2021 Trump-Incited Insurrection at Capitol Building

[TopHatter]

Air Force reservist arrested for alleged Jan. 6-related crimes


The Air Force has confirmed that a Mississippi man arrested Monday for taking part in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is a reservist.

Federal prosecutors allege that David Scott Stapp was part of the mob that stormed the Capitol after President Donald Trump’s election loss. Stapp joins an ever-growing list of at least 131 current and former service members to be implicated in crimes connected to the attempted insurrection, according to figures compiled by the George Washington University Program on Extremism.

Stapp joined the Air Force’s reserve component in September 1997, ascending to the rank of major over the course of a 25-year military career, according to personnel files shared with Military Times. Stapp served as a pilot and technician in the reserve’s 403rd Wing stationed at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi. Stapp claimed on Facebook that he piloted C-130J transport planes for the unit’s 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (dubbed the “Hurricane Hunters”); Air Force officials did not confirm these details.

Stapp is “not actively participating in the unit,” Lt. Col. Marnee Losurdo, chief of the 403rd Wing’s public affairs office, told the Military Times. It remains unclear when and under what conditions his participation ended. Among the 23 awards the 44-year-old major received during his service were an Afghanistan Campaign Medal and an Iraq Campaign Medal, accorded to personnel that served in those war zones.

Federal investigators, relying on a mixture of open-source photographs, social media posts, and cell service records, allege the decorated airman marched through the Capitol on Jan. 6 sporting a black hoodie, tactical gloves, and a beanie stitched with the words “Legalize Freedom.” His arrest was first reported by The Daily Beast.

“It was one of the best things I have ever gotten to do. That was history,” Stapp posted on Facebook the night following the riot, according to his criminal complaint. “We took over the fucking capital (sic). Shows them what a small percentage of unarmed Americans can do. Just think of all the patriots came and cane (sic) armed[.]”
_________

[TopHatter]

Jan. 6 rioter who stole police shield and kept it as a souvenir is sentenced to prison


A Florida man who stole a riot shield and used it help push against officers in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was sentenced Wednesday to a year and a half in prison, prosecutors said.

Joshua Doolin, 25, of Lakeland, was sentenced to 18 months Wednesday, a little more than five months after he was found guilty, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington said in a statement.

Doolin was recorded holding a stolen police shield and yelling “I got a riot shield!" and he joined the pro-Trump mob pushing against police on the Lower West Terrace, prosecutors said.

Doolin was convicted at a bench trial, which means a judge found him guilty, on March 15.

He was convicted of civil disorder, which resulted in the 18-month sentence, and three other counts, each resulting in 12-month sentences, according to court records. The sentences will run at the same time.

Doolin plans to appeal his conviction, said his attorney, Allen Orenberg.

In a court document filed ahead of sentencing, Orenberg argued that Doolin was an EMT/firefighter before Jan. 6, 2021, and has no criminal history. He also never entered the Capitol, Orenberg argued.

“As one of the younger participants in the January 6th events, he had heretofore lived an exemplary life,” Orenberg wrote.

Orenberg also argued that Doolin was fired as an EMT, that he now has a felony conviction and that news about him has caused many to have “lumped him together with right wing extremists / groups.” He sought six months of home detention.

Doolin kept the riot shield as a souvenir, prosecutors said. They asked for 30 months, or two years and six months, in prison.

"Doolin was an active participant in that attack. More than that, however, he was an enthusiastic participant," prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memorandum.

Doolin also called the attack on the Capitol a "revolution" and considered taking an AR-15 style rifle but changed his mind, they argued. He has shown an "utter lack of remorse," prosecutors wrote.

The Jan. 6 attack was carried out by a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump as Congress was formally counting the electoral votes showing Trump had lost re-election. The proceedings, normally a formality, were interrupted by the attack.

Trump was indicted Aug. 1 on federal charges in Washington that he conspired to try to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election. He has pleaded not guilty.
______

[TopHatter]

Justice Department seeks 33 years in prison for ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio in Jan. 6 case


Proud Boys leader Henry "Enrique" Tarrio wears a hat that says The War Boys during a rally in Portland, Ore., on Sept. 26, 2020. The Justice Department said Thursday, Aug. 17, 2023, it is seeking 33 years in prison for Tarrio, convicted of seditious conspiracy in one of the most serious cases to emerge from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The Justice Department is seeking 33 years in prison for Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader convicted of seditious conspiracy in one of the most serious cases to emerge from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to court documents filed Thursday.

Tarrio, who once served as national chairman of the far-right extremist group, and three lieutenants were convicted by a Washington jury in May of conspiring to block the transfer of presidential power in the hopes of keeping Republican Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election.

Prosecutors are also asking for a 33-year-sentence for one of Tarrio's co-defendants, Joseph Biggs of Ormond Beach, Florida, a self-described Proud Boys organizer.

They are asking the judge to impose a 30-year prison term for Zachary Rehl, who was president of the Proud Boys chapter in Philadelphia; 27 years in prison for Ethan Nordean of Auburn, Washington, who was a Proud Boys chapter president; and 20 years for Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boys member from Rochester, New York. Pezzola was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted of other serious charges.

Tarrio, of Miami, and his co-defendants will be sentenced before U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly in a string of hearings starting later this month in Washington’s federal court.

It's the same courthouse where Trump pleaded not guilty this month in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith accusing the Republican of illegally scheming to subvert the will of voters and overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

Tarrio, who was not at the Jan. 6 riot itself, and his three lieutenants were also convicted of two of the same charges Trump faces: obstruction of Congress' certification of Biden's victory, and conspiracy to obstruct Congress.

The Proud Boys will be the second group of far-right extremists sentenced for seditious conspiracy convictions in the Jan. 6 attack. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was sentenced in May to 18 years in prison, and other members of the antigovernment militia group also received lengthy prison terms.

Prosecutors, however, are appealing those sentences, which were lower what than the government had been seeking. Prosecutors had asked U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to sentence Rhodes to 25 years behind bars.

Tarrio was a top target of what has become the largest Justice Department investigation in American history. He led the neo-fascist group — known for street fights with left-wing activists — when Trump infamously told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during his first debate with Biden.

Tarrio wasn’t in Washington on Jan. 6, because he had been arrested two days earlier in a separate case and ordered out of the capital city. But prosecutors alleged he organized and directed the attack by Proud Boys who stormed the Capitol that day.

During the monthslong trial, prosecutors argued that the Proud Boys viewed themselves as foot soldiers fighting for Trump as the Republican spread lies that Democrats stole the election from him, and were prepared to go to war to keep their preferred leader in power.

Defense attorneys argued there was no conspiracy and no plan to attack the Capitol, and sought to portray the Proud Boys as an unorganized drinking club whose members’ participation in the riot was a spontaneous act fueled by Trump’s election rage. Tarrio's lawyers tried to argue that Trump was the one to blame for extorting a crowd outside the White House to “ fight like hell.”
________

"Defense attorneys argued there was no conspiracy and no plan to attack the Capitol"

Now where else have I heard that line of shit? Oh right....

[TopHatter]

Proud Boy on house arrest in Jan. 6 case disappears ahead of sentencing


This photo shows part of the Justice Department's statement of facts in the complaint and arrest warrant for Christopher Worrell. Authorities are searching for Christopher Worrell, a member of the Proud Boys extremist group who disappeared days before his sentencing in a U.S. Capitol riot case, where prosecutors are seeking more than a decade in prison, according to a warrant made public Friday, Aug. 18, 2023.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Authorities are searching for a member of the Proud Boys extremist group who disappeared days before his sentencing in a U.S. Capitol riot case, where prosecutors are seeking more than a decade in prison, according to a warrant made public Friday.

Christopher Worrell of Naples, Florida, was supposed to be sentenced Friday after being found guilty of spraying pepper spray gel on police officers, as part of the mob storming the Capitol as Congress was certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory on Jan. 6, 2021. Prosecutors had asked a judge to sentence him to 14 years.

The sentencing was canceled and a warrant for his arrest issued under seal on Tuesday, according to court records. The U.S. attorney’s office for Washington D.C. encouraged the public to share any information about his whereabouts.

Worrell had been on house arrest in Florida since his release from jail in Washington in November 2021, less than a month after a judge substantiated his civil-rights complaints about his treatment in the jail.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found Worrell’s medical care for a broken hand had been delayed, and held D.C. jail officials in contempt of court.

His attorney William Shipley declined to comment. Phone numbers listed for Worrell and the woman named as his custodian during his house arrest were not functional.

More than three dozen people charged in the Capitol siege have been identified by federal authorities as leaders, members or associates of the Proud Boys, whose members describe it as a politically incorrect men’s club for “Western chauvinists.”

Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and three other members of the extremist group were convicted of seditious conspiracy in May.

A total of about 1,000 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Jan. 6 riot. More than 600 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trials decided by a jury or judge. About 600 have been sentenced, with over half getting terms of imprisonment ranging from three days to 18 years.
________

When the going gets tough, these fascist twatwaffles run and hide. These are the people who think they can win another civil war, pardon me, "boogaloo".

Did they check Mar-a-Lago?

[TopHatter]

FBI arrests Jan. 6 rioter who confessed to assaulting an officer in front of courthouse

WASHINGTON — The FBI has arrested a Jan. 6 defendant who said he assaulted an officer on video while standing in front of a Washington courthouse on the day of the riot.

Ronald Alfred Bryan, 70, who was arrested Wednesday, he made his initial court appearance in Louisiana, the Justice Department said. He had been No. 418 on the FBI's Capitol Violence website, wanted for assault on a federal officer.

Bryan faces several charges, including obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder, theft of government property and assault on a federal officer.

On Jan. 6, 2021, standing in front of the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse — the same building where he was charged — Bryan "showed bruises on his body and continued to brag about his theft of the police shield and assaults on [U.S. Capitol Police] officers," a FBI special agent wrote in an affidavit.


Ronald Bryan near Federal Courthouse on Jan. 6, 2021. (U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C.)


Ronald Bryan’s “Bring Enough Gun” sweatshirt can be seen as he discusses his assault on USCP officers. (U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C.)

“I was one of the first ones up," Bryan said in a video. "I run through the front line, got a shield on the way through. When they got me down and started beating on me, I got a baton. It took about a half-dozen of them to get the stuff away from me.”

Authorities said Bryan used a wooden pallet as he charged up the stairs, then placed it near the feet of Christopher Alberts, another Jan. 6 rioter, who was armed with a concealed gun and was sentenced last month to seven years in federal prison.

Bryan then "forcibly took" a plastic shield "and then charged forward, toward the officers, using the shield offensively in an attempt to breach the police line," the FBI said.

Wearing a sweatshirt that read "Bring Enough Gun" and a baseball bat emblazoned with the words "Vietnam Veteran," Bryan later bragged about his assault on Capitol Police officers and theft of the police shield, on the grounds of the Capitol and in front of the courthouse, according to video that was shared on the internet and cited by the FBI.


Ronald Bryan near Peace Circle on Jan. 6, 2021. (U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C.)

"We ganged up on the left side of the steps where the white tarps were. I started cutting the tarps off," he said in one video. “I stole a baton. I stole a shield. [I] knocked two of them to the ground, took six of them to get me off of them. ... Y’all go get you some!”

About 1,100 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol attack, more than 300 of whom have been sentenced to incarceration. Authorities this week arrested a Connecticut man who is the Republican nominee for mayor in his hometown, Derby.
_____________

And the "antifa" roundup continues....

[TopHatter]

Why Trump’s January 6 defense is even worse than it seems

Editor’s Note: Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. He is coauthor of “Modern Trial Advocacy” and has written many other books and articles on legal ethics and law practice. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion at CNN.

The best defense former President Donald Trump has against his indictment in Washington for multiple conspiracies to defraud the United States as part of the events of January 6, 2021, hinges on his purportedly sincere belief that he actually won the 2020 election.

According to the prosecution, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.”

The indictment uses the phrase “knowingly false” another 32 times, underscoring the allegation that Trump’s various machinations were all part of a scheme to remain in power through intentional trickery and deceit.

Trump defense lawyer John Lauro, however, told NBC News, among others, that Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, “believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election.”

We already have a good idea of how the prosecution intends to prove its case at trial. The indictment lists over 100 allegedly false claims and statements by Trump, with times, places and witnesses. And there is no doubt more where that came from. The tougher question is how Trump will respond to such an overwhelming case. Because criminal defendants are not required to produce any evidence at all, with the burden of proof on the prosecution, Trump could, in theory, simply stand mute and rely on his attorney to argue that the prosecution failed to prove that his statements were “knowingly” false.

Given that, Trump’s lawyers may well advise him to stay off the witness stand and avoid the risks of cross examination — but demure silence is hardly in his nature. Trump has already signaled that he intends to mount an aggressive defense, and he has seldom, if ever, passed up an opportunity to tell his story of persecution by the “deep state.”

Furthermore, Trump himself would be the logical witness to his own innocent beliefs. Testifying, however, would carry many risks for him. To start with, upon voluntarily taking the stand, Trump would waive the Fifth Amendment’s protection from responding to questions whose answers could be self-incriminating, thus exposing himself to cross examination on every aspect of the charged crimes. He could not refuse to answer questions, as he did over 400 times in a deposition taken in the New York attorney general’s civil suit concerning his business practices. (He has denied any wrongdoing in this case as well.)

The result would likely be devastating. At a minimum, Trump would be questioned about every false statement alleged in the indictment. If he denied making the claims, there would almost certainly be prosecution witnesses to contradict him.

If he maintained that his statements were all true, there will be a mountain of evidence to contradict that. And if he continued to insist that he believed everything he said — about “alternate” electors, finding 11,780 votes in Georgia and Mike Pence’s authority to reject electoral votes — his cascade of denials would soon become self-evidently implausible.

Despite his mastery of the debate stage, Trump has already proven to be a poor witness, as was seen in the video of his deposition in E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse defamation and battery suit. That examination by Carroll’s lawyer, conducted with open-ended questions to discover evidence and not as a part of a cross-examination on the witness stand, was actually relatively mild compared to the leading questions Trump can expect under the firm command of a seasoned federal prosecutor.

Moreover, having Trump on the stand would aid prosecutors in sketching out a clear narrative of events for jurors. Typically in trials, separate witnesses testify in piecemeal fashion about different events, resulting in a patchwork of evidence that the prosecutors can tie together only in their closing argument at the trial’s end. In Trump’s cross examination, however, the prosecutors would be able to confront him with his false statements one after another, seamlessly telling their entire story of Trump’s duplicity in his own words.

And in waiving the Fifth Amendment, Trump could potentially face a contempt citation if he persistently refuses to answer particular questions. That would likely lead to what is sometimes politely called an “adverse inference” by the jurors. Trump himself once drew such an inference, asking, “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth?”

It gets worse. Trump evidently also plans to raise the “advice of counsel” defense, relying on assurances from his lawyers that his tactics were all lawful and thus negating criminal intent. As Lauro told NPR, “He got advice from counsel — very, very wise and learned counsel — on a variety of constitutional and legal issues.”

Mounting an advice of counsel defense, for its part, means waiving attorney-client privilege. In other words, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and the entire “gaggle of crackpot lawyers,” as Mike Pence called those who advised Trump, could not claim confidentiality if subpoenaed by the prosecution to testify against their erstwhile client.

The lawyers, some of whom have been identified as unindicted co-conspirators, could assert the Fifth Amendment for themselves, but that would just undermine Trump’s defense. Moreover, the privilege waiver would also apply to any of the lawyers who confidentially told Trump he had lost the election, making them available to testify against him even over his objection.

Trump’s lawyers could attempt to establish their client’s defense through White House personnel instead, calling them to testify to the innocence of their boss’s beliefs. Even assuming there are still employees willing to stand by him, however, Trump’s cronies would not exactly be the most convincing witnesses.

Furthermore, most such testimony would be generally inadmissible under the definition of the hearsay rule, which prohibits out-of-court statements being supplied in testimony in order prove the truth of the matter asserted. Although there would be a hearsay exception for statements showing Trump’s “state of mind,” that would only allow the witnesses to testify to Trump’s actual words. They could not opine on whether he was truthful or sincere.

In the end, Trump will have to deal with the key accusation in the indictment:

“Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew they were false.”

For once in his life, Trump cannot count on talking his way out of it.
__________

PLEASE let this man take the stand in his own "defense"

[TopHatter]

Peter Navarro says Trump asserted privilege over testimony during Jan. 6 committee investigation
Washington — Former top Trump White House economic adviser Peter Navarro told a federal judge that Donald Trump made it "very clear" that he wanted Navarro to invoke certain privileges and not respond to a congressional subpoena from the now-defunct House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Navarro testified Monday that on Feb. 20, 2022 — 11 days after he was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee — he called Trump and spoke with him for three minutes.

"It was clear during that call that privilege was invoked, very clear," Navarro said.

Navarro took the stand in an evidentiary hearing in which his legal team urged federal Judge Amit Mehta to allow Navarro to defend himself at his contempt of Congress trial by stating that Trump told him not to comply with the committee's subpoena.

Navarro said he had a meeting with Trump on April 5, 2022, where "there was no question that privilege had been invoked from the get-go," referring to Trump as "boss" and characterizing the conversation as one where Trump did most of the talking.

The select committee first subpoenaed Navarro for records and testimony in February 2022 as part of its investigation into efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. After refusing to comply with the requests, Navarro was indicted on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress and pleaded not guilty.

His trial is set to begin Sept. 5, and the parties are estimating the proceedings will take just days to complete.

Prosecutors had urged the court not to hold Monday's evidentiary hearing at all, arguing Navarro had not provided the court with any actual evidence that Trump had actually invoked executive privilege or testimonial immunity — certain protections afforded to presidents in specific scenarios — over Navarro's response to the congressional subpoena.

But in a ruling last month, Mehta wrote, "The court…will permit Defendant, through his own testimony or other evidence, to establish the factual predicate for the actual, proper invocation of executive privilege or testimonial immunity, or both, by the former President."

Judge Mehta raised questions about the existence of any documented evidence substantiating Navarro's claim that Trump directed the invocation of the privileges.

"I still don't have any inkling of what the president's words were," he said.

Stanley Woodward, Navarro's defense attorney, said that he, too, wished there were more physical documentation of the executive privilege, but he argued that the "unconventional approach" did not invalidate Navarro's right to defend himself by saying he thought he had been formally restricted from speaking to Congress.

When asked about his communication with Trump, Navarro said he did not email him directly and communicated with him through his aides, adding, "He's not a text guy."

But the Justice Department said there was nothing to prove that Trump even saw the Jan. 6 subpoena, much less evidence that supports the claim that he formally shielded Navarro from testimony.

The defense contended that it would have been "inconceivable" that Trump would grant executive privilege to all his other senior advisers who had been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 House select committee and not to Navarro. Notably, in a separate hearing in the courtroom adjacent to the one where Navarro was testifying, federal prosecutors in Trump's prosecution revealed the former president's legal team had mounted multiple sealed court battles over assertions of executive privilege in an unsuccessful attempt to stop a number of grand jury witnesses from testifying in the special counsel's probe.

Before Monday's hearing, Mehta ruled that Navarro would need to show formal, concrete proof during Monday's hearing that such protections had been invoked to make the privilege or immunity defense at trial. Mehta also specified that any argument about testimonial immunity would only apply to the second count for which Navarro was charged — related to his refusal to testify — and the first count, related to the production of relevant records, would be subject only to executive privilege.

The judge said he would rule on whether Navarro could use the privilege and immunity defenses at his upcoming trial in the coming days.

Judge Mehta said that what made the case "odd" was that no one was denying that Navarro believed that he had executive privilege.

Navarro is the second Trump ally to be prosecuted for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the former House Select Committee.

Steve Bannon was convicted last year of two counts of contempt of Congress after he, like Navarro, did not hand over requested documents or sit for a deposition. His sentencing hearing has been suspended as he appeals his guilty verdict to a higher court.

Other Trump aides, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, were referred by Congress to the Justice Department for contempt charges but were not ultimately charged.

Each count Navarro faces carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison.
________

[Albany Rifles]

Haven't pretty much all attempts to claim privilege have been struck down by the courts?

[Albany Rifles]

And response to Navarro...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/polit...ase/index.html

Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro’s testimony in contempt case is ‘weak sauce,’ judge says

Another federal judge overseeing Peter Navarro’s contempt of Congress criminal case on Monday called his defense arguments “pretty weak sauce,” injecting last-minute uncertainty into how the former Donald Trump adviser will be able to defend himself during his upcoming trial.

Navarro, Trump’s one-time trade adviser, testified Monday in his defense during a key pre-trial hearing in his case. He’s facing charges for defying subpoenas issued to him by the House select committee that investigated the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, claiming he did so because Trump asserted executive privilege in the matter.


But during the nearly three-hour hearing before US District Judge Amit P. Mehta in Washington, DC, the judge appeared highly skeptical of Navarro’s testimony, noting it’s from one side of the conversation.


“I still don’t know what the president said,” Mehta told Navarro’s attorney Stanley Woodward, referring to a February 20, 2022, call during which Navarro said it was made clear the former president was invoking executive privilege. “I don’t have any words from the former president.”

“That’s pretty weak sauce,” the judge added, referring this time to a comment Navarro says Trump made to him about regretting not letting him testify. The comment had been used by Navarro and his team to bolster their argument that Trump did invoke privilege because his subsequent regret indicated as much.

“The record is barren, there is nothing here, even after your client’s testimony,” Mehta told Woodward.

Woodward said during a hearing earlier this month that Trump is not expected to testify on behalf of Navarro, potentially undercutting a key defense.

The absence of testimony from Trump could leave Navarro, who has pleaded not guilty, without direct evidence that he was acting at the direction of the former president when he declined to testify and turn over records to Congress.

The lack of direct evidence showing that Trump directed him not to comply with the subpoena at times seem to frustrate even his own legal team during Monday’s hearing.

“I don’t think anyone would disagree that we wish there was more here from President Trump,” Woodward told Mehta.

But, he added later, “I don’t believe that diminishes the presumption of privilege” communicated from Trump to Navarro.

The judge said he would make a decision later this week on whether Navarro’s testimony could be used in his trial next month.

Navarro’s criminal case is set to go to trial next month.
‘No question’ privilege was invoked


During his testimony on Monday, Navarro said that in conversations with Trump following the issuance of the committee subpoena on February 9, 2022, the former president made it known that he didn’t want Navarro to cooperate with the committee.

“It was clear during that call that privilege was invoked – very clear,” Navarro said at one point, referring to a call he said took place on February 20, 2022.

“There was no question that the privilege had been invoked from the get-go – none,” he added later.
Test of congressional authority


Navarro’s case may be a major test for congressional authority and the reach of the presidency. The trial would follow the conviction by a jury of another former Trump adviser, Steve Bannon, on the same charges last year. Bannon is appealing.

Navarro after the hearing told reporters it is a “very important case about the constitutional separation of powers.”

“And I think that, as his case proceeds, it’ll be important to do what they call settle the law on some of these questions,” he said.

Navarro also urged people to donate to his legal defense fund, saying the case has “already cost over a half a million dollars.”

Navarro stood for the duration of the hearing with his arms folded, even as he fielded questions from the attorneys. When he was off the stand, he paced back and forth near the table his team of attorneys was seated at, and he became testy with the prosecutor once they began their cross-examination, causing the judge to instruct him on how to conduct himself during that portion of his testimony.
Liz Harrington testimony


Part of the hearing centered on a disagreement between the two sides on how to include written testimony from a key defense witness – Trump aide Liz Harrington – who had previously been set to provide in-person testimony during Monday’s hearing.

Navarro’s team wants the government to agree to a so-called stipulation, which would allow written testimony that both sides agree is accurate to be submitted into the record. But prosecutors opposed that move, and instead suggested she submit an affidavit that could later be cross-checked with her grand jury testimony in the case.

“We would like, at the very least, to leave the record open” so Harrington can submit her testimony, Woodward told Mehta.

[TopHatter]

Haven't pretty much all attempts to claim privilege have been struck down by the courts?

Yeah, seems so.

At the very most, they've got some limitations placed on what they have to talk about, but to the best of my knowledge, not a single one has been told "You know what, gosh you're right, you don't have to testify at all".

[TopHatter]

And response to Navarro...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/polit...ase/index.html
The lack of direct evidence showing that Trump directed him not to comply with the subpoena at times seem to frustrate even his own legal team during Monday’s hearing.

“I don’t think anyone would disagree that we wish there was more here from President Trump,” Woodward told Mehta.

I love how Trump is letting Navarro twist in the wind like a used-and-discarded paper towel. Such loyalty. Such integrity.

[TopHatter]

‘I wasn’t sure if I was going home’: US Capitol Police officers continue to relive January 6 trauma in court



One day after lawyers for former President Donald Trump appeared in Washington, DC’s federal courthouse to delay his trial on charges of election subversion, three US Capitol Police officers addressed a federal judge and recounted in personal terms what they endured when a pro-Trump mob descended on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The gripping testimony from the officers came at the beginning of a week-long marathon sentencing for five members of the far-right Proud Boys convicted of seditious conspiracy for concocting and carrying out a plot to overrun the Capitol and stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Officer Shae Cooney, who has rarely spoken publicly about the riot, testified Tuesday through tears about the lasting trauma she has endured since that day.

“That day was the first time I wasn’t sure if I was going home that night,” she said.

Trump’s trial, which prosecutors allege culminated in a mob of his supporters descending on the Capitol, is set to take place at the same DC courthouse in March where the Proud Boys and dozens of others have been sentenced for their roles on January 6.

While the officers in court on Tuesday directly addressed the defendants in the courtroom, they also spoke broadly of the power that inspired the mob and warned the public to remember what they experienced.

Inspector Thomas Lloyd directly called out politicians, defendants and media figures who have alleged that law enforcement officers were somehow responsible for what happened during the riot. Lloyd, one of the Capitol Police leading officers that day, helped organize the evacuation of members – even as the mob broke into the Speaker’s Lobby, where members were fleeing.

“Recent videos have emerged that alleged our officers were tour guides in the Capitol building,” Lloyd said. “When a mob controls one-third of the United States government, you will see disturbing videos of police officers being at the mercy of the rioters.”

Lloyd also decried allegations that “rioters entered the interior of the Capitol building because my officers didn’t know how to lock down the window properly.”

“Some defendants have stated they assisted my personnel on January 6,” Lloyd said. “This is the same tactic used as domestic violence perpetrators – beat the victim unconscious and then attempt to render aid.”

Officer Mark Ode, who was beaten by members of the mob, said in a written statement read aloud by prosecutors that the riot was a “planned and organized attempt to overthrow our constitutional process by individuals who determined that their opinion of the few was superior to the Constitution.”

“Certain memories and experiences leave deep marks that never fully heal and leave a reminder of things that were or things that could have been,” Ode said in his statement. He recounted being “pinned down by multiple assailants, being pinned down by all of their weight, while simultaneously being choked by the chinstrap of my helmet.”

I “felt my life fleeing my body,” Ode wrote, and had “the most vivid visual of my own funeral.”

Cooney recounted the aftermath that night and “feeling my phone vibrate for hours knowing that my family was trying to reach me, and I couldn’t do anything for hours.”

“I lost a friend that day, someone who I had worked with for almost three years. I was standing right next to him when he started fighting, and later that day he was gone. And every day I have to be reminded that he isn’t here anymore because the people in this courtroom decided that they weren’t happy with how an election went.”

Though she did not identify the officer by name, Cooney appeared to be referencing US Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who suffered strokes and died of natural causes shortly after responding to the riot.
_____________

[TopHatter]

Trump supporter on trial for Jan. 6 charges says he was 'very comfy' in senator’s chair

WASHINGTON — A Donald Trump supporter who continues to believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen told jurors at his trial on Tuesday that he "felt very comfy" sitting in a senator's seat during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Brandon Fellows, who has called Jan. 6 a "beautiful day" and said he liked the fact that senators and members of Congress feared for their lives, is representing himself in a trial that began last week.


Brandon Fellows at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

"We had to take the election back, it was stolen," Fellows said on the stand on Tuesday.

Fellows is facing a federal felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting along with misdemeanors in connection with the Capitol attack. He's also accused of smoking marijuana inside of a hideaway office that belonged to Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.

"I didn't know it was a senator's desk," Fellows said. "It felt very comfy."

Fellows said he believed he was fighting against "the corrupt government" on Jan. 6, but said he did not take part in violence himself, even if he supported it. Fellows said that he believed that some violence on Jan. 6 was preferable to more violence down the line.

“It’s the people’s house,” Fellows said. “We had the right to overthrow it.”

After the jury left the courtroom on Tuesday morning for a short break, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden said that he believed Fellows had forfeited his right to engage in a rebuttal because, when answering the questions during the government's cross-examination, he offered a running commentary and avoided answering yes-or-no questions.

"I would expect nothing less from a kangaroo court," Fellows remarked as he came off the witness stand.


According to court documents Brandon Fellows is photographed sitting in Sen. Jeff Merkley's office at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

McFadden, who was appointed by Trump, has been critical of the government's approach to some Jan. 6 cases and has often handed out sentences far below those requested by the government.

The jury finished hearing evidence midday on Tuesday, after Fellows’ testimony. Jury instructions were expected to take place on Tuesday afternoon, followed by closing arguments.

About 1,100 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and more than 300 defendants have been sentenced to periods of incarceration. This week, another federal judge will sentence five members of the Proud Boys, four of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy. The government is seeking sentences of 33 years for two of the defendants — Enrique Tarrio and Joseph Biggs — as well as sentences of 30 years for Zachary Rehl, 27 years for Ethan Nordean and 20 years for Dominic Pezzola, the sole defendant who was not convicted of the top seditious conspiracy charge.
_________

[TopHatter]

Ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio to be sentenced for seditious conspiracy in Jan. 6 attack


Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio speaks at a rally in Delta Park on Sept. 26, 2020, in Portland, Ore. Tarrio is set to be sentenced on Wednesday, Aug. 30, 2023, for a failed plot to keep Donald Trump in power after the Republican lost the 2020 presidential election, capping one of the most significant prosecutions in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Proud Boys national leader Enrique Tarrio is set to be sentenced on Wednesday for a failed plot to keep Donald Trump in power after the Republican lost the 2020 presidential election, capping one of the most significant prosecutions in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Prosecutors are seeking 33 years behind bars for Tarrio, who had already been arrested and ordered to leave Washington, D.C. by the time Proud Boys members joined thousands of Trump supporters in storming the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory. But prosecutors say he organized and led the group's assault from afar, inspiring followers with his charisma and penchant for propaganda.

Tarrio was a top target in one of the most important Capitol riot cases prosecuted by the Justice Department. He and three lieutenants were convicted in May of charges including seditious conspiracy — a rarely brought Civil War-era offense that the Justice Department levied against members of far-right groups who played a key role in the Jan. 6 attack.

“Using his powerful platform, Tarrio has repeatedly and publicly indicated that he has no regrets about what he helped make happen on January 6,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

The Justice Department has also recently charged Trump with conspiring to subvert American democracy, accusing the Republican of plotting in the days before the attack to overturn the results of the election that he lost. The Tarrio case — and hundreds of others like it — function as a vivid reminder of the violent chaos fueled by Trump’s weeks of lies around the election and the extent to which his false claims helped inspire right-wing extremists who ultimately stormed the Capitol to thwart the peaceful transfer of presidential power.

Trump, who is the Republican frontrunner for the 2024 nomination, insists he did nothing wrong. His trial is set for March 4.

Prosecutors have recommended 33 years in prison for for Tarrio, 39, of Miami — nearly twice as long as the harshest punishment that has been handed down so far in the Justice Department's massive Jan. 6 prosecution. The longest prison sentence so far went to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who got 18 years for seditious conspiracy and his conviction on other charges.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly isn't bound by prosecutors' recommendation when he sentences Tarrio and seperately sentences former Proud Boys chapter leader Ethan Nordean on Wednesday in Washington's federal courthouse — which sits within view of the Capitol. Later this week, Kelly is scheduled to sentence three other Proud Boys members who were convicted by a jury in May after a trial alongside Tarrio and Nordean.

Tarrio, Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl were convicted of seditious conspiracy. A fifth Proud Boys member, Dominic Pezzola, was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted of other serious charges.

Prosecutors also recommended prison sentences of 33 years for Biggs, 30 years for Rehl, 27 years for Nordean and 20 years for Pezzola.

Tarrio’s lawyers denied the Proud Boys had any plan to attack the Capitol, and argued that prosecutors used Tarrio as a scapegoat for Trump, who spoke at the “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House on Jan. 6 and urged his supporters to “fight like hell.”

In urging the judge for a lenient sentence, Tarrio’s lawyers noted in court papers that he has a history of cooperating with law enforcement. Court records uncovered in 2021 showed that Tarrio previously worked undercover and cooperated with investigators after he was accused of fraud in 2012.

Tarrio's lawyers urged the judge “to see another side of him — one that is benevolent, cooperative with law enforcement, useful in the community, hardworking and with a tight-knit family unit and community support.”

Police arrested Tarrio in Washington two days before the riot on charges that he defaced a Black Lives Matter banner during an earlier rally in the nation’s capital, but law enforcement officials later said he was arrested in part over concerns about the potential for unrest during the certification. He complied with a judge’s order to leave the city after his arrest.

On Jan. 6, dozens of Proud Boys leaders, members and associates were among the first rioters to breach the Capitol. The mob’s assault overwhelmed police, forced lawmakers to flee the House and Senate floors and disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Biden’s electoral victory.

Tarrio picked Nordean and Biggs to be his top lieutenants on Jan. 6 and created an encrypted Telegram group chat for group leaders to communicate, according to prosecutors. The backbone of the case against Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders was messages that they privately exchanged before, during and after the Jan. 6 attack.

“Make no mistake ... we did this,’” Tarrio wrote to other group leaders.

Tarrio also posted encouraging messages on social media during the riot, expressing pride for what he saw unfold at the Capitol and urging his followers to stay there. He also posted a picture of rioters in the Senate chamber with the caption “1776.”

Several days before the riot, a girlfriend sent Tarrio a document entitled “1776 Returns.” It called for storming and occupying government buildings in Washington “for the purpose of getting the government to overturn the election results,” according to prosecutors.

More than 1,100 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Capitol attack. More than 600 of them have been sentenced, with over half receiving terms of imprisonment.

Nordean, of Auburn, Washington, and Rehl, of Philadelphia, led local Proud Boys chapters. Biggs, of Ormond Beach, Florida, was a self-described Proud Boys organizer. Pezzola was a group member from Rochester, New York.
___

[Albany Rifles]

Ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio to be sentenced for seditious conspiracy in Jan. 6 attack


Need a Judge Roy Brown for the sentencing!