Categories
Capitol Insurrection Donald Trump January 6 Justice Department

DOJ Plans To Hit Trump With An ‘Appeal-Proof’ Charge For His Role In January 6: Report

Now that several members of the domestic terrorist group the Oath Keepers have been convicted for seditious conspiracy, many have suggested that disgraced, one-term former president Donald Trump should be charged with the same thing for his role in inciting the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6 referred the ex-president to the Justice Department on four charges — obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to defraud the United States, inciting or assisting an insurrection, and conspiracy to make a false statement — in December, but Hugo Lowell of The Guardian suggested Tuesday morning that the DOJ will likely try to build a narrow, “appeal-proof” case against Trump.

During an appearance on MSNBC, Lowell remarked:

“The Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy verdicts really come about because the government had concrete evidence that the leaders of the Oath Keepers effectively engaged in political violence to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and because it was presented in that way and because, you know, the Oath Keepers had a quick reaction force across the river in Virginia. They had weapons and ammunition, and they were texting about we can come to the Capitol, and, you know, bring fire support if you really need it. I think that’s the kind of evidence that’s convincing for a jury.”

Lowell continued:

“It’s the kind of evidence that we’re missing as of yet with Trump, and that’s why I think that the Justice Department is looking more at an obstruction of an official proceeding kind of thing for Trump, as opposed to, you know, seditious conspiracy. I don’t think it materially makes any difference because they are still really serious felonies and they carry lengthy prison terms, and the Justice Department doesn’t like to score big home runs, they like to score single hits, and if they can find one charge that sticks with Trump, they would much prefer that.”

Ultimately, Lowell concluded, the Justice Department wants a solid case that will stand up to any appeal:

“They want a sustained conviction, they just don’t want a conviction, they want to sustain it upon appeal,” he added, “and I think he was talking about how you want to make sure it follows through all the way. They’re much more likely to take a lesser charge that is more likely to be sustained than the big charge.”

Categories
Capitol Insurrection Congress January 6

January 6 Rioter Humiliates Himself When Prosecutors Ask Him About The Bill Of Rights

It became one of the most famous images from the January 6. 2021 attack on the Capitol: A man sitting at a desk in the office of then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, his feet propped up as if he belonged there.

But as Richard “Bigo” Barnett soon learned, his brush with fame had serious consequences, as he’s now facing years in prison for what he later dubbed a “joke.”

Barnett appeared in a federal court Thursday and tried to make it sound like he had merely gotten caught up in the moment and was sorry for his actions:

“Because of all the controversies. I probably shouldn’t have put my feet on the desk. And my language.” Although he still suspects that former president Donald Trump was fraudulently denied reelection and that “nefarious characters” on the political left are intent on destroying the Constitution, he told the jury he would apologize to Pelosi in person if he could.

“I’m a Christian. It just wasn’t good. It wasn’t who I am.”

Barnett, you may recall, left a hateful message for Pelosi, which also came up Thursday:

“Nancy, Bigo was here, you b—-,” he said he wrote in a note, leaving it on the desk before departing with an item that didn’t belong to him: an empty envelope addressed to a House Democrat and bearing the digital signature of Pelosi (D-Calif.). “I put a quarter on the desk even though she ain’t f—-ing worth it,” he shouted hoarsely outside the Capitol, displaying his souvenir for video cameras.

At one point, a prosecutor asked Barnett, “You love the Constitution?” 

Barnett: “Love it!”

Prosecutor: “First Amendment?”

Barnett: “Yes.”

Prosecutor: “Second Amendment?”

Barnett: “Yes.”

Prosecutor: “Love the Third Amendment?”

Barnett: “Yes.”

The prosecutor then inquired, “What’s the Third Amendment?”

Barnett paused and sheepishly admitted, “I don’t know.”

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in civilian homes.

Barnett has been indicted on eight criminal counts, including felony obstruction of an official proceeding and entering a restricted building with a dangerous weapon.

Categories
Capitol Insurrection Crime Donald Trump January 6

New Legal Liability For Trump – Judge Rules Jan. 6 Rioter ‘Followed’ Ex-President’s ‘Instructions’

As he waits to find out if the Justice Department will charge him for his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, one-term, twice-impeached former president Donald Trump will now have to contend with a federal judge’s ruling that a January 6 rioter “followed President Trump’s instructions” on the day of the riot.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found Trump supporter Danean MacAndrew guilty on four counts Tuesday, but she also ruled that MacAndrew had acted on the advice of the ex-president, writing:

“After MacAndrew read then-President Trump’s announcement that he would hold a rally on January 6, 2021 that ‘w[ould] be wild,’ she made plans to attend, excited to hear then-President Trump speak and to protest against the 2020 Presidential Election.

 “And at the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally, then-President Trump eponymously exhorted his supporters to, in fact, stop the steal by marching to the Capitol. Defendant marched to the Capitol where, she testified, she understood that only Congress had the power to fix the election’s outcome and that Congress was likely in session while she was around and in the Capitol.”

Next was the direct mention of Trump, with the judge concluding:

“Having followed then-President Trump’s instructions, which were in line with her stated desires, the Court therefore finds that Defendant intended her presence to be disruptive to Congressional business.

“[H]eeding the call of former President Trump, she continued onwards to ‘stop the steal. For her participation in the insurrection of January 6, the Court finds Danean MacAndrew GUILTY.”

This latest ruling could help DOJ prosecutors decide to indict Trump for his role in the horrors of Jan. 6, and it also gives potential plaintiffs a legal footing to sue the former president for millions of dollars in damages.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has been appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to determine if Trump should be charged for Jan. 6 also also for hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

Categories
Capitol Insurrection Donald Trump Elections January 6 Justice Department

New Subpoena Focuses On Witness Tampering As DOJ’s January 6 Criminal Investigation Expands

A subpoena sent by the Justice Department to several Trump campaign officials suggests the ongoing investigation by the DOJ into the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection has expanded and now includes fundraising efforts, along with potential witness tampering by the ex-president and members of his team.

According to The Washington Post, the subpoena was issued in December and shows multiple areas of inquiry being conducted by a grand jury in Washington, D.C.

One part of the four-page legal document asks recipients to reveal if anyone other than themselves is paying for legal representation — and if so, to provide a copy of the retention agreement for that legal work. At least one other former campaign official also received the subpoena, according to that person’s lawyer, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid drawing attention to his client.

The DOJ is also following the money, according to The Post, by focusing in on various entities that raised millions for the purpose of trying to have the 2020 election overturned in court.

The subpoena shows the Justice Department is interested in other Trump entities besides the Save America PAC — which The Post and others reported last year was a subject of inquiry by investigators. It seeks “all documents and communications” related to a panoply of other Trump-affiliated groups, including the Make America Great Again PAC, the Save America Joint Fundraising Committee and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee.

But perhaps the area of most concern for Trump and others in his orbit is the alleged attempt to influence witnesses who provided testimony to the Jan. 6 House Select Committee.

Prosecutors’ interest in payments made to lawyers might have been driven by testimony to the House committee from Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as an aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. She told the panel she was initially represented by a lawyer with whom she was connected by figures in Trump’s orbit. But she became uncomfortable, she testified, in part because the lawyer did not reveal to her who was paying his fees and said no formal written retention agreement was needed.

[…}

The first lawyer, Stefan Passantino, has denied any wrongdoing in his interactions with Hutchinson, saying in a statement last month that he represented the former Trump aide “honorably, ethically, and fully consistent with her sole interests as she communicated them to me.”

Hutchinson testified that Passantino counseled her to tell the committee she “did not recall” details of events even when she could, and instructed her not to volunteer details of incidents that might be of interest to the committee. After changing lawyers, she became the committee’s star witness.

The case is now in the hands of Special Counsel Jack Smith, who will make a recommendation as to whether or not criminal charges should be filed against Trump or others who may have taken part in the plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

In response to the report from The Post, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance tweeted:

“At the heart of these subpoenas, in addition to previously reported investigation into fundraising fraud, there appears to be an inquiry into whether witness testimony was being improperly influenced. It’s always about the obstruction.”

Categories
Capitol Insurrection Donald Trump Jr. January 6 Social Media WTF?!

Don Jr. Gets Burned Down For Claiming January 6 ‘Wasn’t An Insurrection’

Even though Friday was the second anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead, the oldest son of failed, one-term, twice-impeached scofflaw president Donald Trump decided he’d dishonor the memory of those who died on that day by insisting that no insurrection took place.

Earlier in the day, President Joe Biden had honored 14 brave Americans who had survived the aftermath of the 2020 election when Trump supporters issued threats at election workers and invaded the seat of government, making it clear who was responsible by noting:

“(They) were just doing their jobs until they were targeted and threatened by the same predators and peddlers of lies which fueled the insurrection.”

Predators and peddlers of lies. That sums it up perfectly.

But despite that, Donald Trump Jr. took to Twitter and posted this nugget of crap:

Is that right? Well, let’s take a look at the legal definition of what an insurrection is, as defined in 18 U.S. Code §2383:

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

Sounds exactly like what took place on Jan. 6, doesn’t it?

The dictionary definition also fits:

“An organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.”

And yet Don Jr. has the audacity to try and say that there wasn’t an insurrection on the day in question, going so far as to tweet out a photo of a little old lady holding an American flag. But he neglected to include these images from that day:

Don Jr. got burned down on Twitter for his asinine claim that there hadn’t been an insurrection on Jan. 6.

It’d be tempting to suggest that Junior is acting like a douchebag because he’s strung out on drugs. But he was an asshole long before he allegedly started snorting Bolivian marching powder.