The Trump Riot Aftermath (Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Proud Boys join the club)

[Jumbo]

Ah, the things I wish that will be left unsaid 

 

👹

[China]

Republicans Hail 'Patriotic' FBI Agent Who Refused To Work On Jan. 6 Cases

 

Republicans are praising an FBI agent who said he was suspended by the agency for refusing to participate in cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. 

 

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) this week demanded FBI Director Christopher Wray reinstate special agent Stephen Friend, describing him as a whistleblower who revealed improper practices in the FBI investigation of the Capitol riot.  

 

“The FBI should never suspend security clearances as a form of punishment or to retaliate against patriotic whistleblowers for stepping forward to report potential wrongdoing,” Grassley and Johnson wrote in a letter to Wray. 

 

House Republicans have also championed Friend’s complaints. On Thursday, they accused the FBI of retaliating against a whistleblower “who has made protected disclosures to Congress” ― an apparent reference to Friend. 

 

As Friend tells it, however, he was put on leave for refusing to do his job before he contacted lawmakers. 

 

In a declaration that the Republican senators posted online this week, the Jacksonville, Florida, special agent alleged that the FBI has followed “atypical procedure” by having a Jan. 6 task force in Washington, D.C., assign regional field offices to arrest riot suspects without giving local agents enough control of the process.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[GoCommiesGo]

As a general rule of thumb, not doing your job is normally frowned on by your employer. That has been my understanding ever since I tried to not mow the lawn when I was a kid, and was not given my allowance when my dad saw that the lawn, was in fact, not actually mowed. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by GoCommiesGo

[China]

Ginni Thomas Tells Jan. 6 Committee She Still Believes the 2020 Election Was Stolen from Trump

 

Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, told the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack she still believes the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.

 

Thomas made the declaration during a four-hour interview with the committee’s members on Thursday.

 

She notably texted former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about the election, after Trump’s defeat. She went as far as to float a QAnon conspiracy theory in one message.

 

CNN’s Jamie Gangel joined The Lead with host Jake Tapper to report the latest on a voluntary interview Thomas granted to lawmakers, who had sought to speak with her for months.

“Remind us why she is perceived as such an important witness,” Tapper said.

 

According to Gangel, nearly two years of reporting which debunks claims of a stolen election have not swayed Thomas.

 

“Can we say how remarkable it is to see that picture of the wife of a Supreme Court justice coming in to testify for the Jan. 6th committee?” Gangel noted. “We have learned that she had a prepared statement, in fact, at the top of the interview, in which she made clear she addressed her that election activities were separate from her husband’s.”

 

“We are told that she cooperated, that she answered every question. But also told reporters that she still believes the election was stolen, Jake. So after everything we know, Ginni Thomas is still an election denier,” Gangel added.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[China]

Romance Novel Cover Model Pleads Guilty To Assaulting Officers With Weapon In Jan. 6 Riot

 

Logan James Barnhart, a bodybuilder who modeled for romance novel covers in the past, pleaded guilty Wednesday to assaulting law enforcement officers with a dangerous weapon during the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection in 2021, according to a statement from the Department of Justice.

 

The Michigan man is one of nearly 900 people who were arrested on charges related to the riot, reported CBS News, after protesters sought to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.

 

The insurrection led to the deaths of four rioters at the scene and five police officers in the aftermath, according to The New York Times.

 

Barnhart’s statement of offense, which was filed in federal court in Washington, said he and his co-defendants confronted officers at a Capitol terrace. Citing court documents, the DOJ stated that the assaults began at roughly 4:27 p.m.

 

“Another rioter - co-defendant Jack Wade Whitton - began striking at an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) with a crutch,” said the DOJ, adding that Barnhart then grabbed the officer by the neck of his ballistic vest.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

What the **** is RSBN?  (I don't want it in my search history. )

Edited October 1, 2022 by The Almighty Buzz

[Jabbyrwock]

21 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

What the **** is RSBN?  (I don't want it in my search history. )

 

"Right Side Broadcast Network"

[Renegade7]

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[China]

Trump at center of Oath Keepers novel defense in Jan. 6 case

 

The defense team in the Capitol riot trial of the Oath Keepers leader is relying on an unusual strategy with Donald Trump at the center.

 

Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist group, are poised to argue that jurors cannot find him guilty of seditious conspiracy because all the actions he took before the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, were in preparation for orders he anticipated from the then-president — orders that never came.

 

Rhodes and four associates are accused of plotting for weeks to stop the transfer of presidential power from the Republican incumbent to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating with Oath Keepers in battle gear storming the Capitol alongside hundreds of other Trump supporters.

 

Opening statements in the trial are set to begin Monday.

 

Rhodes intends to take the stand to argue he believed Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act to call up a militia to support him, his lawyers have said. Trump didn’t do that, but Rhodes’ team says that what prosecutors allege was an illegal conspiracy was “actually lobbying and preparation for the President to utilize” the law.

 

It’s a novel legal argument in a trial that’s one of the most serious cases coming out of the Capitol attack.

 

“This is an incredibly complicated defense of theory and I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” one of Rhodes’ lawyers, James Lee Bright, told The Associated Press.

 

The Insurrection Act gives a president broad authority to call up the military and decide what shape that force will take. Trump did float that kind of action at other points in his presidency.

To succeed with this line of defense, Bright would have to convince a jury that Rhodes was waiting on the go-ahead from the president, which could be a major hurdle.

 

Rhodes’ lawyers have argued Trump could have called up a militia in response to “what he perceived as a conspiracy to deprive a class of persons in several states of their voting rights.” Rhodes published an open letter on the Oath Keepers’ website in December 2020 urging Trump to use the Insurrection Act to “‘stop the steal’ and defeat the coup.”

 

If Rhodes testifies, he could face intense questioning from prosecutors, who say his own words show the Oath Keepers would act no matter what Trump did.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Ball Security]

13 minutes ago, China said:

Trump at center of Oath Keepers novel defense in Jan. 6 case

 

The defense team in the Capitol riot trial of the Oath Keepers leader is relying on an unusual strategy with Donald Trump at the center.

 

Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist group, are poised to argue that jurors cannot find him guilty of seditious conspiracy because all the actions he took before the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, were in preparation for orders he anticipated from the then-president — orders that never came.

 

Rhodes and four associates are accused of plotting for weeks to stop the transfer of presidential power from the Republican incumbent to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating with Oath Keepers in battle gear storming the Capitol alongside hundreds of other Trump supporters.

 

Opening statements in the trial are set to begin Monday.

 

Rhodes intends to take the stand to argue he believed Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act to call up a militia to support him, his lawyers have said. Trump didn’t do that, but Rhodes’ team says that what prosecutors allege was an illegal conspiracy was “actually lobbying and preparation for the President to utilize” the law.

 

It’s a novel legal argument in a trial that’s one of the most serious cases coming out of the Capitol attack.

 

“This is an incredibly complicated defense of theory and I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” one of Rhodes’ lawyers, James Lee Bright, told The Associated Press.

 

The Insurrection Act gives a president broad authority to call up the military and decide what shape that force will take. Trump did float that kind of action at other points in his presidency.

To succeed with this line of defense, Bright would have to convince a jury that Rhodes was waiting on the go-ahead from the president, which could be a major hurdle.

 

Rhodes’ lawyers have argued Trump could have called up a militia in response to “what he perceived as a conspiracy to deprive a class of persons in several states of their voting rights.” Rhodes published an open letter on the Oath Keepers’ website in December 2020 urging Trump to use the Insurrection Act to “‘stop the steal’ and defeat the coup.”

 

If Rhodes testifies, he could face intense questioning from prosecutors, who say his own words show the Oath Keepers would act no matter what Trump did.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Their defense is they were the militia that would be called up when Martial Law was declared.  Yet, previously, the same defense argued that the term militia should not be allowed in the courtroom.  Okay dokie.

[LadySkinsFan]

18 minutes ago, China said:

Trump at center of Oath Keepers novel defense in Jan. 6 case

 

The defense team in the Capitol riot trial of the Oath Keepers leader is relying on an unusual strategy with Donald Trump at the center.

 

Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist group, are poised to argue that jurors cannot find him guilty of seditious conspiracy because all the actions he took before the siege on Jan. 6, 2021, were in preparation for orders he anticipated from the then-president — orders that never came.

 

Rhodes and four associates are accused of plotting for weeks to stop the transfer of presidential power from the Republican incumbent to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating with Oath Keepers in battle gear storming the Capitol alongside hundreds of other Trump supporters.

 

Opening statements in the trial are set to begin Monday.

 

Rhodes intends to take the stand to argue he believed Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act to call up a militia to support him, his lawyers have said. Trump didn’t do that, but Rhodes’ team says that what prosecutors allege was an illegal conspiracy was “actually lobbying and preparation for the President to utilize” the law.

 

It’s a novel legal argument in a trial that’s one of the most serious cases coming out of the Capitol attack.

 

“This is an incredibly complicated defense of theory and I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” one of Rhodes’ lawyers, James Lee Bright, told The Associated Press.

 

The Insurrection Act gives a president broad authority to call up the military and decide what shape that force will take. Trump did float that kind of action at other points in his presidency.

To succeed with this line of defense, Bright would have to convince a jury that Rhodes was waiting on the go-ahead from the president, which could be a major hurdle.

 

Rhodes’ lawyers have argued Trump could have called up a militia in response to “what he perceived as a conspiracy to deprive a class of persons in several states of their voting rights.” Rhodes published an open letter on the Oath Keepers’ website in December 2020 urging Trump to use the Insurrection Act to “‘stop the steal’ and defeat the coup.”

 

If Rhodes testifies, he could face intense questioning from prosecutors, who say his own words show the Oath Keepers would act no matter what Trump did.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

The president has the whole armed forces to command to put down an insurrection. The president doesn't need a rag tag militia to call up. Geez, these guys and gals are really stupid to believe that **** from TFG and his insurrectionist lawyers. That alone should get them a longer prison term, loss of gun rights and loss of voting rights. If they ever get out, let them sit at home and vegitate.

[LadySkinsFan]

Adding: TFG didn't have the backing of the military so he didn't put in a call for that. Instead he wanted the military slowed so they didn't interrupt his insurrection

[tomwvr]

I believe everyone involved in the attack on the capital should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. 
 

And no i did not vote for trump

i think he is quite nuts. But just looking at stats, history, voting numbers and vote percentages, I am 100 percent in agreement that the election was stolen - but not by who trump blames. I believe the republican party and democrat party intentionally rigged the vote to remove trump. 
It had nothing to do with the “deep state” it was both parties trying to reclaim power from a mad man.

[China]

Quick, somebody call the whaaambulance...

 

A Jan. 6 defendant said he's 'already felt the impact' of his actions after losing his wife, job, and access to guns

 

A Capitol riot defendant's attorney listed the consequences he says his client has suffered as a result of his participation in the January 6 attack, while petitioning a judge for leniency this week.

 

Jerry Ryals of Oklahoma pleaded guilty to one count of civil disorder in May and is set to be sentenced next month. He was originally charged with five counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining, and disorderly conduct. But as the government works to prosecute the more than 900 people arrested in connection with the attack, federal prosecutors have offered some rioters lesser charges in exchange for their guilty pleas.

 

An attorney for Ryals on Friday filed a sentencing memo requesting no jail time for his crime, instead suggesting a sentence of two years of probation. Federal sentencing guidelines carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison for the charge.

 

The defendant's lawyer in court documents painted a picture of his client as a "gentle giant" who was betrayed by former President Donald Trump's election lies.

 

"Unlike many others who participated in the January 6th riot, Mr. Ryals had no agenda other than to participate in a peaceful protest," attorney Jay P. Mykytiuk wrote. "He was unarmed. He did not force his way into the Capitol. He had no physical contact with law enforcement."

 

Mykytiuk acknowledged that Ryals "expressed his support" for those who spearheaded the breach of the building, but said he did not "join them at the front."

 

Ryals has "already felt the impact" of his involvement in the insurrection, his lawyer argued: He lost his job and became estranged from his wife as a result of the siege. Ryals, who is described as an "avid hunter" will also be barred from owning firearms as a result of his conviction and will no longer be able to vote — "a right he cherished so deeply."

 

"Due to the massive publicity and historic nature of the January 6 riot, most people in his community know of his offense, and many have shunned him because of it," Mykytiuk added. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

This is the guy who said this:

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, tomwvr said:

I believe everyone involved in the attack on the capital should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. 
 

And no i did not vote for trump

i think he is quite nuts. But just looking at stats, history, voting numbers and vote percentages, I am 100 percent in agreement that the election was stolen - but not by who trump blames. I believe the republican party and democrat party intentionally rigged the vote to remove trump. 
It had nothing to do with the “deep state” it was both parties trying to reclaim power from a mad man.

What part of the stats, history, voting numbers and vote percentages convinced you of that?…And did the Dems and the GOP plan ahead of time to have the GOP pretend the election was stolen while the Democrats pretend to hold public hearings showing it was not stolen? 

[Captain Wiggles]

This guy's really committed to the whole "Both sides" shtick. 🤭

 

Yeah Mitch McConnell and Mike McCarthy worked with Democrats to keep a Republican out of the executive office. 🙄

Edited October 1, 2022 by Captain Wiggles

[tomwvr]

17 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

What part of the stats, history, voting numbers and vote percentages convinced you of that?…And did the Dems and the GOP plan ahead of time to have the GOP pretend the election was stolen while the Democrats pretend to hold public hearings showing it was not stolen? 

Its all political theater. 
And i have studied every pres election since the carter-ford election.

there were 7 counties in various states in the last election that had voting turnout out of the norm, they had completely different results than neighboring counties in the same state or neighboring states, they had multiple irregularities that no other counties in the nation had and those counties caused the results in 4 states to change from the expected outcome with the historic results in those states with the results from the rest of those states. 

i truly believe the fix was in and unless we make a voting system that ensures that the voted can be traced there is no way to prove it.

 

In many states There was no way to verify the votes and we need to ensure that we can do so going forward. We cannot have the public loose faith in elections. That will doom the nation

[Llevron]

37 minutes ago, tomwvr said:

I believe everyone involved in the attack on the capital should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. 
 

And no i did not vote for trump

i think he is quite nuts. But just looking at stats, history, voting numbers and vote percentages, I am 100 percent in agreement that the election was stolen - but not by who trump blames. I believe the republican party and democrat party intentionally rigged the vote to remove trump. 
It had nothing to do with the “deep state” it was both parties trying to reclaim power from a mad man.

Ok so you think he won the election legitimately but the Dems AND the Repubs worked together to take it from him and the American people? 
 

That’s reasonable, honestly. 

[tomwvr]

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Ok so you think he won the election legitimately but the Dems AND the Repubs worked together to take it from him and the American people? 
 

That’s reasonable, honestly. 

But his reaction was unacceptable, how he acted should make every american disgusted. And should make him un electable   

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, tomwvr said:

But his reaction was unacceptable, how he acted should make every american disgusted. And should make him un electable   

I don’t understand how you have proof of this, but no one is reporting it. I watch a lot News Max because they are not as biased as Fox and MSNBC but they aren’t even reporting it. 
 

The years and years of research that went into noticing this must have been mind blowing. Much respect! 

[hail2skins]

10 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I don’t understand how you have proof of this, but no one is reporting it. I watch a lot News Max because they are not as biased as Fox and MSNBC but they aren’t even reporting it. 
 

The years and years of research that went into noticing this must have been mind blowing. Much respect! 

While I have heard the claims about the number of bellweather counties that Trump supposedly won and yet lost the election, I read a fair number of folks on Twitter who are right-leaning and I haven't seen really anyone of them dig into things and, nearly two years later, say "you know, I think this election might have been stolen."

 

How hard is it for people to recognize that Trump's constant social media antics and his disaster, at least from a PR perspective, of handing covid led to many people just getting sick of him and wanting someone else?

 

When people keep saying the election was stolen, they now talk about it more being from social-media bias such as burying the Hunter Biden laptop story. But that isn't very much different from Russia and others influencing social media in the 2016 election.

 

At the end of the day, people are going to go with their feelings when they vote. And people are very fickle. Nothing is ever going to change that.

[tomwvr]

Just now, Llevron said:

I don’t understand how you have proof of this, but no one is reporting it. I watch a lot News Max because they are not as biased as Fox and MSNBC but they aren’t even reporting it. 
 

The years and years of research that went into noticing this must have been mind blowing. Much respect! 

I have no “proof” i just see numbers that made no sense historically, and in comparison to votes in other counties in the same region. 
 

And then two of the states with these issues had no way to “verify” the votes other than comparing a vote to a a ballot. There was no way to prove where the ballot came from. The envelopes on mail in votes were destroyed but ballots kept and there were no hard copy of a person voting given to them.

I live in maryland and they do a pretty good job at this - votes must be kept with the envelope it is sent in with and voters are given a printed receipt of the vote in an in person vote.
the thing we should have learn from the last election are being ignored 

1  nuts running for president are dangerous 

2 giving someone like trump an opening to play the i was robbed game with no way to prove it is dangerous to the publics trust in elections- 20-30 percent of the people will believe the crazy **** someone like him says and it will cause the real problems to be ignored

3 we must have a system to ensure we can validate every ballot 

4 we must have a system in place that makes mail in , drop off and other alternative votes secure - for example

i dropped my ballot in a drop box. It should have had a scanner and printer to give me a record that it was received, not just a slot to drop It in.

5 we must limit early voting to 1-2 weeks before any federal election  - the fewer ballots moved around and stored for up to a month can help ensure votes are secure. 
6 we must make a federal standard for a minimum number of voting sites and machines per thousand voters.

in the 1970s -80s in California to ensure people could vote homes had voting booths in garages for each neighborhood.  then in the 90s they changed it - many people then waited hours to vote…

1 minute ago, hail2skins said:

While I have heard the claims about the number of bellweather counties that Trump supposedly won and yet lost the election, I read a fair number of folks on Twitter who are right-leaning and I haven't seen really anyone of them dig into things and, nearly two years later, say "you know, I think this election might have been stolen."

 

How hard is it for people to recognize that Trump's constant social media antics and his disaster, at least from a PR perspective, of handing covid led to many people just getting sick of him and wanting someone else?

 

When people keep saying the election was stolen, they now talk about it more being from social-media bias such as burying the Hunter Biden laptop story. But that isn't very much different from Russia and others influencing social media in the 2016 election.

 

At the end of the day, people are going to go with their feelings when they vote. And people are very fickle. Nothing is ever going to change that.

Trumps antics made me not vote for him either time. I have not voted for a democrat since the first clinton election and a republican since bush 2s 2000 election.

my political views are all over the place i can support anyone who is for one thing as long as they are not nuts(trump) or a bad person(clinton) and that is to stop

the massive spending that is going to destroy the nation.