US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Proud Boys on defensive at sedition trial haunted by absent Trump

      by

      Proud Boys on defensive at sedition trial haunted by absent TrumpFive leaders of the far-right group on trial for their role in the January 6 attack have tried to turn attention to the ex-president While federal prosecutors are casting the Capitol insurrection trial of five far-right Proud Boys leaders as an attempt to bring participants of an attack on US democracy to account, the members of the group are using the proceedings to ask one question even some of their opponents on the political left agree is valid.We Are Proud Boys review: chilling exposé illuminates Republicans’ fascist turnRead moreWhy have prosecutors so far only focused their energy on the supporters of Donald Trump who are accused of a coordinated invasion of the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the congressional certification of his defeat to Joe Biden in the previous year’s presidential election? Is it because they regard the former Republican president himself – who urged his supporters to “fight like hell” that deadly day – as too formidable and them as easier targets?Attorneys for the ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and four of his lieutenants have sought to ingrain that question in the minds of jurors chosen after a particularly turbulent selection process which began last month and gave way to opening arguments and witness testimony beginning 12 January.They do so even as the strategy has not proven effective in other cases where it has been suggested that it is really Trump who is culpable for the Capitol attack – not his less powerful sycophants and camp followers.Weeks after the seditious conspiracy convictions of two leaders of the Oath Keepers – another far-right group – in connection with the Capitol attack, prosecutors in the Proud Boys case have broadly asserted that Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean, Dominic Pezzola and Joseph Biggs mustered up a “fighting force” to halt Biden from ever assuming the presidency.Tarrio and his fellow self-described “western chauvinists” believed a Democratic Biden presidency would threaten the group’s very existence, therefore they engaged in seditious conspiracy, headed a mob that forced its way into the Capitol and tried to drive a stake through “the heart of our democracy”, prosecutor Jason McCullough contended.Tarrio and his four co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to their alleged roles in the attack, which has been linked to nine deaths, including the suicides of law enforcement officers who protected the Capitol and were left traumatized. An attorney for Rehl, Carmen Hernandez, has insisted that her client went to the nation’s capital on 6 January not to riot but to exercise his free speech rights in protest of Trump’s loss to Biden.Meanwhile, an attorney representing Tarrio, Sabino Jauregui, argued that his client and the others were simply on trial because “it’s too hard to blame Trump,” whose full-throated defense to any prosecution would be mounted by an “army of lawyers”.“It’s easier to blame … the Proud Boys,” Jauregui added, saying his client and his fellow co-defendants were mere “scapegoats”.Similar arguments have been made before by others among the nearly 950 people who have been criminally charged with having participated in the Capitol riot, including about 540 who have been convicted. Those hefty numbers notably do not include Trump, though the former president has been recommended for prosecution by a congressional committee which investigated the attack.Just days ago, a judge ruled that a woman who helped attack the Capitol was indeed merely following orders from Trump, who fired up his supporters with false claims that he had been robbed of victory over Biden by electoral fraudsters.But, presiding over a bench trial, the judge concluded that the woman was still responsible for her actions, convicted her of charges of violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and offered up a stark reminder of how flimsy the “Trump made me do it” defense is.Nonetheless, a recent article in Salon agreed with Jauregui that “it’s ridiculous that Trump’s not in prison” over the Capitol attack.The willingness of Jauregui and others in the Proud Boys case to so pointedly ask why low-ranking followers of Trump are having their fates tried by juries while he runs for the White House again could reflect “a growing sense of frustration in the larger public” over how the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, has handled what to do about the former president.It could be a couple of weeks more, if not longer, before jurors decide the outcome of the charges against Tarrio, Rehl, Nordean, Pezzola and Biggs, who each face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of seditious conspiracy.The most powerful evidence and witnesses against the accused Proud Boys almost certainly remains ahead after court wrapped up Friday, the seventh day since jurors in the case began hearing arguments and testimony.Prosecutors have said they intend to make their case with private communications between the defendants, their statements in public, their coordinated movements at the Capitol, and their celebrations of the attack before they then tried to make it seem like they were never involved.But the trial’s already had plenty of drama.Beginning before Christmas, jury selection was turbulent, in part because Rehl’s lawyer Hernandez moved to dismiss nearly every prospective juror who mentioned having any knowledge whatsoever of the well-publicized Proud Boys, CNN reported.Then, when prospective jurors claimed they had not heard of the Proud Boys, Tarrio’s lawyers Jauregui and Nayib Hassan objected, saying those people could be lying to get on the jury in hopes of convicting their client.Prosecutors also reportedly contributed to the spectacle by blaming their failure to provide evidence binders to the defense because their office had gone through their supply of dividers and had not gotten permission to buy new ones.Then, after being seated, jurors heard grueling recordings of radio transmissions among police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol during the attack.“Send all you have!” one officer said as Trump supporters stormed their way into the building. Another voice later lamented: “Our situation here is dire.”They later also heard from a British film-maker, Nick Quested, who explained that he began following the Proud Boys and recording video of them because he wanted to document worsening political divisions across the US. He ended up capturing footage of the Proud Boys among the January 6 mob, he testified, according to the left-leaning Daily Kos website.Quested filmed as mob members screamed “treason” and “honor your oath” at police in riot gear who were desperately trying to maintain order. But the odds were overwhelmingly against the officers.“There was maybe a dozen police officers at the first line,” Quested said on the witness stand, “and you can see there are a couple hundred people at least at this point and more coming.”The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsThe far rightUS politicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Three active-duty US marines arrested for participating in Capitol attack

      by

      Three active-duty US marines arrested for participating in Capitol attackMen were taken into custody on Wednesday, bringing the number of US military members charged in connection to insurrection to 12 Three active-service US marines, all with ties to intelligence work, were arrested this week for taking part in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol, according to federal documents newly unsealed.The men, all long-serving, were taken into custody on Wednesday on four charges, bringing to 12 the number of US military members charged in connection with the deadly insurrection by supporters of outgoing president Donald Trump as they tried to prevent the certification by Congress of his defeat by Joe Biden. The news was first reported by military.com.The three were named as Micah Coomer, Joshua Abate and Dodge Dale Hellonen. According to the documents, unsealed on Thursday, they spent more than an hour together wandering around the Capitol rotunda, and at one point placed “a red Maga hat on one of the statues to take photos with it”, indicating Trump’s Make America Great Again election slogan.Investigators noted social media posts by Coomer, including one where he stated he was “glad to be apart [sic] of history”, and a chat with another Instagram user in which he explained he was there because he was “waiting for the boogaloo”, a term popular with rightwing extremists and white supremacists to signify a race-related civil war.Marine corps records provided to military.com show all three have been enlisted for more than four years, have good conduct medals, and that each works in “demanding jobs” tied to the intelligence community. At least one holds a “significant” security clearance.In a statement to the outlet, a spokesperson said the service is “aware of an investigation and the allegations” and said it was “fully cooperating with appropriate authorities in support of the investigation”.The men face misdemeanor charges including trespass, disruptive and disorderly conduct and obstructing government business. According to the 13-page document compiled by FBI special agent Kelsey Randall of the agency’s joint terrorism taskforce, investigators “learned” of Coomer’s social media posts and, after obtaining a search warrant, identified the two others from images contained in them.Security footage from the Capitol showed the three entering the building together through a door near the Senate chamber, and moving further inside as part of a mob of dozens of others, many wearing Trump’s signature Make America Great Again red caps.Additional proof came from cell phone records showing the three were in the building, Randall wrote..TopicsUS Capitol attackUS militarynewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Lawyers who enabled Trump in election plot face heightened risk of charges

      by

      Lawyers who enabled Trump in election plot face heightened risk of charges House panel refers John Eastman, Jeff Clark, Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro to DoJ for offering Trump bogus legal coverFour lawyers who gave Donald Trump erroneous legal advice that aided his drive to overturn the 2020 US election now face heightened prospects of criminal charges after a House panel released an exhaustive report on the January 6 insurrection, and referred the lawyers for possible prosecution to the justice department, say ex-federal prosecutors.Brazil’s failed coup is the poison flower of the Trump-Bolsonaro symbiosisRead moreJohn Eastman, Jeff Clark, Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro played overlapping roles, offering Trump bogus legal cover that included promoting a fake electors ploy to replace electors Joe Biden won with ones for Trump, in an effort to block Congress from certifying Biden on 6 January.The lawyers’ actions and schemes were cited in an 845-page report last month by the House select committee investing the events of 6 January, and in the referrals to the justice department, for giving various types of legal support to Trump that enabled parts of his attempted coup.The report accused Trump of criminally engaging in “a multi-part conspiracy”, and cited four criminal offenses: making false statements, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and aiding or comforting insurrection, all of which were referred to the DoJ for prosecution.The specific referrals to the DoJ differ somewhat for the four lawyers. All of them were referred for conspiring to defraud the United States. Except for Giuliani, the other three were referred for conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, a reference to Congress certifying Biden’s win on 6 January.Several legal schemes devised by the lawyers to further Trump’s botched coup were detailed in the referrals and in the panel’s exhaustive report. For instance, Eastman, a law professor in California, authored a “coup memo” that suggested avenues the former vice-president Mike Pence could take to help Trump reverse his election loss, including unilaterally throwing out certain state electoral college votes.Along with Giuliani, Eastman also addressed the “Stop the Steal” rally immediately before the Capitol attack, where he floated a baseless conspiracy theory about “secret folders” in voting machines that helped cast votes for Democrats.The panel’s report and referrals noted, too, that Clark, who was acting head of the DoJ’s civil division, “stands out as a participant in the conspiracy” to defraud the United States. The report cited evidence that Clark drafted a letter with false information urging some state officials to name new slates of electors, as part of a plan that involved Trump installing Clark as acting attorney general at the DoJ.Last summer, Clark and Eastman had their cellphones seized by federal agents, in an early indication of the serious scrutiny prosecutors were affording them.Giuliani, who served as Trump’s personal attorney and pushed his false claims about widespread election fraud, was subpoenaed by the US attorney in DC in November to testify and provide documents about his payments from Trump and his campaign, according to a Reuters report this week.Although the House panel’s referrals to the DoJ are only recommendations and do not require filing charges against the lawyers, former prosecutors said the extensive evidence that they conspired with Trump to stop Biden from taking office could help spur DoJ legal action against them.“The corrupt involvement of lawyers in various aspects of the January 6 insurrection is surely one of the low points in the history of the legal profession in America,” said former DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich.“From filing bogus lawsuits, to trying to hijack the justice department, to devising the fake electors scheme – lawyers were at the center of the illegitimate attempts to keep Donald Trump in power. Any lawyer who cares about the reputation of the profession should be disgusted at their behavior, and hope they will be held accountable by the very legal system they abused.”Other former prosecutors offered scathing views about Trump’s legal loyalists.“While professional status often shields lawyers from criminal liability, I would expect prosecutors to use it as a sword here: this crew knew congressional procedures and concocted an attack on the weak spots, drawing in many others who knew far less,” said Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Columbia law school.“While there may be prudential reasons not to make Trump a criminal defendant, those don’t argue against charging this group with a conspiracy to defraud the United States. The broad title of that offense doesn’t often capture the conduct of defendants charged with it, but it certainly does here, And a full factual presentation of this conspiracy might also reveal Trump’s own role.”Similarly, Michael Zeldin, an ex-DoJ prosecutor, said: “The Jan 6 committee’s referrals to the DoJ regarding the role Trump-aligned attorneys played in the run-up to the assault on the Capitol laid out a compelling case.”“[The] DoJ now has to test that evidence against a standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to determine whether indictments are warranted,” he added.Eastman and the other lawyers accused in the House panel’s referrals to DoJ have all denied improper conduct. But well before the panel’s referrals and report, evidence was mounting about the sizable roles Eastman and the other lawyers played in promoting Trump’s conspiracy to block Biden from taking office.Federal judge David Carter last March in a key ruling involving Eastman, stated that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.“Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Carter wrote in a civil case that led to an order for Eastman to release over 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.The panel last year also heard stunning testimony from Greg Jacob, Mike Pence’s counsel. Jacob testified that Eastman acknowledged to him that he was aware that his efforts to get Pence to reject Biden’s winning electoral college count would violate the Electoral Count Act, and that Trump, too, was informed it would be unlawful for Pence to block Biden’s certification.Clark’s role in trying to help Trump promote false claims of election fraud also prompted strong condemnation at a House panel hearing last year. Former acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue was scathing in recounting Trump’s efforts to replace the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, with Clark in late December 2020, to increase pressure on state legislators to reject Biden electors by pushing baseless charges of widespread fraud.Donoghue testified that he warned Trump at a bizarre 3 January White House meeting that drew Rosen, Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone and other top lawyers. Elevating Clark to be acting AG would spark mass resignations, and Clark would be “left leading a graveyard”, at the DoJ, Donoghue saidCipollone, who testified before a federal grand jury last fall, also threatened to resign if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark.Former Georgia US attorney Michael Moore said he believes the panel assembled a “substantial” case against some of Trump’s leading lawyer loyalists, who “were actually involved in an unprecedented and unlawful effort to overturn the election, providing fallacious legal arguments as part of the conspiracy”.“A lawyer who tells his client how to crack open the vault is just as guilty as the robber who enters the bank,” Moore added.Still, Richman cautioned that DoJ prosecutors face challenges before charging any of the lawyers.“I suspect prosecutors would want to more clearly nail down the degree to which these lawyers were truly aware that their theories lacked the slightest factual support or legal basis. It helps, but may not be enough, that many around them were saying that.”Regardless of whether or not the DoJ charges some of the lawyers, they all should suffer professionally for scheming with Trump, Bromwich stressed.“Although it’s not yet clear which of the lawyers can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal prosecutions, they all should become outcasts in their chosen profession, and at a minimum never practice law again.”TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsUS politicsRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More