US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Federal investigators arrive at Mike Pence’s Indiana home – live

      by

      Mike Pence is weighting a response to a subpoena he received related to January 6, ABC News first reported.Jack Smith was appointed in 2020 to lead the January 6 investigation. Smith is also leading a separate inquiry into classified documents that were found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.The issued subpoena related to January 6 is viewed by many as an escalation in the investigation on Trump and his allies’ efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The subpoena was reported by at least two people on the matter, both who spoke on the condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to discuss investigation proceedings publicly.It is unclear if Pence will attempt to resist the subpoena or invoke executive privilege, which could trigger a lengthy legal battle, reported ABC.The subpoena came after months of negotiation between Pence’s team and the Department of Justice, suggesting to many that negotiations had reached a breaking point.We know that the subpoena issued after months of negotiation b/t Pence team and DOJ. So eventually Smith just said screw it, see you at the Grand Jury or in court. Compare Mueller and his timidity with subpoenaing Trump, which he never did.— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) February 10, 2023
      Federal investigators have arrived at the Indiana home of Pence, blocking off his driveway.Carmel Police have blocked off the driveway to the home of former Vice President Mike Pence. @Mike_Pence We have been reporting the FBI was expected to search his home this week for any other classified documents. He turned over about a dozen already. @FOX59— Angela Ganote (@angelaganote) February 10, 2023
      It is unclear what this is related to, but an FBI search of his home was expected in relation to other classified documents.More on this as the situation develops.Meanwhile, a number of investigations related to Trump are underway.Trump faces probes into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago residence.Trump also could soon face criminal charges in Georgia related to interfering with the 2020 election, with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis saying on Monday that her decision is “imminent” on whether to indict Trump, reported Bloomberg.Here’s more on Willis’ decision to pursue criminal charges and its potential impact from Bloomberg..css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}That decision will have a ripple effect on the Justice Department’s special counsel probe and other investigations circling Trump.
      If Willis goes first, that case would road-test possible testimony, helping to determine what evidence holds up in court and providing a blueprint for prosecutions involving other battleground states where Trump and his supporters tried to undermine President Joe Biden’s win.
      Legal experts say nothing stops a US special counsel overseeing the federal Trump probe from pursuing similar charges at the federal level, regardless of what Willis ultimately does.Read the full article here (paywall).Pence faces limited options on how to respond to a subpoena issued in relation to January 6 but may evoke executive privilege, experts say.CNN reported that Pence’s team may choose to argue that at least some of the sought testimony is covered by executive privilege:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Pence’s attorney Emmet Flood is known as a hawk on executive privilege, and people familiar with the discussions have said Pence was expected to claim at least some limits on providing details of his direct conversations with Trump. Depending on his responses, prosecutors have the option to ask a judge to compel him to answer additional questions and override Trump’s executive privilege claims.But others have pointed out that Pence has already divulged privileged information in his book, “So Help Me God”.From the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell:On the VP Pence subpoena: worth noting that he pierced what would have otherwise been executive privileged when he discussed key moments with Trump in his book — including Dec. 19 chat about Jan. 6 rally, Jan. 5 chat with Eastman, Jan. 6 call with Trump— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) February 10, 2023
      Notable that VP Pence made public privileged material with Trump in his book some of the key moments right before Jan. 6 — but also notable what he mostly left out, including details about the Dec. 21 WH meeting with Trump and GOP members about plans for stopping certification— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) February 10, 2023
      Read the full article here.Mike Pence is weighting a response to a subpoena he received related to January 6, ABC News first reported.Jack Smith was appointed in 2020 to lead the January 6 investigation. Smith is also leading a separate inquiry into classified documents that were found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.The issued subpoena related to January 6 is viewed by many as an escalation in the investigation on Trump and his allies’ efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The subpoena was reported by at least two people on the matter, both who spoke on the condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to discuss investigation proceedings publicly.It is unclear if Pence will attempt to resist the subpoena or invoke executive privilege, which could trigger a lengthy legal battle, reported ABC.The subpoena came after months of negotiation between Pence’s team and the Department of Justice, suggesting to many that negotiations had reached a breaking point.We know that the subpoena issued after months of negotiation b/t Pence team and DOJ. So eventually Smith just said screw it, see you at the Grand Jury or in court. Compare Mueller and his timidity with subpoenaing Trump, which he never did.— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) February 10, 2023
      Good morning!Former vice-president Mike Pence is weighting his response to a subpoena he received related to an investigation into the January 6 insurrection and Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a person familiar with the matter.Jack Smith, the special counsel in charge of the January 6 investigation, is also leading a separate inquiry into classified documents that were found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.But an unnamed person reports that Pence’s subpoena is related to 6 January and follows months of discussion between Pence and the Department of Justice, ABC first reported.The individual spoke on the condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.Here’s what else is happening today:
      Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will host US governors at the White House this morning. The governors are joining for the annual National Governors Association meeting, where the president will revisit economic initiatives from Thursday’s State of the Union address.
      The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, is due to brief at 1.30pm eastern time.
      Biden will meet with Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, at 3.30 pm. The meeting comes as Brazil attempts to revive US-Brazil relations after the presidency of rightwinger Jair Bolsonaro. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 rioter with Confederate flag sentenced to three years

      by

      January 6 rioter with Confederate flag sentenced to three yearsKevin Seffried threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate flag during the Capitol attack A Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the US Capitol was sentenced on Thursday to three years in prison.Kevin Seefried, 53, tearfully apologized for his participation in the 6 January 2021 riot before US district judge Trevor McFadden sentenced him.“I never wanted to send a message of hate,” Seefried said.McFadden said it was deeply troubling that Seefried wielded the flagpole as a weapon against the officer. “Bringing a Confederate flag into one of our nation’s most sacred halls was outrageous,” the judge said.McFadden allowed Seefried to remain free until he must report to prison at a date to be determined.Justice Department prosecutors had recommended a prison sentence of five years and 10 months for Seefried, a drywall mechanic from Laurel, Delaware.Seefried and his adult son, Hunter, stormed the Capitol together after attending the “Stop the Steal” rally, where then President Donald Trump addressed thousands of supporters in Washington. Kevin Seefried was the 12th rioter to set foot inside the building that day, according to prosecutors.In October, McFadden sentenced Hunter Seefried to two years of imprisonment.Widely published photographs showed Kevin Seefried carrying his Confederate flag inside the Capitol after he and his son, then 22, entered the building through a broken window.Kevin Seefried told an FBI agent that he did not view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racist hate. FBI agents said they did not find any evidence linking him or his son to any far-right extremist groups.Seefried is embarrassed and ashamed that many may view him as a racist, his lawyers said in a court filing.“He had brought the flag as a symbol of protest, but had not considered the logic of those who see the flag as a symbol of American racism,” they wrote. “Now that photos of him with the flag have become iconic symbols of the horror of January 6, Mr. Seefried completely understands the harm he has caused.”Within a minute of entering the building, Kevin Seefried jabbed his flagpole at Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman and joined other rioters in chasing the officer up a flight of stairs, a harrowing scene captured on video. Seefried was the first rioter to encounter Goodman near the base of the staircase, prosecutors said.Goodman, who testified at the Seefrieds’ trial, said Seefried cursed at him and jabbed at him with the base of his flagpole three or four times without making contact. Goodman recalled that Seefried asked where members of Congress were counting the votes and said: “You can shoot me, man, but we’re coming in.”“That flagpole was not only a weapon capable of causing serious injury; a Confederate Battle flag was affixed to it and it was brandished by a man standing at the front of a volatile, growing mob towards a solitary, Black police officer,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.Goodman led rioters away from the Senate chamber as senators and then Vice-President Mike Pence were being evacuated. He also directed Senator Mitt Romney to turn around and head away from the mob.McFadden convicted the father and son of riot-related charges in June after hearing two days of trial testimony without a jury.Nearly 1,000 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the January 6 riot. More than 500 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors. Approximately 400 have been sentenced, with over half getting terms of imprisonment ranging from seven days to 10 years.TopicsUS Capitol attackLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge who told Pence not to overturn election predicts ‘beginning of end of Trump’

      by

      Judge who told Pence not to overturn election predicts ‘beginning of end of Trump’‘What Trump has done is quite arguably the worst crime against the US that a president could commit,’ says J Michael Luttig The conservative judge who convinced Mike Pence he could not overturn the 2020 election has predicted “the beginning of the end of Donald Trump” – the former president who incited the January 6 insurrection but is now trying to return to the White House.Trump pleads the fifth more than 400 times in fraud deposition, video showsRead moreSpeaking to the Washington Post, J Michael Luttig also made a common comparison to another notorious former president, Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal.“What Nixon did was just an ordinary crime,” Luttig said, referring to the cover-up of a break-in at Democratic headquarters. “What Trump has done is quite arguably the worst crime against the United States that a president could commit.”Luttig was a staffer for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, who put him on the federal bench in 1991. Now 68, he is a retired conservative jurist widely deemed unlucky not to have made the supreme court. He came to national attention last June, when he appeared before the House January 6 committee.In a televised hearing, using precise and powerful words, Luttig explained why on 4 January 2021 he told Pence he could not do as Trump wished and block certification of Joe Biden’s election win, an argument Luttig also published on Twitter.Luttig went on to paint a stark picture of America “at war against herself” and warned that a year and a half after the deadly Capitol riot, Trump and his supporters still posed “a clear and present danger to American democracy”.Another six months on, Trump is in legal jeopardy amid investigations of his election subversion, his financial and campaign finance affairs and his retention of classified records, and a lawsuit brought by a writer who says he raped her, an allegation Trump denies.But Trump is still the only declared major candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, dominating polls of the notional field.In a lengthy profile published by the Post on Tuesday, Luttig said he had seen “ample evidence” of criminal activity and believed Trump would be indicted. He also cautioned that any decision about indicting the former president should consider how it might “split the nation”, given the inevitable “spectacle” of Trump’s fight to beat any charges.But the Post said Luttig also thought Trump’s political future had been “dealt triple blows … by his recent assertion that parts of the constitution should be ‘terminated’ to return him to office, the criminal referrals by the January 6 committee and the failure of his favored candidates in the 2022 midterm elections”.Donald Trump sues Bob Woodward over The Trump Tapes for $50mRead moreTrump made his remark about the constitution in a social media post in December. The Biden White House rebuked him for remarks it said were “anathema to the soul of our nation”.The January 6 committee made four criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. The justice department investigation of Trump’s election subversion and incitement of the Capitol attack continues.High-profile Trump candidates were beaten at the polls in November, costing Republicans control of the Senate and, arguably, a healthier House majority.Luttig, the Post said, saw in the cumulative effect of such factors “the beginning of the end of Donald Trump”. But he added that Trump had not yet been stopped, and it might be down to the courts to do so.“Donald Trump has proven that the only thing that can stop him is the law,” Luttig warned.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackMike PenceUS politicsUS elections 2020US elections 2024newsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Donald Trump’s return to Facebook could mark a rocky new age for online discourse

      by

      Why Donald Trump’s return to Facebook could mark a rocky new age for online discourseThe former president was banned from Instagram and Facebook following the Jan 6 attacks, but Meta argues that new ‘guardrails’ will keep his behaviour in check. Plus: is a chatbot coming for your job?

      Don’t get TechScape delivered to your inbox? Sign up for the full article here
      It’s been two years since Donald Trump was banned from Meta, but now he’s back. The company’s justification for allowing the former president to return to Facebook and Instagram – that the threat has subsided – seems to ignore that in the two years since the ban Trump hasn’t changed, it’s just that his reach has reduced.Last week, Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, announced that soon Trump will be able to post on Instagram and Facebook. The company said “the risk has sufficiently receded” in the two years since the Capitol riots on 6 January 2021 to allow the ban to be lifted.What you might not have been aware of – except through media reports – was Trump’s response. That is because the former US president posted it on Truth Social, his own social media network that he retreated to after he was banned from the others. And it is effectively behind a wall for web users, because the company is not accepting new registrations. On that platform, Trump is said to have fewer than 5 million followers, compared to 34 million and almost 88 million he’d had on Facebook and Twitter respectively.Meta’s ban meant that Trump wouldn’t have space on its platforms during the US midterms elections in 2022, but would anything have been different if Trump had been given a larger audience? As Dan Milmo has detailed, almost half of the posts on Trump’s Truth Social account in the weeks after the midterms pushed election fraud claims or amplified QAnon accounts or content. But you wouldn’t know it unless you were on that platform, or reading a news report about it like this one.If given a larger audience, will Trump resume his Main Character role in online discourse (a role that Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, has gamely taken on in the past few months)? Or has his influence diminished? This is the gamble Meta is taking.When Musk lifted Trump’s ban on Twitter in November after a user poll won by a slim margin, it was easy to read the former president’s snub of the gesture as a burn on the tech CEO. But it seems increasingly likely that the Meta decision about whether to reinstate him was looming large in Trump’s mind. Earlier this month, NBC reported that Trump’s advisors had sent a letter to Meta pleading for the ban to be lifted, saying it “dramatically distorted and inhibited the public discourse”. If Trump had gone back to Twitter and started reposting what he had posted on Truth Social, there would have been more pressure on Meta to keep the ban in place (leaving aside the agreement Trump has with his own social media company that keeps his posts exclusive on Truth Social for several hours).Twitter lifting the ban and Trump not tweeting at all gave Meta sufficient cover.The financialsThere’s also the possible financial reasoning. Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters for America, said Facebook is “a dying platform” and restoring Trump is about clinging to relevance and revenue.For months, Trump has been posting on Truth Social about how poorly Meta is performing financially, and in part trying to link it to him no longer being on Facebook. Meta has lost more than US$80bn in market value, and last year sacked thousands of workers as the company aimed to stem a declining user base and loss of revenue after Apple made privacy changes on its software (£).But what of the ‘guardrails’?Meta’s justification for restoring Trump’s account is that there are new “guardrails” that could result in him being banned again for the most egregious policy breaches for between one month and two years. But that is likely only going to be for the most serious of breaches – such as glorifying those committing violence. Clegg indicated that if Trump is posting QAnon-adjacent content, for example, his reach will be limited on those posts.The ban itself was a pretty sufficient reach limiter, but we will have to see what happens if Trump starts posting again. The unpublished draft document from staff on the January 6 committee, reported by the Washington Post last week, was pretty telling about Meta, and social media companies generally. It states that both Facebook and Twitter, under its former management, were sensitive to claims that conservative political speech was being suppressed. “Fear of reprisal and accusations of censorship from the political right compromised policy, process, and decision-making. This was especially true at Facebook,” the document states.“In one instance, senior leadership intervened personally to prevent rightwing publishers from having their content demoted after receiving too many strikes from independent fact-checkers.“After the election, they debated whether they should change their fact-checking policy on former world leaders to accommodate President Trump.”Those “guardrails” don’t seem particularly reassuring, do they?Is AI really coming for your job?Layoffs continue to hit media and companies are looking to cut costs. So it was disheartening for new reporters in particular to learn that BuzzFeed plans to use AI such as ChatGPT “to create content instead of writers”.(Full disclosure: I worked at BuzzFeed News prior to joining the Guardian in 2019, but it’s been long enough that I am not familiar with any of its thinking about AI.)But perhaps it’s a bit too early to despair. Anyone who has used free AI to produce writing will know it’s OK but not great, so the concern about BuzzFeed dipping its toes in those waters seems to be overstated – at least for now.In an interview with Semafor, BuzzFeed tech reporter Katie Notopoulos explained that the tools aren’t intended to replace the quiz-creation work writers do now, but to create new quizzes unlike what is already around. “On the one hand,” she said, “I want to try to explain this isn’t an evil plan to replace me with AI. But on the other … maybe let Wall Street believe that for a little while.”That seems to be where AI is now: not a replacement for a skilled person, just a tool.The wider TechScape
      This is the first really good in-depth look at the last few months of Twitter since Elon Musk took over.
      Social media users are posting feelgood footage of strangers to build a following, but not every subject appreciates the clickbaity attention of these so-called #kindness videos.
      If you’re an influencer in Australia and you’re not declaring your sponcon properly, you might be targeted as part of a review by the local regulator.
      Speaking of influencers, Time has a good explanation for why you might have seen people posting about mascara on TikTok in the past few days.
      Writer Jason Okundaye makes the case that it’s time for people to stop filming strangers in public and uploading the videos online in the hope of going viral.
      Nintendo rereleasing GoldenEye007 this week is a reminder of how much the N64 game shaped video games back in the day.
      TopicsTechnologyTechScapeSocial mediaDonald TrumpDigital mediaMetaFacebookInstagramnewslettersReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol rioter who assaulted Brian Sicknick gets near-seven year sentence

      by

      Capitol rioter who assaulted Brian Sicknick gets near-seven year sentence Julian Khater pleaded guilty to using chemical spray to attack the Capitol police officer who died on 7 January A man who admitted using chemical spray to assault Brian Sicknick on January 6, a day before the Capitol police officer died, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison in a Washington court on Friday.US jury convicts man pictured with feet on Pelosi’s desk during Capitol attackRead moreJulian Khater, 33, from Pennsylvania, was also fined $10,000.The judge, Thomas F Hogan, told Khater: “There are officers who lost their lives, there’s officers who committed suicide after this, there’s officers who can’t go back to work. Your actions … are inexcusable.”Sicknick’s death, at 42, is one of nine now linked to the attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021 by supporters of Donald Trump attempting to block certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.Later that month, Sicknick’s body lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda. Two months after that, the Washington DC medical examiner ruled that the officer died from natural causes after suffering two strokes.But in March 2022, Khater pleaded guilty to two counts of assaulting officers with a dangerous weapon. He faced a maximum sentence of 20 years. Prosecutors asked for seven and a half. Khater has already served 22 months of his 80-month tariff.A friend of Khater, George Tanios, 41 and from West Virginia, admitted buying bear deterrent and chemical spray and giving some to Khater. Charged with walking on restricted grounds at the Capitol, he faced six months in prison. He also faced sentencing on Friday.Nearly 1,000 people have been charged over the Capitol attack and more than 300 sentenced. The longest sentence yet, of 10 years, went to Thomas Webster, a retired police officer from New York who attacked officers with a flagpole.The House January 6 committee recommended four criminal charges against Trump, for inciting the riot. The Department of Justice has not acted.Sicknick’s partner, Sandra Garza, has filed a $10m wrongful death lawsuit against Khater, Tanios and Trump.In court filings before sentencing, the assistant US attorney Gilead Light said Khater was “visibly incensed” at the Capitol on January 6, and used pepper spray against police for half a minute.“Khater’s tone of voice and his facial expressions … betray his emotion, his anger and his loss of control,” Gilead said. “He [was] incensed at having been personally sprayed by police chemical spray while standing on the front line of a riot, as if he had been an innocent victim.”Attorneys for Khater sought to blame Trump, writing: “A climate of mass hysteria, fueled by the dissemination of misinformation about the 2020 election, originating at the highest level, gave rise to a visceral powder keg waiting to ignited.”But Gladys Sicknick, the officer’s mother, said Khater was “centre stage in our recurring nightmare” and “the reason Brian is dead”.“Lawlessness, misplaced loyalty and hate killed my son,” she said. “I hope you are haunted by your crimes behind bars. Whatever jail time you receive is not enough.”In court on Friday, as around 50 uniformed Capitol police officers looked on, Khater said he wished he “could take it all back”. Rebuked by the judge for not apologising to any officer he assaulted, he said he had been advised not to do so, due to the wrongful death lawsuit.Officer Sicknick’s brother, Kenneth Sicknick, said that when Khater was released, he would “still be younger than Brian was when he died”.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS crimeWashington DCnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Facebook and Instagram ban to be lifted, Meta announces

      by

      Trump’s Facebook and Instagram ban to be lifted, Meta announcesEx-president to be allowed back ‘in coming weeks … with new guardrails in place’ after ban that followed January 6 attack In a highly anticipated decision, Meta has said it will allow Donald Trump back on Facebook and Instagram following a two-year ban from the platforms over his online behavior during the 6 January insurrection.Meta will allow Trump to return “in coming weeks” but “with new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses”, Meta’s president of global affairs Nick Clegg wrote in a blogpost explaining the decision.Two more papers found in Trump’s storage last year were marked secretRead more“Like any other Facebook or Instagram user, Mr Trump is subject to our community standards,” Clegg wrote.“In the event that Mr Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation.”Trump was removed from Meta platforms following the Capitol riots on 6 January 2021, during which he posted unsubstantiated claims that the election had been stolen, praised increasingly violent protestors and condemned former vice-president Mike Pence even as the mob threatened his life.Clegg said the suspension was “an extraordinary decision taken in extraordinary circumstances” and that Meta has weighed “whether there remain such extraordinary circumstances that extending the suspension beyond the original two-year period is justified”.Ultimately, the company has decided that its platforms should be available for “open, public and democratic debate” and that users “should be able to hear from a former President of the United States, and a declared candidate for that office again”, he wrote.“The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying – the good, the bad and the ugly – so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box,” he said.As a general rule, we don’t want to get in the way of open debate on our platforms, esp in context of democratic elections. People should be able to hear what politicians are saying – good, bad & ugly – to make informed choices at the ballot box. 1/4— Nick Clegg (@nickclegg) January 25, 2023
      While it is unclear if the former president will begin posting again on the platform, his campaign indicated he had a desire to return in a letter sent to Meta in January.“We believe that the ban on President Trump’s account on Facebook has dramatically distorted and inhibited the public discourse,” the letter said.Safety concerns and a politicized debateThe move is likely to influence how other social media companies will handle the thorny balance of free speech and content moderation when it comes to world leaders and other newsworthy individuals, a debate made all the more urgent by Trump’s run for the US presidency once again.Online safety advocates have warned that Trump’s return will result in an increase of misinformation and real-life violence. Since being removed from Meta-owned platforms, the former president has continued to promote baseless conspiracy theories elsewhere, predominantly on his own network, Truth Social.While widely expected, it still drew sharp rebukes from civil rights advocates. “Facebook has policies but they under-enforce them,” said Laura Murphy, an attorney who led a two-year long audit of Facebook concluding in 2020. “I worry about Facebook’s capacity to understand the real world harm that Trump poses: Facebook has been too slow to act.”The Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, Free Press and other groups also expressed concern on Wednesday over Facebook’s ability to prevent any future attacks on the democratic process, with Trump still repeating his false claim that he won the 2020 presidential election.“With the mass murders in Colorado or in Buffalo, you can see there is already a cauldron of extremism that is only intensified if Trump weighs in,” said Angelo Carusone, president and CEO of media watchdog Media Matters for America. “When Trump is given a platform, it ratchets up the temperature on a landscape that is already simmering – one that will put us on a path to increased violence.”After the 6 January riots, the former president was also banned from Twitter, Snapchat and YouTube. Some of those platforms have already allowed Trump to return. Twitter’s ban, while initially permanent, was later overruled by its new chief executive Elon Musk. YouTube has not shared a timeline on a decision to allow Trump to return. Trump remains banned from Snapchat. Meta, however, dragged out its ultimate decision. In 2021, CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained in a post Trump had been barred from the platforms for encouraging violence and that he would remain suspended until a peaceful transition of power could take place.While Zuckerberg did not initially offer a timeline on the ban, the company punted its decision about whether to remove him permanently to its oversight board: a group of appointed academics and former politicians meant to operate independently of Facebook’s corporate leadership. That group ruled in May 2021 that the penalties should not be “indeterminate”, but kicked the final ruling on Trump’s accounts back to Meta, suggesting it decide in six months – two years after the riots.The deadline was initially slated for 7 January, and reports from inside Meta suggested the company was intensely debating the decision. Clegg wrote in a 2021 blog post that Trump’s accounts would need to be strictly monitored in the event of his return.How the ‘guardrails’ could workAnnouncing the decision on Wednesday, Clegg said Meta’s “guardrails” would include taking action against content that does not directly violate their community standards but “contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6th, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon”.Meta “may limit the distribution of such posts, and for repeated instances, may temporarily restrict access to our advertising tools”, Clegg said, or “remove the re-share button” from posts.Trump pleads with Meta to restore Facebook accountRead moreTrump responded to the news with a short statement on Truth Social, reposted by others on Twitter, saying that “such a thing should never happen again to a sitting president” but did not indicate if or when he would return to the platform.It remains to be seen if he will actually begin posting again on the platforms where his accounts have been reinstated. While he initially suggested he would be “staying on Truth [Social]”, his own social media platform, recent reports said he was eager to return to Facebook, formally appealing Meta to reinstate his accounts. But weeks after returning to Twitter, Trump had yet to tweet again. Some have suggested the silence has been due to an exclusivity agreement he has with Truth Social.A report from Rolling Stone said Trump planned to begin tweeting again when the agreement, which requires him to post all news to the app six hours in advance of any other platform, expires in June. Trump has a far broader reach on mainstream social platforms compared to Truth Social, where he has just 5 million followers.Many online safety advocates have warned Trump’s return would be toxic, and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged Meta in a December letter to uphold the ban.Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat who previously chaired the House intelligence committee, criticized the decision to reinstate him.“Trump incited an insurrection,” Schiff wrote on Twitter. “Giving him back access to a social media platform to spread his lies and demagoguery is dangerous.”Trump’s account has remained online even after his ban, but he had been unable to publish new posts. Civil rights groups say that regardless of the former president’s future actions the Meta decision marks a dangerous precedent. “Whether he uses the platforms or not, a reinstatement by Meta sends a message that there are no real consequences even for inciting insurrection and a coup on their channels,” said a group of scholars, advocates and activists calling itself the Real Facebook Oversight Board in a statement. “Someone who has violated their terms of service repeatedly, spread disinformation on their platforms and fomented violence would be welcomed back.”Reuters contributed reportingTopicsDonald TrumpMetaFacebookInstagramUS politicsSocial networkingUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      US jury convicts man pictured with feet on Pelosi’s desk during Capitol attack

      by

      US jury convicts man pictured with feet on Pelosi’s desk during Capitol attackRichard Barnett was found guilty of felony obstruction of official proceedings, civil disorder and theft of government property A jury has convicted the man who invaded the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, with a mob of extremist Donald Trump supporters and was pictured with his foot up on a desk in then House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.Richard Barnett, from Gravette, Arkansas, was found guilty on all counts after the jury deliberated for about two hours on Monday, including felony obstruction of an official proceeding, civil disorder and theft of government property after he took an envelope from Pelosi’s desk.Barnett became infamous after pictures and video circulated of him lounging at a desk in Pelosi’s office during the riots.He spoke to a New York Times reporter shortly after storming Congress, where thin security was breached as hundreds charged the building following a rally where outgoing president Donald Trump encouraged the crowd to go to the Capitol in an attempt to overturn his election defeat to Joe Biden.Barnett recounted taking the envelope.“I didn’t steal it,” Barnett told the reporter. “I put a quarter [25c] on her desk, even though she ain’t fucking worth it, and I left her a note on her desk that says, ‘Nancy, Bigo [his nickname] was here, you bitch.’” He was arrested two days later.Bigo Barnett testified in his own defense. It was, at times, combative and there were some vulgarities. He directly addressed jurors during testimony.. with seeming attempts at humor & when seemingly caught in contradictionsJury returned guilty verdict with lightning speed— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) January 23, 2023
      Barnett testified in his own defense and directly addressed the jury, though evidently failing to persuade them of his innocence. He had outbursts in court, at one point shouting “it’s not fair” but was silent upon the announcement of the verdict on Monday.US district judge Christopher Cooper is scheduled to sentence Barnett on 3 May. The judge agreed to let him remain free on certain conditions until his sentencing.NEW: Capitol riot defendant Jacob Therres has just pleaded guilty to assaulting/resisting police. He admits throwing 4×4 wooden plank and striking officer in the head. And he admits deploying chemical spray. Estimated sentencing range: 6-7 years in prison pic.twitter.com/WjZCqaaSlW— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) January 23, 2023
      In another case, Jacob Therres, 25, of Fallston, Maryland, pleaded guilty to the felony charge of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers, using a dangerous weapon. He was arrested last November.Court documents declared that among multiple assaults on law enforcement officers on 6 January 2021, he sprayed chemicals and threw a long, heavy plank at a line of police officers outside the Capitol and the wood struck an officer’s head. Therres will be sentenced on 24 April.TopicsUS Capitol attackLaw (US)US politicsNancy PelosinewsReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Four Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy

      by

      Four Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracyMembers of anti-government militia found guilty for roles in January 6 attack at the US Capitol Four members of the Oath Keepers anti-government militia were convicted on Monday of seditious conspiracy relating to the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump, after the second major trial accusing far-right extremists of plotting to forcibly keep the former US president in power.The verdict against Joseph Hackett of Sarasota, Florida, Roberto Minuta of Prosper, Texas, David Moerschel of Punta Gorda, Florida, and Edward Vallejo of Phoenix, Arizona, came a few weeks after a different jury convicted the group’s leader, Stewart Rhodes, in the mob’s attack that delayed the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Republican Trump.Proud Boys on defensive at sedition trial haunted by absent TrumpRead moreThe convictions were another major victory for the Department of Justice, which is also trying to secure sedition verdicts against the former leader of the hard-right, violent, all-male nationalist group the Proud Boys and four associates. The trial against Enrique Tarrio and his lieutenants opened earlier this month in Washington DC and is expected to last several weeks.They are some of the most serious cases brought so far in the sweeping investigation into the Capitol attack, which continues to grow two years after the riot. The justice department has brought nearly 1,000 cases and the tally increases by the week.Defense attorneys sought to downplay violent messages as mere bluster and said the Oath Keepers came to Washington to provide security at events before the riot.They seized on prosecutors’ lack of evidence that the Oath Keepers had an explicit plan to storm the Capitol before January 6 and told jurors that the extremists who attacked the Capitol acted spontaneously like thousands of other rioters.Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers, whose members include current and retired military personnel, law enforcement officers and first responders, in 2009.Members have showed up, often heavily armed, at protests and political events including demonstrations following the May 2020 murder of George Floyd by a white police officer in Minneapolis.TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightUS crimenewsReuse this content More