The far right

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Trump and political violence: more than words | Editorial

      by

      Like Joe Biden’s ascent to the White House, Donald Trump’s indictment for unlawfully holding classified documents and obstructing justice offers a partial answer to one great question of American politics: can the country’s institutions contain his excesses?The backlash that the indictment has prompted highlights another: what happens when they do? When the Democrat defeated him, Mr Trump’s armed supporters stormed the Capitol to prevent the transfer of power, assaulting police officers and chanting “Hang Mike Pence”. Within minutes of his indictment last week, threats and even calls for civil war were surging on social media platforms used by his supporters.The violent rhetoric doesn’t just come from the grassroots. The Arizona Republican Kari Lake announced that “to get to President Trump, you’re going to have to go through me, and you’re going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me … Most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA [National Rifle Association].” Mr Trump himself previously warned of “death and destruction” if he were indicted in a separate case, over hush money payments.His bluster at such times is intended to deter action against him – despite the extraordinary case put forward in the indictment, including the now-familiar photo of boxes stacked in a bathroom. It is critical to avoid hysteria or fatalism about the threats facing US democracy. It is true that the direst prognostications did not come to pass after the 2020 election.Nonetheless, last year, research found that more than two in five Americans think a civil war is at least somewhat likely within the next decade. The number who think violence would be justified to restore Mr Trump to the White House has fallen since last year, but still stands at 12 million. An increasingly divided country is also increasingly well armed, with almost 400m privately held guns; their owners are disproportionately white, male and Republican. According to one study, almost 3% of adults, or 7.5 million people, bought a firearm for the first time between January 2019 and April 2021.A slew of analysts have warned that the US could be heading towards widespread political violence. Prof Barbara Walter notes in her book How Civil Wars Start that two conditions are key: ethnic factionalism and anocracy – when a country is neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic. She believes that the US has the first, and remains close to the second, even if the short-term threat has ebbed somewhat since 2021. Others have pulled back from warnings of civil war, but think major civil disruption is entirely plausible.No one foresees a straight confrontation between forces as in the 1860s, let alone a geographic split. What some experts fear is a guerrilla-style asymmetric conflict waged by a decentralised movement, with small groups or lone attackers targeting minority targets such as synagogues or gay clubs, civilians more broadly, infrastructure, or figures such as Democratic politicians, judges and election officials. Trumpism would be best understood not as the animating principle of such a conflict, but as a catalyst. People would not be fighting for Mr Trump so much as fighting because they believed he spoke for them. And if not him, another figurehead might yet emerge.No violence broke out at the indictment hearing in Miami, as some had feared. Key figures on the extreme right are now locked up: more than 1,000 people have been charged with offences relating to January 6, and hundreds of those imprisoned. Others reportedly feel that Mr Trump has abandoned them. Nonetheless, the growth of threats and political violence in recent years is undeniable. That the language of Mr Trump and his enablers makes these more likely is surely, by now, beyond doubt.
      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘More extreme, more violent’: experts’ warning over khaki-clad Patriot Front

      by

      For years, there has been an element of the ridiculous to Patriot Front and their rallies, which can look like a sort of cosplay version of a white nationalist movement.At a Patriot Front demonstration in Washington in May, more than a hundred Patriot Front members marched along the National Mall wearing matching outfits of beige or brown chinos and blue button-up shirts.The ensemble was topped off with the sort of affected accessorizing that parents subject children to at weddings: each man was required to wear sand-colored suspenders, with matching hats and sewn-on arm patches.In their hands, the Patriot Front members carried shields that were a derivative version of Captain America’s defense system, and they had tight white fabric wrapped around their faces. The goal of their activity – Patriot Front aims to create a white ethno-state, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center – is serious, but they found themselves ripe for ridicule.“You wear Walmart khakis!” one bystander heckled. “You are sloppy! You are not even matching! You all have different types of pants on! Cargo pants are out! Reclaim your virginity!”In the years following Patriot Front’s 2017 inception, however, they have slowly grown in influence and threat, experts say. In 2023, those who monitor hate groups say Patriot Front is increasingly moving towards public displays and violence.“If you asked me about Patriot Front in 2017 or 2018, I’d say they’re looking for attention. They’re putting up some stickers, and doing some banner drops here and there, and it’s all about just getting in the news. But now it’s gone well beyond that,” said Stephen Piggott, a researcher at Western States Center who focuses on white nationalist, paramilitary and anti-democracy groups.“I think the group is morphing from a solely propaganda-based outfit to a much more violent one, based on what we’ve seen over the past couple of years. They’re trending to much more violence, more in-person direct actions, versus putting up stickers under the cover of night.”Patriot Front formed in 2017, having splintered from the white nationalist group Vanguard America in the wake of the deadly Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Led by Thomas Rousseau, Patriot Front initially focused on clandestine propaganda efforts: dropping racist literature in neighborhoods and posting stickers in public places.According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Patriot Front was responsible for the vast majority of “hateful propaganda” in the US in 2019, 2020 and 2021. In the past couple of years, the group has begun to venture more into the daylight, and held more rallies and demonstrations.The leadership has stayed the same, under Thomas Rousseau, a Texas-based extremist. But Patriot Front has changed.“I think it’s indicative of the movement. The white nationalist movement more broadly is getting more extreme, more hardcore, more violent,” Piggott said.That violence has been seen across the US. In May, Joe Biden described white supremacy as “the most dangerous terrorist threat” to the country. This week, a University of Chicago poll found that 12 million American adults, or 4.4% of the adult population, believe violence is justified to restore Donald Trump to the White House.Antisemitic incidents, meanwhile, rose in the US in 2022; there was an increase in anti-Asian American hate crimes over the past two years; and a recent FBI report found that hate crimes as a whole rose by nearly 12% from 2020 to 2021.“There’s a backlash to gains made by marginalized communities: I think marginalized communities are more represented, and have become more a political force as well. The white nationalist movement also sees what’s going on in terms of demographics, and are not happy with the diminishing white majority of the country,” Piggott said.“And then also really since the election of Donald Trump, we’ve seen white nationalist discourse being much more mainstream. That’s provided a bump for these groups in terms of they’re very happy to see when elected officials and others are kind of speaking their language, using their rhetoric.“I think it’s almost like a green light for them to conduct the activities that they’re engaged in.”For Patriot Front, those activities have meant scenes like those in June last year in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Police arrested 31 members of the group after they were found packed into the back of a rental truck with riot gear. The men, who an eyewitness told police “looked like a little army”, were charged with conspiracy to riot.A month later Charles Murrell, a Black artist, was attacked during a Patriot Front march in Boston, Massachusetts. The group has since held marches in Indianapolis and a rally in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This year, a group of about 25 Patriot Front members protested against a drag brunch in Nashville and conducted their Washington march.“Patriot Front worries me a lot more than other groups because of the amount of public activism that they commit to,” said Jeff Tischauser, a senior research analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project.“Any time you get these volatile, unhinged people coming into close contact with the public, situations can escalate. That’s what I worry about, because they’re in public space more than any other group.“And you’re gonna have courageous people like Charles Murrell stand up and say, ‘We don’t want you here.’ That’s going to be a combustible situation with the people that they have within the organization.”There has been a rise in white nationalism and far-right politics in countries around the world in recent years. In Germany, the far-right, anti-immigrant ​​Alternative for Germany has surged in recent polling, while last year Giorgia Meloni, whose radical-right Brothers of Italy party has neo-fascist roots, was elected prime minister of Italy.In the US, though, there is an extra threat. About four in 10 adult Americans live in a household with a firearm, and mass shootings are commonplace. A year on from Patriot Front’s march in Coeur d’Alene, the targeting of LGBTQ communities is a continuing risk, Tischauser said.“We’re worried about Pride Month. We’re worried about teachers. There are groups that are out in public, that are showing up at LGBTQ-inclusive events, harassing and intimidating participants, which include children,” Tischauser said.“And I’m worried about the high concentration of guns that we have in this country, and this contentious movement that’s becoming more hostile and more aggressive, it seems, by the day. And Patriot Front is right in the middle of that.” More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Experts warn of increased risk of US terror attacks by rightwing ‘lone wolf’ actors

      by

      The US is at an increased risk of domestic terror attacks by rightwing “lone wolf” actors, experts have warned, as inflammatory Republican rhetoric around a variety of issues seems likely to continue ahead of the 2024 election.The number of attacks by adherents to rightwing ideology has soared since 2016, as Republican lies about election interference, and escalating rhetoric from the right about minority groups, have served to “provide mechanisms” for individuals to become radicalized, an analyst said.As the threat of domestic rightwing terrorism rises, researchers say individuals, rather than organized groups, are now far more likely to commit what analysts call “crimes inspired by extremist ideology”.There have been a series of such attacks in recent years. In May 2022 a white supremacist killed 10 Black people at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo, New York. The attacker said he had chosen the location because it was in a predominantly Black neighborhood. He was sentenced to life in prison earlier this year.A self-described white nationalist killed 23 people and injured 22 in a shooting in El Paso, on the border of Mexico and the US, in 2019, in an anti-immigration attack targeting Hispanic people.In recent years a white supremacist killed nine people at a Black church in Charleston, while just this week a man was arrested after he crashed a rented truck into bollards near the White House. The man subsequently praised Adolf Hitler to investigators and said he intended to “kill the president”, according to charging documents.​Michael Jensen, senior researcher at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (Start) at the University of Maryland, said 70% of individuals committing terrorist acts in the US are individuals, or part of “isolated cliques” – small groups of three to four people.“That said, these individuals might be lone actors, but they’re not lonely actors,” Jensen said.“They are embedded in these online ecosystems where they are exchanging ideas with each other all day every day.”Jensen leads the Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (Pirus) project, a database tracking how US extremists came to be radicalized.According to the data, 90% of the cases of US terrorists are classed as domestic. Of the domestic extremists, 95% are far-right, Jensen said: white supremacists, Proud Boys, anti-immigrant groups and anti-government groups.There has been a worrying increase in the number of attacks. Prior to 2016, Jensen and his team logged about 150 individuals a year who were “committing crimes inspired by extremist ideology”.Since 2016, the number of people committing such crimes has jumped to about 300-350 cases a year, Jensen said – not including a huge spike in 2021 as a result of the January 6 insurrection.As the number of incidents have risen, there have been changes in how people come to rightwing terrorism.“Before the internet and before social media, how an individual was likely to radicalize is that it was going to be through a face-to-face relationship that they had in the physical world,” Jensen said.“So they had a cousin that was involved in a skinhead gang and they recruited them, or there was a group active in their neighborhood and they saw a flyer and took an interest in it.“It was a much more labor intensive process to get people involved.”With the advent of social media, white supremacist ideas and groups are available “at the click of a button”, Jensen said. Individuals have a much easier path to becoming radicalized.At the same time, the threat of rightwing terrorism has been exacerbated by the normalizing of political violence, or violent rhetoric, by elected officials and media personalities. Prominent figures can provide a gateway for people to commit violence when they demonize immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, or indulge conspiracies like the great replacement theory, Jensen said.“They get this disinformation and conspiracy theories that are a bit more watered down: does not make calls to violence, but they provide the mechanisms for people to follow that narrative to the places where they will encounter that rhetoric.”Susan Corke, Intelligence Project Director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the far right has been “increasingly mobilized since the beginning of the Trump era”.“Currently, the level of mobilization, coordination and sustained focus of the far right’s anti-LGBTQ+, particularly anti-trans, is much worse.“The past year saw unprecedented violence against transgender and gender-nonconforming people, and the most frequent victims were women of color, especially black transgender women,” Corke said.Corke said terror attacks by individuals should be seen within the wider context of hate-filled rhetoric and extremist platforms.“While a shooter or someone who takes violent action may act on their own, I would say that they are not solo actors,” she said.“People do not ‘self-radicalize’ – they exist within social and political structures that perpetuate these ideas, often through deliberate disinformation and active recruitment from groups espousing hateful ideologies.”Corke said the way to combat and prevent rightwing terrorism is to educate young people and work towards early intervention.“Communities and governments need to adopt a public health approach to preventing extremism by engaging communities, mental health experts, social workers and, especially, people involved in the day-to-day lives of young people,” she said.In 2021 a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – the head of the US Intelligence Community – warned that racially motivated extremists posed the most lethal domestic terrorism threat. It echoed post-January 6 warnings from Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, that the threat from domestic violent extremism was “metastasizing” across the country.But despite the FBI and US intelligence pronouncements, a major problem with combating rightwing terrorism is that law enforcement does not adequately track of instances of violence, said Michael German, a former FBI special agent infiltrated white supremacy groups in the 1990s who now works at the Brennan Center for Justice.“The FBI doesn’t know how many people white supremacists killed last year in the United States. They don’t collect that information,” German said.When attacks by white supremacists do happen, “they often get parsed in a way that minimizes them,” he said. White supremacist violence is frequently recorded under the category of gang violence, rather than domestic terrorism, while attacks conducted by individuals who have far-right beliefs are frequently classified as hate crimes – outside of the domestic terrorism umbrella.“You would think that if the FBI and the justice department had a real interest in significantly suppressing this type of crime, they would at least count them,” German said.German said a significant change from the time he spent undercover to investigating neo-Nazi organizations in the 1990s to the modern environment is the language elected officials use to talk about certain groups.“Back in the 90s there were Republicans who used dog whistle politics, they used phrases and arguments that the far-right militant crowd understood as speaking to them about their issues,” German said.“Now you see sitting politicians who exalt in violence, and call for more of it and call for exonerating the people who committed violence because they committed violence in furtherance of their political cause.”That’s the kind of rhetoric that led to the January 6 insurrection, German said – and could continue to cause problems in the future.“If the government is saying: ‘Do it, and do it for me, and I’ll pardon you, or I’ll pay your legal bills, which are things that are said today. Then it’s easier [for members of the far right] to say: ‘Okay, this is this is authorized.’“That’s how you get 10,000 people attacking the US Capitol.” More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Oath Keeper sentenced to eight and a half years for role in Capitol attack

      by

      A member of the far-right Oath Keepers on Friday was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison for her role in the deadly 6 January 2021 assault on the US Capitol by extremist supporters of Donald Trump who tried to overturn Joe Biden’s presidential election victory over the Republican.Jessica Watkins was convicted in November by a federal jury in Washington of obstruction of an official proceeding for her role in the storming of the Capitol, which saw rioters battle police, smash windows and send lawmakers running for their lives.Watkins was also convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of officers during the riots.The US district judge Amit Mehta on Friday said it was “particularly hard” to issue a sentence for Watkins after she testified during trial about the struggles she faced with her transgender identity and her cooperation with law enforcement officials during their investigation of her conduct on January 6.But he said that “doesn’t wipe out” what she did during the attack. “Your role that day was more aggressive, more assaultive, more purposeful than perhaps others,” Mehta said.Kenneth Harrelson, another Oath Keeper convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding, was also found guilty of conspiring to prevent members of Congress from certifying Biden’s election win as well as tampering with documents and proceedings. He will be sentenced later on Friday.Watkins and Harrelson were acquitted of seditious conspiracy charges.Watkins told the judge: “My actions and my behavior that fateful day were wrong and, as I now understand, criminal,” she said.Friday’s court proceedings were taking place one day after Mehta sentenced the Oath Keepers’ founder, Stewart Rhodes, to 18 years in prison for crimes including seditious conspiracy, or using force to try to overthrow the federal government. That is the steepest penalty yet against those charged in the January 6 violence.Members of the Oath Keepers, founded by Rhodes in 2009, include current and retired US military personnel, law enforcement officers and first responders. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Far-right Oath Keepers founder sentenced to 18 years over January 6 attack

      by

      Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, was sentenced on Thursday to 18 years in prison, after being convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the January 6 attack on Congress.Prosecutors sought a 25-year term. Lawyers for Rhodes said he should be sentenced to time served, since his arrest in January 2022.Before handing down the sentence, the US district judge, Amit Mehta, told a defiant Rhodes he posed a continued threat to the US government, saying it was clear he “wants democracy in this country to devolve into violence”.“The moment you are released, whenever that may be, you will be ready to take up arms against your government,” Mehta said.Rhodes claimed the prosecution was politically motivated.“I’m a political prisoner and like President Trump my only crime is opposing those who are destroying our country,” he said.Rhodes also noted that he never went inside the Capitol on January 6 and insisted he never told anyone else to do so.But members of the Oath Keepers took an active role on 6 January 2021, when a mob incited by Donald Trump smashed its way into the Capitol, attempting to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election win.Prosecutors successfully made the case that Rhodes and his group prepared an armed rebellion, including stashing arms at a Virginia hotel, meant for quick transfer to Washington DC.Other members of the Oath Keepers, some convicted of seditious conspiracy, are due to be sentenced this week and next. Members of another far-right group, the Proud Boys, will face sentencing on similar convictions later this year.Nine deaths have been linked to the January 6 attack, including suicides among law enforcement. More than 1,000 arrests have been made and more than 500 convictions secured.In court filings in the Oath Keepers cases, prosecutors said: “The justice system’s reaction to January 6 bears the weighty responsibility of impacting whether January 6 becomes an outlier or a watershed moment.”Like all other forms of Trump’s attempted election subversion, the attack on Congress failed. In the aftermath, Trump was impeached for a second time, for inciting an insurrection. He was acquitted by Senate Republicans.Laying out Trump’s actions after the 2020 election, the House January 6 committee made four criminal referrals to the justice department. The former president still faces potential indictments in state and federal investigations of his election subversion and role in the attack on Congress. Nonetheless, he remains the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination next year.At Thursday’s hearing, speaking for the prosecution, the assistant US attorney Kathryn Rakoczy pointed to interviews and speeches Rhodes has given from jail repeating Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen and saying the 2024 election would be stolen too.In remarks just days ago, Rhodes called for “regime change”, Rakoczy said.People “across the political spectrum” want to believe January 6 was an “outlier”, Rakoczy said. “Not defendant Rhodes.”A defense lawyer, Phillip Linder, denied Rhodes gave orders for Oath Keepers to enter the Capitol on January 6. But he told the judge Rhodes could have had many more Oath Keepers come to the Capitol “if he really wanted” to disrupt certification of the electoral college vote.In a first for a January 6 case, Judge Mehta agreed with prosecutors to apply enhanced penalties for “terrorism” under the argument that the Oath Keepers sought to influence the government through “intimidation or coercion”.Judges in previous sentencings had shot down the justice department request for the so-called “terrorism enhancement”, which can lead to a longer prison term, but Mehta said it fitted Rhodes’s case.“Mr Rhodes directed his co-conspirators to come to the Capitol and they abided,” the judge said.Asked if Mehta’s acceptance of the enhancement boded ill for others found guilty of seditious conspiracy, Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, Virginia, said prosecutors “argued that the judge should apply the enhancement because the ‘need to deter others is especially strong because these defendants engaged in acts that were intended to influence the government through intimidation or coercion – in other words, terrorism’.“The judge then stated, ‘It’s hard to say it doesn’t apply when someone is convicted of seditious conspiracy.’“Mehta apparently accepted that argument in imposing the sentence today and may well apply it to others who have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, as he has heard the evidence presented.” More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      What is going on with Elon Musk and Ron DeSantis? | Robert Reich

      by

      The real significance of Ron DeSantis’s presidential announcement on Twitter had little to do with DeSantis but everything to do with Musk.It’s that Twitter, under Musk, has fully embraced the political right.Why is Musk doing this? He acts as if he wants to be the darling of libertarian bros. But he’s really aiming to lead democracy’s foes.Musk wants to crush unions and declare the United States a free-to-make-as-much-as-you-can-on-the-backs-of-working-stiffs zone.He calls himself a “free speech absolutist”, but that’s utter bulltwat. He wants to elevate the speech of people like DeSantis but suppress the speech of workers who want to unionize.He’s even gone along with Turkey’s recent ban on anti-regime comments in the run-up to the Turkish election.DeSantis is not exactly a libertarian himself, of course – unless you define a libertarian as someone who bans books, forces women to give birth, threatens to take trans youth away from parents who approve of them getting gender-affirming care, prohibits teachers from mentioning gender identity or sexual orientation, bars teachers from talking about America’s history of racism, and wreaks vengeance even on Mickey Mouse for opposing his authoritarian policies.What unites Musk and DeSantis isn’t libertarianism at all. It’s authoritarianism.Twitter started to become a rightwing media hot spot when Musk lifted bans on thousands of accounts that had spread disinformation about the pandemic and the 2020 elections.More recently, Tucker Carlson has said he would revive his show on Twitter after losing his Fox News slot (Musk has denied that Twitter has signed a deal with Carlson).It’s also been reported that The Daily Wire, a rightwing, anti-democracy media outlet, will make Twitter the home for all its podcasts.Unquestionably, Twitter is benefiting from the dissatisfaction of the anti-democracy movement with Fox News. Musk can credibly claim to be outside the mainstream rightwing media world of Rupert Murdoch.But the reason Musk wants to be a force on the right is because he wants to be in control.That’s been his business MO since the start. It’s why he refused a seat on Twitter’s board and instead mounted a hostile takeover. It’s why he hates unions.And now Musk wants to control everything else. He wants to dominate the rightwing of American politics.Not content to be the (or among the) richest on the planet, not satisfied with taking over one of the biggest media machines in the world, Musk now wants to impose his will on America and the world directly.Remind you of any other billionaire? Say, the former guy?Musk said Tuesday he isn’t formally backing any Republican candidate. But he is backing Republicans. And you can bet his eye is focused like a laser on the biggest Republican of all.Right now, Musk wants to send Donald Trump a message that he – Musk – has the power to make life difficult for Trump if Trump so much as hints at making life difficult for Musk.Musk knows that the best way to deal with a bully is to bully him. Show him you are even bigger than he is. Have more billions of dollars than he does. Have more millions of Twitter followers than he does.And show him you have power over him by helping Republicans who are opposing him.Which is why Musk is helping DeSantis. And why, earlier this week, Musk retweeted a campaign kickoff video for Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.Musk is only 51. Trump is 77. Trump may be the next president, but Musk will outlast him.The US constitution bars Musk from becoming president, as he was born in Pretoria, South Africa. But there’s no end to the power he can wield over America and the world in coming decades.And make no mistake. Musk plans to wield it.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Oath Keepers to receive first seditious conspiracy sentences for January 6

      by

      The founder of the Oath Keepers militia, Stewart Rhodes, and members of his anti-government group will be the first January 6 defendants sentenced for seditious conspiracy in hearings beginning this week and expected to set the standard for punishments to follow.Prosecutors will urge the judge on Thursday to put Rhodes behind bars for 25 years, which would be the harshest sentence by far handed down over the US Capitol attack.Describing the Oath Keepers’ actions as “terrorism”, the justice department says stiff punishments are crucial.“The justice system’s reaction to January 6 bears the weighty responsibility of impacting whether January 6 becomes an outlier or a watershed moment,” prosecutors wrote this month.The hearings will begin on Wednesday with lawyers expected to argue over legal issues and the start of victim impact statements being read.Rhodes, from Granbury, Texas, and the Florida chapter leader Kelly Meggs – who were convicted of seditious conspiracy in November – will receive their sentences on Thursday. Six more Oath Keepers will be sentenced this week and next.Rhodes and Meggs were the first people in nearly three decades to be found guilty at trial of seditious conspiracy for what prosecutors described as a plot to stop the transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Three co-defendants were acquitted of sedition but convicted of obstructing certification of Biden’s victory. Another four Oath Keepers were convicted of sedition in January.Prosecutors are seeking sentences ranging from 10 to 21 years for the Oath Keepers besides Rhodes. The judge canceled sentencing scheduled this week for one defendant, Thomas Caldwell of Berryville, Virginia, as he weighs whether to overturn a guilty verdict on two charges.Prosecutors are urging the judge to apply enhanced penalties for terrorism, arguing the Oath Keepers sought to influence the government through “intimidation or coercion”. Judges have so far rejected a request to apply the so-called “terrorism enhancement” in a handful of January 6 cases but the Oath Keepers case is unlike any others that have reached sentencing.“The defendants were not mere trespassers or rioters, and they are not comparable to any other defendant who has been convicted for a role in the attack on the Capitol,” prosecutors wrote.More than 1,000 people have been charged with crimes stemming from the riot. Just over 500 have been sentenced, more than half receiving terms of imprisonment ranging from a week to more than 14 years. The longest sentence came earlier this month, for a man with a long criminal record who attacked police with pepper spray and a chair.The sentences for the Oath Keepers may signal how much time prosecutors will seek for leaders of the Proud Boys convicted of seditious conspiracy this month. They include the former national chairman Enrique Tarrio, perhaps the most high-profile person charged. The Proud Boys are scheduled to be sentenced in August and September.Prosecutors made the case that Rhodes and his followers prepared an armed rebellion to keep Biden out of the White House. Over seven weeks, jurors heard how Rhodes rallied followers to fight to defend Trump, discussed the prospect of a “bloody” civil war and warned the Oath Keepers may have to “rise up in insurrection”.Jurors watched video of Rhodes’s followers wearing combat gear and shouldering through the crowd in military-style stack formation before forcing their way into the Capitol. They saw surveillance video at a Virginia hotel where prosecutors said Oath Keepers stashed weapons for “quick reaction force” teams which never deployed.Rhodes, who did not go inside the Capitol, told jurors there was never any plan to attack the Capitol and his followers who did went rogue. His lawyers urged the judge to sentence him to roughly 16 months already served. Attorneys argued that Rhodes’s writings and statements are “protected political speech”. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      DC officer leaked information to Proud Boys leader, indictment alleges

      by

      A Washington DC police officer was arrested on Friday on charges that he lied about leaking confidential information to Proud Boys extremist group leader Enrique Tarrio and obstructed an investigation after group members destroyed a Black Lives Matter banner in the nation’s capital.An indictment alleges that Metropolitan police department lieutenant Shane Lamond, 47, of Stafford, Virginia, warned Tarrio, then national chairman of the far-right group, that law enforcement had an arrest warrant for him related to the banner’s destruction.Tarrio was arrested in Washington two days before Proud Boys members joined the mob in storming the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Earlier this month, Tarrio and three other leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy charges for what prosecutors said was a plot to keep the then president, Donald Trump, in the White House after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.A federal grand jury in Washington indicted Lamond on one count of obstruction of justice and three counts of making false statements.The indictment accuses Lamond of lying to and misleading federal investigators.Lamond is expected in court on Friday and is on administrative leave.Lamond, who supervised the intelligence branch of the police department’s Homeland Security Bureau, was responsible for monitoring groups like the Proud Boys.His attorney, Mark Schamel, didn’t immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment.Schamel has previously said that Lamond’s job was to communicate with a variety of groups protesting in Washington, and his conduct with Tarrio was never inappropriate and said his client “doesn’t share any of the indefensible positions” of extremist groups.The Metropolitan police department said it would do an internal review after the federal case against Lamond is resolved.Lamond’s name repeatedly came up in the Capitol riot trial of Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders.Messages introduced at Tarrio’s trial appeared to show a close rapport between the two men, with Lamond texting “hey brother”.Tarrio’s lawyers had wanted to call Lamond as a witness, but were stymied by the investigation into Lamond.Lamond used the Telegram messaging platform to give Tarrio information about law enforcement activity around July 2020, according to prosecutors.In December 2020, Lamond told Tarrio about where competing antifascist activists were expected to be.Jurors who convicted Tarrio heard testimony that Lamond frequently provided the Proud Boys leader with internal information about law enforcement operations before Proud Boys stormed the Capitol. More