US Capitol breach

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Revealed: majority of people charged in Capitol attack aren’t in jail

      by

      At least 70% of people charged in the Capitol riot have been released as they wait for trial, according to a Guardian analysis.That high pretrial release rate stands in stark contrast with the usual detention rates in the federal system, where only 25% of defendants nationwide are typically released before their trial.Eric Munchel, known as “Zip Tie Guy”, who was allegedly photographed wearing tactical gear and carrying wrist restraints in the Senate chamber, was released in late March, along with his mother, after an appeals court questioned whether he posed any danger outside the specific context of 6 January.Richard Barnett, the Arkansas man photographed with his foot on Nancy Pelosi’s desk, was released in late April, nearly two months after screaming during a court hearing that “it’s not fair” that he was still in custody when “everybody else who did things much worse are already home”.Multiple alleged members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two groups facing the most serious conspiracy charges related to their alleged plans for violence, have been released before trial, though some prominent leaders in these groups remain in custody.The disparity in pretrial detention rates highlights what legal experts said was a broader development in the 6 January cases: the likelihood that a substantial swathe of the alleged rioters may not serve any prison time at all, even if they are convicted or plead guilty.Many Capitol defendants are being released ahead of trial because they are facing relatively low-level charges, experts said, though other factors, including racial bias, may also play a role.“I’m both surprised and not surprised. Most of these people are white,” said Erica Zunkel, associate director of the Federal Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “The majority of people in the federal system are people of color.”The US attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which is prosecuting the cases, said in a statement that the alleged Capitol rioters were facing very different kinds of charges than most people in the federal system.“Comparing the per cent of January 6 defendants detained with the overall federal average is comparing apples and oranges,” a spokesperson for the office said. “The majority of federal defendants are charged with immigration or drug crimes, both of which are typically accompanied by detention. The January 6 defendants are charged with a variety of obstruction, assault, and trespassing charges. The comparison makes no sense.”Zunkel, a former federal defense attorney, argued that it was absolutely fair to ask why prosecutors and judges were making different detention decisions for drug and immigration cases than for the people charged with participating in the 6 January attack, who are more than 90% white.More than 96% of the people charged with federal immigration crimes are Hispanic, and more than 70% of those charged with federal drug crimes are Hispanic and Black, Zunkel said, citing federal sentencing data.“We have a problem with our system, something has gone wildly wrong, if we have a 75% detention rate nationwide, and we have a subset where we have a more than 70% release rate,” she said.Zunkel and a colleague, Judith P Miller, both former federal defense attorneys, said that the level of skepticism and care federal judges were bringing to the decision of whether Capitol defendants were truly dangerous enough to keep incarcerated was not at all the norm.The problem, they said, was not that judges were making the wrong call in releasing Capitol defendants, but that judges were not making similar calls for the majority of people in the federal system.“For my Black and brown clients, it feels like they have to meet such an impossibly high threshold to be released,” Miller, a University of Chicago law professor, said. “The kind of sensitivity the courts have shown to the capitol defendants’ claims for relief – I wish some of that sensitivity would be shown more broadly.”The US attorney’s office for the District of Columbia declined to confirm how many Capitol defendants were currently in pretrial detention, noting that the number “has the potential to fluctuate frequently based on ongoing detention decisions”.By mid-May, at least 440 people had been arrested on charges related to the 6 January Capitol breach, according to the justice department, including at least 125 charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement.Of 398 defendants listed on the justice department’s Capitol breach case site as of 10 May, at least 330 were listed on the site, or in federal court records, as released from custody. At least 56 of those defendants remained in detention.The precise number and percentage of Capitol defendants who are released versus in detention changes often, as new alleged rioters are arrested, others secure release, and a few risk re-arrest for violating the conditions of their release. The number and status of cases on the justice department’s Capitol breach website also lags behind court filings.But the broader trend in the cases is clear: the overwhelming majority of Capitol defendants are not being detained ahead of trial.Based on their likelihood of flight risk or danger to their communities, some of the Capitol defendants have been required to meet more intensive release conditions, including GPS monitoring, curfews or home detention, and limitations on their access to the Internet or social media, according to court records.Many of the Capitol defendants are facing only relatively low-level federal charges, such as entering a restricted building or disorderly conduct within a restricted building. A Washington Post analysis of court documents in mid-May concluded that 44% of the Capitol defendants faced only misdemeanor charges.Some of the federal judges hearing the Capitol cases have expressed concern that certain defendants may have already spent more time in custody than they are likely to face as a punishment for their crimes.“For those who end up only charged with misdemeanors, it’s likely that they won’t serve any substantial time, or potentially no time at all,” said Mary McCord, an expert on extremism who served for nearly 20 years as a prosecutor in the US attorney’s office in Washington DC. “It’s quite possible if they were to plead guilty, they would be sentenced to whatever time was served, or 30 days.”There is a tension between the dramatic collective effect of the 6 January mob, which halted the official certification of Biden’s election as president and threatened the legitimacy of American democracy, legal experts said, and what federal prosecutors can prove that individual people did.“The irony is that we have so many laws – so many things are illegal – it’s somewhat surprising that they’re not able to find charges that are more serious,” Zunkel said.Some more serious potential charges, like conspiracy or seditious conspiracy, would require evidence of prior agreement to commit a crime that appears to be lacking for many participants in the chaotic Capitol mob, said Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and former federal prosecutor.“When you look at each individual, what they did might amount to destruction of property or illegal entry, and that’s in all likelihood what they’ll be charged with, but the larger dimension of their participation in a massive attack falls by the wayside,” Richman said.Part of the current dynamic of the Capitol cases, Richman cautioned, was seeing the very normal limitations of the criminal justice system come up against the heightened expectations of a public who watched the shocking violence of 6 January unfold in real time.“Criminal prosecutions never end in these glorious accountability moments where everyone is satisfied that right was done,” Richman said.For many Capitol defendants facing these lower-level charges, justice department prosecutors did not even attempt to keep them detained ahead of trial, and they were quickly released on standard conditions.Federal prosecutors did fight for months to keep other defendants in custody, with federal judges eventually overruling them, particularly after the pivotal appeals court ruling questioning the detention of Munchel, the alleged “Zip Tie Guy”, and his mother, who both gave interviews talking about their willingness to engage in violence to further their beliefs but were not accused of any specific acts of violence or vandalism as they roamed the Capitol, wrist restraints in hand.“My guess is the judges who decided to release some of these folks on bond were thinking: on January 6, there were an ideal storm of conditions for these people to commit a crime, and now there aren’t those ideal conditions any more, so they’re not likely to do it again,” said Wanda Bertram, a communications strategist at the Prison Policy Initiative, a non-profit that focuses on the harms of mass incarceration.But the same logic could be applied to low-level crimes: “investing in people’s communities” to “create different conditions” that would make it unlikely for them to repeat the same behavior, Bertram said.“The treatment of the people who are involved in the Capitol riot should show us what is possible and what is logical in terms of how to treat people in the future.”Former prosecutors defended the justice department’s work in the Capitol cases, and said that the continuing effort to identify and arrest a large proportion of the hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol was a massive, demanding endeavor, and showed how much the government wanted to ensure that there were real consequences for participating in the attack.“They’ve been aggressive, and continue to be, in trying to find everybody who was at that riot,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School. “For the attorney general, numbers matter. It really matters that hundreds of people are held responsible. That’s the message to people: you don’t want to game the system.”“I think they pretty much want on everyone’s records that they were responsible for these actions,” Levenson added. “It means something that these people are going to walk away with even a federal misdemeanor record. That has an impact on their employment, on their life, on their situation in their community. Even if they just get probation, they’re going to have to watch their step.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Republicans will likely sink Democrats’ bid to set up Capitol attack commission

      by

      Senate Republicans were poised on Thursday to kill an attempt by Democrats to establish a bipartisan commission to investigate the 6 January attack on the Capitol in which a pro-Trump mob ransacked the building in an attempt to disrupt the formalization of Joe Biden’s winning of the presidency.The bill was intended to set up a 9/11-style commission that would examine its causes and impact and exactly who was involved.Donald Trump is still powerful in the Republican party and has reacted angrily to the idea of such a commission. Observers believe that many top Republicans are fearful of antagonizing Trump and his loyal followers and also worried about what such a commission might uncover, including potential links between Republican lawmakers and some of those who invaded the building.The Thursday vote would mark the first successful use of a filibuster in the Biden presidency to halt Senate legislative action, and is likely to boost pressure on the president to get rid of the Senate tradition that requires a vote by 60 of the 100 senators to cut off debate and advance a bill.With the Senate evenly split 50-50, Democrats needed the support of 10 Republicans to move to the commission bill, sparking fresh debate over whether the time has come to change the rules and lower the threshold to 51 votes to take up legislation.The House had already approved the measure with 35 Republican votes. Democrats have warned that if Republicans are willing to use the filibuster to stop an arguably popular measure, it shows the limits of trying to broker compromises, particularly on bills related to election reforms or other aspects of the Democrats’ agenda.“There is no excuse for any Republican to vote against this commission,” said Senator Joe Manchin before the vote though the centrist Democrat still made it clear that he would not support efforts to do away with the filibuster. “I’m not ready to destroy our government,” Manchin said.Before the vote, Gladys Sicknick, the mother of the late Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, along with Sicknick’s girlfriend Sandra Garza and two officers who fought the protesters that day, met with several Republican senators to try to persuade them to act.Sicknick was among many officers protecting the building, some seen in videos in hand-to-hand combat with the mob. He collapsed immediately after engaging with the rioters and died the next day.In a statement Wednesday, Gladys Sicknick was more blunt: “I suggest that all congressmen and senators who are against this bill visit my son’s grave in Arlington national cemetery and, while there, think about what their hurtful decisions will do to those officers who will be there for them going forward.”Republican opposition to the commission, however, was carefully marshaled by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who has declared the bill a “purely political exercise”, since Senate committees are already looking into security shortfalls during the Capitol attack.McConnell, who once said Trump was responsible for “provoking” the attack on the Capitol, now says of Democrats: “They’d like to continue to litigate the former president, into the future.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      School apologizes for stating falsely in yearbook Trump was not impeached

      by

      A school principal in Arkansas has apologized for “political inaccuracies” in a yearbook falsely stating that Donald Trump was not impeached and that last year’s racial protests in the US were “Black Lives Matter riots”.Josh Thompson, principal of Bentonville’s Lincoln junior high school, admitted that some of the contents of the yearbook, which also included a photograph of the deadly 6 January insurrection in Washington DC captioned: “Trump supporters protest at the Capitol,” were “both biased and political”.In a letter sent to students and parents, Thompson said the yearbook “does not represent our values nor meet LJHS and Bentonville Schools’ standards for quality and excellence.”The letter did not address how the false statements and political opinions came to be published, but promised the school would “evaluate its vetting process for all yearbook content to ensure future publications are of the highest quality”.In many US schools, yearbooks are produced by students under the supervision of teachers, often during journalism classes.The Lincoln yearbook featured a photograph of an unidentified group next to an overturned car, with the caption: “Black Lives Matter riots Started in Minneapolis in may of 2020 [sic]”; and a separate photograph of the former president with his fists clenched and the caption: “President Trump WAS NOT impeached.”In reality, Trump was the first president to be impeached twice, in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and again this year for inciting the Capitol insurrection.“We can and will do better to provide a quality yearbook to students that can be a cherished item as they reminisce about their time at [the] school,” Thompson said, offering his “deepest apologies” and a refund to parents who had bought one.A spokesperson for the Bentonville school district declined to answer questions from the Guardian, stating that the principal’s letter would be its only comment.The Arkansas controversy follows another yearbook scandal earlier this week in which a Florida high school was criticized for digitally altering dozens of images of female students to hide their chests and shoulders.A teacher at Bartram Trail high school in St Johns admitted manipulating 80 photographs of girls she considered inappropriately dressed, while leaving images of male students, including one of a swimming team attired only in bathing trunks, untouched. The school also offered refunds. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans scramble to derail creation of Capitol riot commission

      by

      Top Senate Republicans are making a concerted effort to quash the creation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Capitol attack, deeply endangering the bill’s passage amid fears about what a high-profile inquiry into the events of 6 January might uncover.The Republican Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has said he opposes the commission bill in its current form and several Republicans who have previously expressed support said they could no longer back it.McConnell’s opposition brings into sharp relief the treacherous path ahead for the legislation , which Senate Democrats could introduce as soon as this week, according to a source briefed on the matter.The reasons publicly offered by Republicans for rejecting the creation of a commission are myriad: it might impede existing congressional and justice department investigations into 6 January. It might become politicized. It might make pro-Trump rioters “look bad”.But in the end, the stance reflects the fear from McConnell and top Senate Republicans that extending their support to an inquiry likely to find Donald Trump at fault for inciting the Capitol attack could be used as a cudgel against Republicans ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.Both McConnell and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy are determined to put Republicans in the majority in both chambers next year, and both leaders regard the commission as an obstacle in their paths.The political calculations looming large echo many of the same concerns that arose during the debate to establish the 9/11 commission, which was opposed by a Bush administration anxious that the disclosure of security lapses could jeopardise their 2004 election chances.But while lawmakers then were able to put aside months of disagreements to form an inquiry – the bill passed in the House with three votes against and by voice vote in the Senate – the Capitol attack has become just another partisan issue in a divided Congress. The positions of the two Republican leaders also underscores the fear of what a full accounting of 6 January might uncover about the roles that Republicans may have played ahead of the insurrection, potentially inviting unwelcome scrutiny of Trump’s lies about election fraud they helped promulgate.The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, in particular could be left exposed should a 9/11-style commission ultimately be impanelled.McCarthy called Trump as rioters breached the Capitol building and begged him to call them off, only for the former president to side with the rioters, saying they appeared to care more about overturning the election results than Republicans in Congress. Five people eventually died as the mob looted the Capitol and hunted for politicians, including Vice-President Mike Pence.McCarthy, in his desperation, also spoke with senior White House advisor and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to try and stop the attack after his pleas to Trump went unheeded, a former administration source said.Those conversations between Trump and McCarthy – addressing the crucial question of what Trump was doing and saying privately as the Capitol was overrun – would almost certainly be examined, raising the specter that McCarthy himself would have to testify, voluntarily or under subpoena.“My humble opinion is that there’s some information that [McCarthy] would deem troubling for the Republican party if it got out. And I think he will do everything possible to prevent that,” said the House Democrat Bennie Thompson.McCarthy is also vulnerable to having his own senior aides investigated by a 6 January commission, having hired Brian Jack, the former political director of the Trump White House, who was involved in organizing the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Capitol attack.Zach Wamp, a member of the original 9/11 commission and the former top Republican on the committee overseeing the US Capitol police, made it clear that whatever misgivings McCarthy or Republicans may have about the commission, they should put the country first.“We need to know exactly what happened,” Wamp said. “So I would appeal to my fellow Republicans in the House and the Senate, do the right thing here. We need to actually clear this up, do it together as Americans. Put our country above any political interests.”The bill to create a 9/11-style commission passed the House on Wednesday with bipartisan support after 35 Republicans, in a stinging rebuke, defied McCarthy and an emergency recommendation from the office of the House minority whip, Steve Scalise, office to oppose the legislation.But McConnell’s new resistance – a reversal from his previous openness to having a commission, as well as his sharp denunciation of Trump for inciting the Capitol attack – betrays the fraught political situation the bill faces in the Senate.The bill, in its current form, would need the endorsement of at least 10 Senate Republicans before it can be brought to the floor for debate. It would also need 10 Senate Republicans to cross the aisle and join Democrats to defeat an expected filibuster.Senate Democrats could chart a narrow path to 10 votes based on the seven Republicans – Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Ben Sasse and Patrick Toomey – who voted to convict Trump at his second impeachment trial. The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and his leadership team were still hopeful in recent days of securing enough bipartisan support to push the bill through, according to a source familiar deliberations, with other Republicans, such as Rob Portman, remaining undecided.The Senate minority whip, John Thune, who has been bullish about the prospects of having a commission to tightly focus on 6 January and not unrelated leftwing violence, as suggested by McCarthy, has previously said that Republicans had not yet whipped against the bill.Zach Wamp, a member of the original September 11 commission and the former top Republican on the committee overseeing the US Capitol Police, condemned efforts from Republicans to doom an inquiry into Jan. 6.“We need to know exactly what happened,” Wamp said. “So I would appeal to my fellow Republicans in the House and the Senate: Do the right thing here. We need to actually clear this up; do it together as Americans. Put our country above any political interests.”But the bill’s chances of becoming law hit a further snag last week after at least one senator who voted to convict Trump announced he would oppose the commission. “I don’t believe establishing a commission is necessary or wise,” Burr said in a statement. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Police records show threats to kill lawmakers in wake of Capitol attack

      by

      Washington’s Metropolitan police department recorded threats to lawmakers and public facilities in the wake of the 6 January attack on the Capitol, according to documents made public in a ransomware hack on their systems this month.The documents also show how, in the month following the Capitol attack, police stepped up surveillance efforts, monitoring hotel bookings, protests in other jurisdictions, and social media for signs of another attack by far-right groups on targets in the capital, including events surrounding the inauguration of Joe Biden as president.The revelation of the seriousness of the threats comes amid Republican opposition to forming a 9/11-style commission to investigate the January attack, which saw the Capitol roamed by looting mobs hunting for politicians and involved the deaths of five people.The police documents were stolen and published by the ransomware attack group Babuk, and some were redistributed by the transparency organization Distributed Denial of Secrets, from whom they were obtained by the Guardian. Various outlets last week published stories based on the data showing intelligence indicating that far-right Boogaloo groups planned to attack various targets in the capital.But another collection of documents labeled “chiefs intelligence briefings” shows a broad, cross-agency effort in the days following the attack on the Capitol to identify suspects, monitor and apprehend far-right actors, and anticipate further attacks on Washington around events like the inauguration of Joe Biden and the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.In the aftermath of the riot, the attention of police and other law enforcement agencies was focused on far-right activity on social media platforms, and especially on a group calling itself Patriot Action for America.One 13 January bulletin said that the group had been “calling for others to join them in ‘storming’ state, local, and federal government courthouses and administrative buildings in the event POTUS is removed as president prior to inauguration day”.The bulletin also noted that the agency was facing broader challenges in monitoring far-right actors on social media websites, saying that “with the shutdown of Parler it has been a challenge to track down how activities are being planned”, and that they continued to “see more users on Gab and Telegram following the de-platforming of many accounts on more conventional social media companies”.The bulletin mentions a “possible second suspect” in the placement of pipe bombs near the DNC and RNC, who was “observed on video scouting/taking photographs in advance of the placement”, who “took a metro to the East Falls church stop and took a Lyft from there”.On 12 January, a bulletin noted that a supreme court agent had noticed “two vehicles stopped beside each other” outside the court building, and that in one an older white male was “videotaping the Capitol fence line and the court”, and in the other a passenger was “hanging out the window in order to videotape the court”.A 22 January bulletin mentions that in Pennsylvania a man was arrested after “transmitting interstate threats to multiple US senators of the Democratic party”, having stated that he was “going to DC to kill people and wanted to be killed by the police”. When Pennsylvania state police apprehended him “he was in possession of a rifle, two handguns, and a large quantity of ammunition”.A later bulletin described an incident in which a man with an illegal firearm was arrested after asking for directions to the “Oval Office”, and another man’s van was searched after he was observed sitting in the vehicle while parked outside the supreme court justice Sonya Sotomayor’s house.The same day’s bulletin mentioned that Metropolitan police were cooperating with Capitol police in investigating “a number of threats aimed at members of Congress as the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump nears”.The threats continued for weeks after the attack.Almost a month later, a bulletin reported that “an identified militia group member” in Texas was claiming that if their “operation failed at the US Capitol”, there was a “back-up plan” involving the group “detonating bombs at the US Capitol during the State of the Union”.The group was not named but was described as “a large organization allegedly with members from every state, which included individuals who were former military and law enforcement”.The documents also reveal how law enforcement agencies secured the cooperation of private companies, from ride-share companies to hotels.A bulletin includes the claim that “FBI [is] working with Lyft and Uber to identify riders to and from the protest locations”.The same bulletin carries detailed figures on reservations in hotels across the capital leading up to the inauguration on 20 January, which was secured by an unprecedented mobilization of law enforcement and the national guard.Two days later, another bulletin said that “MPD’s intelligence division has conducted extensive outreach with security directors of area hotels”, who they asked to be “vigilant for evidence of suspicious activity and firearms possession by hotel guests”. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Hotel raised prices to deter QAnon conspiracists, police files show

      by

      Police intelligence documents show that Washington’s Trump Hotel raised its rates “as a security tactic”, in the hope of deterring Trump-supporting QAnon supporters from staying there in early March, on a day which some believed would see Trump restored to office.The information, which police gleaned from a Business Insider version of a story published in Forbes on 6 February, was confirmed in an 8 February intelligence briefing stolen by ransomware hackers from Washington’s Metropolitan police department (MPD).The hackers from the Babuk group subsequently published those documents online, and transparency group Distributed Denial of Secrets redistributed them to news outlets including the Guardian.As Forbes reported in February, Trump International hotel in Washington raised its rates to 180% of the normal seasonal charge for 3 and 4 March this year.That was a date upon which some adherents to the QAnon conspiracy movement believed would see Trump once again sworn in as president, based on an interpretation of the US constitution influenced by a belief held by many “sovereign citizens” that the US government was secretly usurped by a foreign corporation in 1871, and all legal and constitutional changes since that date are illegitimate.The swearing-in date of US presidents was 4 March until the passage of the 20th amendment in 1933, and believers thought that Trump would restore his presidency and constitutional government on that date in Washington.While Forbes suggested that the rate hike might be “price gouging or simply opportunistic marketing”, the internal police document said “MPD’s intelligence division confirmed with Trump Hotel management that they raised their rates as a security tactic to prevent protesters from booking rooms at their hotel should anyone travel to DC”.However, the document also noted that the hotel was “not aware of any credible information regarding an event actually taking place on that date”, and that “none of the hotels in [Washington] are showing any noticeable increase in hotel reservations for this timeframe”.Trump International was one of a number of hotels in the region whose occupancy was closely monitored by the MPD and other agencies as they looked for signs of an attack on Joe Biden’s inauguration, Trump’s impeachment hearings, and other hot button events, according to other intelligence documents made public in the ransomware hack.The hotel, along with the Trump Organization and Trump’s inauguration committee are co-defendants in a case brought by the District of Columbia attorney general, which alleges that the hotel was used to funnel money spent on the inauguration to the former president and his family.The use of Trump International to house government employees has also been a focus of scrutiny from congressional committees and the Government Oversight Office. More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      'Slap in the face': Congressman rails against Republicans as House approves Capitol probe – video

      by

      The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the deadly attack on the Capitol in January. Thirty-five Republicans joined Democrats in passing the measure, with the vote largely falling along party lines. A total of 175  Republicans voted against the bill, with Democrat congressman Tim Ryan saying it was ‘slap in the face to every rank and file cop in the United States’. Republicans in leadership have played down the violence of the Capitol riot that left five people dead

      US House votes to create 9/11-style commission to investigate Capitol attack More