Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Trump Riot Aftermath


Cooked Crack
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, China said:

Stand-in for Hospitalized Conservative Attorney with More Than a Dozen Jan. 6 Clients Is Accused of Felonies and Is ‘Not a Licensed Attorney’: Feds

 

As high-profile conservative attorney John Pierce reportedly grapples with COVID-19, an employee has started appearing on behalf of suspected Jan. 6th rioters. That employee, Ryan Marshall, has been charged with felonies and is “not a licensed attorney,” federal prosecutors told a judge on Monday.

 

Known for formerly representing Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse in his homicide case, Pierce kept picking up clients fighting federal charges associated with the Jan. 6th siege of the U.S. Capitol. Rittenhouse’s family fired Pierce after questioning what he did with the millions he raised for the accused murderer. Now, Pierce’s relationship with some 17 other clients stands in limbo for health reasons.

 

“Sadly, Mr. Pierce is reportedly ill with COVID-19, on a ventilator, and unresponsive,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Anne McNamara wrote, in a five-page notice first reported by national security journalist Marcy Wheeler.

 

“For roughly the past week, Ryan Marshall—an associate from Mr. Pierce’s law firm who is not a licensed attorney—has been appearing in Mr. Pierce’s place at court hearings and meetings with the government,” the notice reads. “Because Mr. Pierce is unavailable and Mr. Marshall cannot ethically or legally represent Mr. Pierce’s clients, the government is making the Court aware of Mr. Pierce’s reported illness so that it can take any steps it believes necessary to ensure the defendant’s rights are adequately protected while Mr. Pierce remains hospitalized.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Don't want these people getting off because they didn't have adequate representation.  Get them a lawyer and then convict them all.

 

Cases against 17 people charged in Jan. 6 Capitol riot on hold after lawyer goes missing

 

The cases against 17 of the more than 500 people charged in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol are on hold after their attorney – who once represented Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse– has gone missing.

 

An associate told a judge that the attorney, John M. Pierce, was in an accident, then told another judge Pierce was actually on a ventilator, hospitalized with COVID-19, according to a notice prosecutors filed in court in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

 

The notice, filed in the case of Casey Cusick, stated it was to make sure the court is aware to it could take "any steps it believes necessary to ensure the defendant's rights are adequately protected" while Pierce remains hospitalized.

 

They note the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington has had no contact with Pierce since Aug. 23, when he last appeared for a hearing for one of his clients.  

 

The person appearing since then in Pierce's stead has been Ryan J. Marshall, 30, referred to as an associate from Pierce's law firm, Pierce Banbridge. 

 

At one of his last appearances for a Jan. 6 defendant, Marshall told a prosecutor Thursday that he actually had not had direct contact with Pierce, and that he was getting conflicting information from other friends of Pierce's about whether or not he was suffering from COVID-19.

 

Pierce hasn't returned prosecutors' efforts to reach him by phone or email. His Los Angeles office phone appears to be disconnected, his former cellphone number is no onger his, and calls to a newer cellphone go directly to voice mail, according to another media report.

 

Click on the link for more

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thousands of posts around January 6 riots go missing from Facebook transparency tool

 

Scores of Facebook posts from the days before and after the January 6 Capitol Hill riots in Washington are missing.

 

The posts disappeared from Crowdtangle, a tool owned by Facebook that allows researchers to track what people are saying on the platform, according to academics from New York University and Université Grenoble Alpes.

 

The lost posts — everything from innocuous personal updates to potential incitement to violence to mainstream news articles — have been unavailable within Facebook's transparency system since at least May, 2021. The company told POLITICO that they were accidentally removed from Crowdtangle because of a limit on how Facebook allows data to be accessed via its technical transparency tools. It said that the error had now been fixed.

 

Facebook did not address the sizeable gap in its Crowdtangle data publicly until contacted by POLITICO, despite ongoing pressure from policymakers about the company's role in helping spread messages, posts and videos about the violent insurrection, which killed five people. On Friday, U.S. lawmakers ordered the company to hand over reams of internal documents and data linked to the riots, including details on how misinformation, which targeted the U.S. presidential election, had spread.

 

It is unclear how many posts are still missing from Crowdtangle, when they will be restored, and if the problem solely affects U.S. content or material from all of Facebook's 2.4 billion users worldwide. The academics who discovered the problem estimate that tens of thousands of Facebook posts are currently missing.

 

"If Facebook knew about this, and just didn't tell anyone, I think researchers should be pretty concerned about that fact," Laura Edelson, an academic at NYU and part of the team that found the missing data, told POLITICO. Edelson is in an ongoing battle with Facebook over a separate research project about what political ads are displayed within the feeds — a project the company says breaks its privacy policy.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

 

Too funny! She doesn't have any evidence and didn't in any of the lawsuits she filed in any court. None of those lawsuits had any evidence to back them up. The lawsuits brought by Smartmatic and Dominion, the voting machine companies, do have facts and evidence in their lawsuits against Powell, Guiliani, MyPillow guy, and Overstock guy. Powell was undoubtedly thinking about her unfounded claims against those companies during this interview as demonstrated by her non-answers.

 

BTW, the only thousands of theys that I saw involved in attempting a cold coup were the ones decrying Biden's election and the Jan. 6th insurrection.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOP Rep. Mo Brooks compared the January 6 committee to the Gestapo and called it 'KGB-like'

 

Rep. Mo Brooks criticized the work of the House of Representatives' January 6 select committee, comparing it to the secret police of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

The Alabama Republican was speaking to Newsmax about the committee, which is seeing out electronic communication records from hundreds of people, including members of Congress, in its investigation into the Capitol riot.

 

"What right does this Gestapo, KGB-like entity have to investigate the personal information and communications of myself with my family members? My grandchildren?" Brooks said Wednesday, saying he would "absolutely not" hand over his records.

 

"If its limited to information related to January 6, well, there's not anything there that I'm concerned about," Brooks continued.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, China said:

GOP Rep. Mo Brooks compared the January 6 committee to the Gestapo and called it 'KGB-like'

 

Rep. Mo Brooks criticized the work of the House of Representatives' January 6 select committee, comparing it to the secret police of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

The Alabama Republican was speaking to Newsmax about the committee, which is seeing out electronic communication records from hundreds of people, including members of Congress, in its investigation into the Capitol riot.

 

"What right does this Gestapo, KGB-like entity have to investigate the personal information and communications of myself with my family members? My grandchildren?" Brooks said Wednesday, saying he would "absolutely not" hand over his records.

 

"If its limited to information related to January 6, well, there's not anything there that I'm concerned about," Brooks continued.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

This from a Russia Lover. Congress needs to eject this asshole.

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex-FBI official reveals why Jim Jordan has no way to save himself — or Trump — from Capitol riot committee

 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has backed himself into a corner, according to former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi.

 

Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace about the threats from pro-Donald Trump militias expected on Sept. 18, a group of panelists agreed law enforcement is prepared this time. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) explained that it is clear the Jan. 6 attackers aren't finished and that they fully intend to move forward with further attacks on the country.

 

Wallace noted that it's putting the Republican Party in a difficult position because they are in danger of becoming the party of violence and terrorism -- and she specifically mentioned Reps. Madison Cawthorm (R-NC), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Jody Hice (R-GA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Scott Perry (R-PA) as those who had public contacts or associations with Capitol attackers.

 

Dean noted that Jordan was "glib" when discussing his contacts with President Donald Trump on Jan. 6. He somehow couldn't remember when he spoke to Trump, but noted that he talks to Trump all of the time.

 

"So, unlike Mr. Cawthorn and the others that you are talking about, they will get the records," Dean promised. "They will see who was complicit in terms of whether it was supporting Donald Trump and his lies."

 

But it was ultimately Figliuzzi who explained that Jim Jordan is stuck in a corner with no good way to get out.

 

"I think we now know why Nancy Pelosi had to reject Jim Jordan," he said. "He is a fact witness and he's going to get a very complicated future ahead of him. Here is why: First, he claims that he can't remember how many times on Jan. 6th he called the president or what time of day, that's easily remedied by simply checking your phone log and checking that date. If he can't do it, the phone company will be more than happy to supply the select committee with that. That's going to happen eventually. Next, he's in a trick bag because if he concedes, as has been reported, that he actually called the president and said, 'stand this crowd down, they're inside, it is getting violent, you've got to stop them,' that implies, of course, that he believed Trump controlled the crowd and had the ability to stop or start the crowd."

 

Figliuzzi explained that is a disaster for Trump, and Jordan will be forced to answer the question one way or another.

 

"It hurts him because if he thinks the people were violent he goes back home to Ohio and his voter base says, wait a minute, those were patriots, those weren't violent people," Figliuzzi continued. "So, he can't win there either. This gets extremely complicated."

 

Click on the link for the full story

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'm not a legal expert this seems just wrong to me.  I don't think a judge should be able to put limits in place like that.  

Why not?  They are giving up some freedoms in exchange for not being locked up.  If they don’t want to give up those freedoms, they can remain locked up.

That’s how bail conditions, probation, etc work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'm not a legal expert this seems just wrong to me.  I don't think a judge should be able to put limits in place like that.  

 

Conditions of bail. Stay offline. He violated that condition at least. Like Ball Security posted, you give up some things to stay out of jail until trial. Can't manage to do those things, back to jail you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Why not?  They are giving up some freedoms in exchange for not being locked up.  If they don’t want to give up those freedoms, they can remain locked up.

That’s how bail conditions, probation, etc work.

 

I'm aware of that.  I've actually been out on bail myself.  I would probably agree with limiting him from active participation in events like the cyber symposium.  But limiting him from passive participation like simply watching it online seems too far to me.  It's not like what he was watching was itself illegal (like child porn, though if things like this symposium should be legal in the first place is another debate).  But, to me, the 1st amendment should apply to the viewer as well as the speaker.  

 

And don't give me that "he had a choice" nonsense.  If I make you having dailey sex with your mother a condition of your bail, that doesn't mean it is right just because you "had a choice."

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Conditions of bail. Stay offline. He violated that condition at least. Like Ball Security posted, you give up some things to stay out of jail until trial. Can't manage to do those things, back to jail you go.

See reply above.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'm aware of that.  I've actually been out on bail myself.  I would probably agree with limiting him from active participation in events like the cyber symposium.  But limiting him from passive participation like simply watching it online seems too far to me.  It's not like what he was watching was itself illegal (like child porn, though if things like this symposium should be legal in the first place is another debate).  But, to me, the 1st amendment should apply to the viewer as well as the speaker.  

 

And don't give me that "he had a choice" nonsense.  If I make you having dailey sex with your mother a condition of your bail, that doesn't mean it is right just because you "had a choice."

See reply above.

 

 

Will you agree that these insurrectionists used the internet to connect and set up the Jan. 6th insurrection? Is so, that's reason enough to restrict their internet use.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...