Posted on 02/08/2021 8:45:21 PM PST by Candor7
Days before former President Trump's impeachment trial begins, newly filed federal charges against anti-government activists offer fresh, compelling evidence that the accused perpetrators of the Capitol riots pre-planned their attack days and weeks in advance and in plain sight of an FBI that vowed to be vigilant to extremist threats.
A dozen FBI affidavits supporting charges against the more than 200 defendants show rioters engaged in advance planning on social media sites. The planning included training, casing sites, identifying commanders on scene, and requests for donations of cash, as well as combat and communication gear.
More than a half dozen of the suspects are now charged with conspiracy to commit violence for actions predating the Jan. 6 riots. The early actions identified in court documents date back to November, with planning and rhetoric accelerating after Christmas, court records show.
That growing body of evidence raises questions about whether the FBI and other security agencies acted proactively enough to thwart the violence. It also undercuts the House Democrats' impeachment claim — supported by 10 Republicans — that Trump's speech spontaneously incited the riots, legal experts told Just the News.
"I would hope that those 10 Republicans and hopefully even some Democrats would say as we now look at the timelines that the media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and all are reporting on, here's exactly it, the facts," said Kenneth Starr, the former federal appeals judge, solicitor general and Whitewater independent counsel.
"[House lawmakers] made a huge, colossal blunder," said Starr, who was a member of the defense team for Trump's first Senate impeachment trial. "So walk back, and apologize to the former president, apologize to the American people that I never should have voted in favor of this without the benefit of all the facts. I rushed to judgment."
Trump's lawyers are planning to argue the president's speech did not in fact incite violence but rather called for peaceful protest and was protected by the First Amendment. They also are preparing a video montage showing Democrats making comments encouraging violence dating to last summer's BLM protests.
George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat who has defended Trump on impeachment issues, argued in a column published Sunday in The Hill newspaper that the impeachment claims do not meet the legal standard of incitement.
"It is so much easier to claim easy prosecutions than to prosecute such made-for-television charges," Turley wrote. "I do not fault these experts for speculating about such a case, but many claim that prosecution would be relatively simple. That is just not true.
"The problem is free speech. The remarks of Trump last month would not satisfy the test in [landmark free speech case Brandenburg v. Ohio] when the Supreme Court said 'advocacy of the use of force or of law violation' is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for use of force. He told supporters to go 'peacefully' and to 'cheer on' his allies in Congress."
Beyond the First Amendment, the FBI's investigation provides growing evidence that the riot was not spontaneous but planned. For instance, last week federal prosecutors filed an FBI affidavit showing that two days after Christmas, an anti-government activist named Ethan Nordean in the state of Washington posted a message on his Parler account as he planned to come to Washington for the Jan. 6 Capitol protest. It made a fund-raising appeal to "help us with safety/protective gear and communications equipment," according to FBI documents,
By Jan. 4, Nordean, a Proud Boys member who also went by the fictional name Rufio Panman, escalated the rhetoric as he prepared to come to the capital, suggesting violence was imminent.
"Let them remember the day they decided to make war with us," Nordean allegedly wrote on his Parler account.
Screenshots taken from a video "show NORDEAN and other Proud Boys dressed in tactical gear along with the phrase 'Back the YELLOW,' which is a phrase commonly used to show support for the Proud Boys," the FBI affidavit said. File Nordean.pdf
FBI affidavits filed against other defendants in the attack detail extensive fundraising efforts on popular and public websites like Go Fund Me and the Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo, prompting a crackdown on such sites.
One of the cases in which the FBI has detailed the most extensive pre-planning involves the conspiracy charges against Thomas Edward Caldwell, Donovan Ray Crowl, and Jessica Marie Watkins.
"Evidence uncovered in the course of the investigation demonstrates that not only did CALDWELL, CROWL, WATKINS, and others conspire to forcibly storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 — they communicated with one another in advance of the incursion and planned their attack," an FBI affidavit states. File CaldwellAffidavit.pdf
The FBI alleges intercepted audio from the Jan. 6 attacks shows the three discussing sticking to a plan.
"We have a good group," Watkins is quoted saying in one of the transmissions. "We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking together and sticking to the plan."
The affidavit also cites a pre-riot meeting at a northern Virginia hotel
In one Facebook message, Crowl tells Caldwell: "Will probably call you tomorrow ... mainly because ... I like to know wtf plan is. You are the man COMMANDER."
The FBI also states that days before the riot Caldwell appeared to refer to Oath Keepers leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes in a Facebook message to group members in which he talked about coordinating with activists from other states.
"I don't know if Stewie has even gotten out his call to arms but it's a little friggin late," Caldwell wrote, according to the FBI. "This is one we are doing on our own. We will link up with the north carolina crew."
As the FBI uses open-source social media to make its case against many of the accused perpetrators, questions are also arising about why the FBi didn't do more beforehand to thwart actors who were talking about war, violence and combat when they got to Washington.
FBI officials, when pressed about whether agents were too complacent before the attacks, noted that an alert was sent Jan. 4 to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington, D.C. warning of possible violence.
They also cited Director Chris Wray's testimony in September to the House Judiciary Committee in which he vowed vigilance against anti-government and white supremacist activists but warned that the bureau often feels constrained by the line between the First Amendment and imminent threats of violence.
"We recognize that the FBI must be aware not just of the domestic violent extremism threat, but also of threats emanating from those responding violently to First Amendment-protected activities," Wray testified.
"In the past, we have seen some violent extremists respond to peaceful movements through violence rather than non-violent actions and ideas, he said. "The FBI is involved only when responses cross from ideas and constitutionally protected protests to violence. Regardless of the specific ideology involved, the FBI requires that all domestic terrorism investigations be predicated based on activity intended to further a political or social goal, wholly or in part involving force, coercion, or violence, in violation of federal law."
Isn’t freshman Mary Miller a good girl?
The 13th though...Davis.
Assault on the US Capitol: the story in pictures
Gas masks. Participants and viewers who had stayed behind picked up the gas masks that are regularly below their seats and moved to the exit.
REGULARLY? HOW REGULARLY? WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING ANTIFA, BLM AND A BUNCH OF CRISIS ACTORS... maybe?
I must mean 16
Who’s your candidate?
Whichever looks the strongest 10 months from now. I would hate to see this bastard win 40% against 3 foes. Marter is the most established but he’s a 3 time loser now. Need to see who raises money.
More like tin pot third world dictators scared of losing their sinecures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exactly right.
Somehow we got to rid ourselves of these idiots.
If only they had installed ejection devices under those seats and constituents controlled the launch codes.
The expression, “Going through the roof,” would take on a more literal meaning.
if this is true...its going to place Congress in a very interesting position viv a vis the States and the American people.
How do you impeach the entire US Congress as a party to this active coup/insurrection?
Kinzinger has four primary opponents. Teresa Pfaff, of Machesney Park, is also running. I hope that, in Nov., those four will meet and agree that only one of them will run. They should consider the amount of money that they raised and the number of signatures that they received.
How do you impeach the entire US Congress as a party to this active coup/insurrection?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Military arrest and military tribunal.
Right now is the time! Bury K, IMPEACHMENT MAN, with negative messaging. Sign up with all 4 campaigns
What are odds that K joins the Dems?
it is a weakness in our government.
all you have to do to own or pwn Congress is overcome 435 Congressman and 100 Senators.
Sticking to original congressional apportionment as envisioned by the founders would give us a huge Congress today having to meet electronically from their districts
Congress was originally intended to have 1 representative in the House for every 30000 people.
could talk to your state legislature about that I suppose
“I don’t care where he lives, he should’ve gone against Kinz again instead of going for the open 14th. Catalina Lauf would have won that seat. Oberweis did but was robbed.”
___________________
Maybe Jim Oberweiss would have beaten Adam Kinzinger in the IL-16 GOP primary (if he did, he’d definitely win the general in that safely GOP CD), and maybe hottie Catalina Lauf would have defeated Lauren “DJ Lance Rock” Underwood in the general in the swing IL-14 (I definitely would have liked her chances), but that’s over and done. Looking forward to 2022, Lauf already has announced her candidacy against Kinzinger in IL-16:
While we don’t know for certain what IL-16 will look like, Democrats likely will make it even more heavily GOP in redistricting in order to prop up Bustos and Underwood in their marginal districts. I am confident that Kinzinger has put his foot in his mouth once too often and would get trounced by Lauf in a one-on-one race; my only concern is that two other Republicabs also have declared so far and others are likely to
jump in, so Kinzinger might be able to skate with a plurality of 30% or less.
ILLINOIS losing one house seat due to census
If the population loss is in Chicago, you might have 2 incumbent Dems in one seat
Likely won’t effect the suburban seats on No. ILL
When was the last time a party in charge gave away one of their seats? If rats are in charge they will find a way to cut one of our seats, probably the Rodney Davis seat which they drew to give themselves a chance to win.
I heard a lovely rumor though about the results of the Census being delayed, if a certain deadline passes the IL leg doesn’t get to redraw, it goes to the 50/50 commission. So there would be a chance for a deal map, or if it needs to go to a tiebreaker Sec of State draws a name of an extra member out of a stovepipe hat, 50% chance. That happened in 1981, 1991, and 2001 (state leg only, Hastert made a deal for US House). GOP won only in 1991. If were a GOP Sec of State and drew a rat name I’d eat it and light the hat with the rest on fire. Or do that trick they alleged they did that one year in the NBA draft, chilled the envelope, George Ryan in 1981 just called out the rats name like a good little Mike Pence.
The population changes were somewhat homogeneous across the state.
1. Chicago lost least population
2. Outside Cook County was next on population loss
3. Cook County outside Chicago lost population the most
So of they wanna keep a seat for every Cook County incumbent, the 3 or 4 suburban seats will extend further outside Cook County.
A tough task to keep all 11 seats reasonably intact
If the IL Combine could draw a Demonrat seat from Chicago to Cairo to keep one of their crooks in power, they’d do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
