Violent thugs and hooligans brutally attack police officers in D.C.

45 days is a slap on the wrist for trying to take down our republic smdh

 

Insurrectionist seeks leniency stating actions were incited by Jr., Rudy, and Trump.

https://twitter.com/macfarlanenews/status/1448593171298930691?s=21

 

The devil made me do it.

 

Jail violated civil rights of Capitol riot defendant, U.S. judge says

WASHINGTON, Oct 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday held top officials at the Washington, D.C., Department of Corrections in civil contempt, after ruling they violated the civil rights of a U.S. Capitol riot defendant by impeding his access to medical care.

"It is more than just inept and bureaucratic shuffling of papers," U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said.

"I find that the civil rights of the defendant have been abridged. I don't know if it's because he is a Jan. 6 defendant or not, but I find that this matter should be referred to the attorney general of the United States ... for a civil rights investigation."

Lamberth's verbal and written order came during a court hearing on Wednesday, after the judge previously threatened to hold District of Columbia Department of Corrections Director Quincy Booth and Warden Wanda Patten in contempt for failing to turn over notes from a doctor for defendant Christopher Worrell.

 

Until proven otherwise, congressional subpoenas are not worth the paper they are printed on. Nice precedent regarding subpoenas in general.

 

A fascinating comparison of two versions of the same story, gives some insight into how propaganda works.

BREAKING: Biden's Dept. of Justice Delivers Massive Decision in Case Against Alleged Capitol Protester - Will Be Dropping Charges

The article creates the impression that the DoJ dropped the charges because they were wrong about him having entered the capitol building. They also provide a source for their story, but their source is another right wing outlet that is also presenting the story in a biased way. The article then takes the emotional energy it has created in the reader and directs it in specific ways- against Pelosi, against investigating the insurrection, and against the FBI. Two-thirds of the article are about those things rather than the headline story.



The original story, from a week earlier, was published in the Washington Post. Where we learn that this was a plea deal in exchange for his cooperation and providing large amounts of video evidence against other insurrectionists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c9397a-26d5-11ec-8831-a31e7b3de188_story.html

After laying out who he was, what he plead down to and what he was originally charged with, and how he has responded to the judge's actions, the article ends. No call to action, no tying unrelated topics into this piece of news, they just tell us what happened and leave it up to us to do whatever we feel with that information.

 

Insurrectionist snowflake was ready for civil war, but now wants relief from his ankle monitor because it gives his wittle ankwle bwisters.

Thread.

 

Insurrectionist with gun at insurrection wants case moved to Texas asserting Pretrial publicity.

 

Holy hell. Capitol police officer indicted on obstruction charges…and he deserves it if this is true.

 

Apparently he wants home field advantage in the republic of gilead.

 

and the rest of him too

 

“we shoulda held the capital [sic]”

 

“Civil War started”

 

Patriotic tourists demand congressional "heads on pikes". It's America First

 

Truman's advisors were not involved in criminal activity.

 

Back the Blue.

 

Capitol Siege Defendant Who Admitted Tasing Michael Fanone Files Court Documents Suggesting He Was 'Acting Upon' Donald Trump's 'Authorization'

A defendant who admitted tasing Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone during the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol Complex has filed court papers that indicate he may seek to blame former president Donald Trump for what occurred. The documents also contain a 195-page transcript of an FBI interview where the defendant, who said he was a former Trump campaign volunteer, told agents he became radicalized by listening to InfoWars host Alex Jones.

 

Your analysis actually indirectly answers the question. Privilege can be waived. With executive privilege, the issue is who owns it. And who decides if it is in the national interest to assert it or waive it. Is it the former president or the current president? Otherwise stated: if members of the former administration have evidence relevant to an insurrection against the government, who has the authority to determine what is in the national interest? The president? The courts? Or the former president, who may have a political interest in the coverup? The answer is that privilege belongs to the office of the president, not the man and not the former president. For evident reasons, this can only go one way. We only have one president at a time. Only one president can determine what the executive views is in the national interest. The former president has no say. The suits and challenges are just delay tactics in the hope that the House becomes GOP before compliance so the GOP can again bury the truth.

 

Well, this is interesting…