bag and made off with protective equipment that Senate officials kept on hand in case of a chemical attack.

Their case is among the more than 1,000 pages of arrest records, FBI affidavits and search warrants reviewed by The Washington Post detailing one of the biggest criminal investigations in American history. More than 300 suspects have been charged in the melee that shook the nation’s capital and left five people dead.

The federal documents provide a rare view of the ways investigators exploit the digital fingerprints nearly everyone leaves behind in an era of pervasive surveillance and constant online connection. They illustrate the power law enforcement now has to hunt down suspects by studying the contours of faces, the movements of vehicles and even conversations with friends and spouses.

But civil liberties groups warn that some of these technologies threaten Americans’ privacy rights. More than a dozen U.S. cities have banned local police or government officials from using facial recognition technology, and license plate readers have sparked lawsuits arguing that it is unconstitutional to constantly log people’s locations for government review, with scant public oversight.

“Whenever you see this technology used on someone you don’t like, remember it’s also being used on a social movement you support,” said Evan Greer, director of the digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future. “Once in a while, this technology gets used on really bad people doing really bad stuff. But the rest of the time it’s being used on all of us, in ways that are profoundly chilling for freedom of expression.”...........

The FBI's Capitol riot investigation used surveillance technology that advocates say threatens civil liberties - The Washington Post

 

[zztop]

Just a hunch, but something tells me this is related to a certain demographic that was mad that Biden won the election:


The U.S. Capitol went into a lockdown on Friday after officials said a vehicle plowed into Capitol Police officers.

In a statement, the U.S. Capitol Police said it was responding to reports that "someone rammed a vehicle into two USCP officers.

"A suspect is in custody," the USCP statement said. "Both officers are injured. All three have been transported to the hospital."

 

[DaveXA]

Just a hunch, but something tells me this is related to a certain demographic that was mad that Biden won the election:


The U.S. Capitol went into a lockdown on Friday after officials said a vehicle plowed into Capitol Police officers.

In a statement, the U.S. Capitol Police said it was responding to reports that "someone rammed a vehicle into two USCP officers.

"A suspect is in custody," the USCP statement said. "Both officers are injured. All three have been transported to the hospital."

Apparently, the suspect had a knife and USCP officers shot him.

 

[samiam5211]

Just a hunch, but something tells me this is related to a certain demographic that was mad that Biden won the election:


The U.S. Capitol went into a lockdown on Friday after officials said a vehicle plowed into Capitol Police officers.

In a statement, the U.S. Capitol Police said it was responding to reports that "someone rammed a vehicle into two USCP officers.

"A suspect is in custody," the USCP statement said. "Both officers are injured. All three have been transported to the hospital."

It will be claimed that this was a false flag to justify keeping the capital militarized.