Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2021 Trump-Incited Insurrection at Capitol Building

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Capitol Police officers sue Trump, extremists, alleging conspiracy, terrorism on Jan. 6

    Seven officers from the United States Capitol Police are suing former President Donald Trump, his longtime adviser Roger Stone and members of far-right extremist groups, alleging they conspired to use violence Jan. 6 to attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday morning, alleges that Trump and the other defendants conspired with one other through the use of force, threats and intimidation that culminated in the attack on the Capitol.

    Officer Jason DeRoche, an 18-year veteran of the Capitol Police and a Navy veteran, said the civil lawsuit isn't about winning a financial settlement. Rather, he said, the lawsuit aims to set the record straight about what happened Jan. 6 and make sure history doesn't repeat itself.

    "We don't want something like this happening ever again," DeRoche said.

    He said he wants Trump and the other defendants to be held accountable for what they did, so that "if they were to do this ever again, there would be consequences."



    Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

    Joining DeRoche in the lawsuit are six other veteran Capitol Police officers who have each served 13 to 35 years at the department. The complaint details the events of Jan. 6, describing the officers being assaulted, bear-sprayed and tear-gassed and believing their lives were threatened.

    DeRoche started his shift at 7 a.m. that day. A few hours later, he helped barricade the Capitol with bike racks against attacking Trump supporters, the lawsuit says. Over the course of a shift that lasted until 11:30 p.m., he was assaulted and attacked with bear spray, pepper spray and fire extinguishers. His eye was swollen shut, his arm was injured, and he suffered emotional injuries, the lawsuit says.

    "These officers risked their lives and were brutally attacked defending the right of every citizen to a government of their choosing," said Edward Caspar, senior counsel with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an advocacy group representing the police officers. "If they didn't do what they did that day – if they didn't have the courage to stand up – I don't know that we'd be living in a democracy today."


    The lawsuit claims the defendants violated the federal Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era statute that allows individuals to sue when they are injured by conspiracies that "prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States."

    The law couldn't fit the circumstances of the case better, Caspar said.

    "This attack was about using force, intimidation and threats to prevent Congress from doing its job in certifying the election results and injuring the Capitol Police officers in the performance of their jobs," he said.

    Attorneys for Trump and several other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, another defendant in the lawsuit, responded but didn't comment on the allegations.

    The lawsuit argues that the conspiracy grew throughout 2020 as Trump and far-right influencers, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, sowed doubts about the integrity of the presidential election.

    It ties together events from around the country – the takeover of the Michigan state Capitol on April 30, 2020, by armed protesters, violent attacks by the Proud Boys and fiery television appearances by Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers – to argue that they were all part of a nationwide conspiracy aimed at keeping Trump in office even after he lost the election.

    The conspiracy increased in its fervor after the election, the lawsuit claims, as purveyors of the "Stop The Steal" conspiracy theory worked to spread disinformation about election fraud. Attacks and threats against election workers should be implicitly tied to the propaganda spread by Trump and others, the complaint argues.


    Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they push barricades to storm the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6.

    Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said the lawsuit is "very clever."

    "They do a great job of describing what occurred on Jan. 6," he said.

    He said the plaintiffs may have trouble proving certain elements.

    Given that the lawsuit is a civil rights case, it's hard to understand exactly whose civil rights were infringed, Chemerinsky said.

    "Is it the civil rights of the voters?" he said. "If a bunch of people get together and try to obstruct an abortion clinic, then that's a clear conspiracy to interfere with human rights, but here, the question is: Whose civil rights are being infringed?"

    Secondly, Chemerinsky said it may be hard to prove that the actions of the far-right groups were driven by racism, as the complaint suggests. Though there's little doubt that the groups have racist ideologies, he said, it's harder to prove racism was behind their attempts to interfere with the election.

    "Was this intentionally about race? Or was it that these were racist people acting to keep the person they wanted in office remain in power?" Chemerinsky asked.

    Chemerinsky said the central premise of the lawsuit is strong: that the defendants conspired to stop Congress and the Capitol Police from doing their job via threats and intimidation.

    Criminal conspiracy cases underway
    Many of the people named in the lawsuit face criminal charges for their alleged roles in the Capitol attack. Federal prosecutors brought three criminal conspiracy cases against groups of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters.

    Unlike the criminal cases, in which prosecutors must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the plaintiffs in the civil case have a lower bar: a "preponderance of evidence" or a greater than 50% chance. Chemerinsky said it's generally easier to prove a civil conspiracy claim than a criminal one.

    Attorneys for the seven Capitol Police officers have the advantage that the criminal cases are proceeding alongside their lawsuit and producing evidence that can be used against the defendants in the civil case.

    DeRoche said he hopes the lawsuit reveals the true danger the defendants pose to the American public. He described being absolutely shocked Jan. 6 by the violence and vitriol against him and his fellow officers.

    "It's a threat, period. It's a domestic terrorist threat that the general public needs to be aware of," he said. "I don't want this to happen again anywhere else in the country."
    ____________

    I'll be surprised if this goes anywhere. Despite the obvious accuracy of their description of what happened on that day, actually finding people like Donald Trump guilty in a court of law will be a tall order.
    Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post



      You were not using them in generalised terms or descriptions. You wanted to know who had been indicted for insurrection, meaning the specific legal description. The narrative you're attempting to promote is apparently "It's impossible for January 6th to be an insurrection because no one has been charged with insurrection". Similar to the "It's impossible for January 6th to be an insurrection because no one carried a firearm" myth.
      And therein lies the disconnect.

      I'm stating that you're using the term insurrection for something that isn't legally prosecutable, as you yourself stated, and fair enough.

      I simply used the same term, for the same reasons, to describe the potential, planned "insurrection" if Trump had won.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
        And therein lies the disconnect.

        I'm stating that you're using the term insurrection for something that isn't legally prosecutable, as you yourself stated, and fair enough.

        I simply used the same term, for the same reasons, to describe the potential, planned "insurrection" if Trump had won.
        Ok...but, once again, I'm failed to see how demonstrations and protests (which is what the article you posted talked about) can be described as insurrections, either of the legally prosecutable kind or of the terrorist attack committed on January 6th by Donald Trump and his supporters...particularly when they were talking about "standing down" and not giving Trump the violent events he sought as an excuse to declare martial law.

        Demonstrations and protests aren't insurrections, no matter how much Donald Trump and his supporters want them to treat them as an excuse to crack open the skulls of their political opponents.

        Can you show me in the article you posted where I am missing your point?
        Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

          Ok...but, once again, I'm failed to see how demonstrations and protests (which is what the article you posted talked about) can be described as insurrections,
          You'd already attacked the white house and surrounds, injuring 50 secret service agents in the process. It's no stretch the planned protests would have been as bad or worse. Isn't trying to take out the duly elected president of the United States worthy of "insurrection"?
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post

            You'd already attacked the white house and surrounds, injuring 50 secret service agents in the process. It's no stretch the planned protests would have been as bad or worse. Isn't trying to take out the duly elected president of the United States worthy of "insurrection"?
            Another tabloid link? Oh man...

            No, the riots in front of the White House weren't trying to "take out" the President. A protest-turned-riot. in front of the White House is still not an insurrection. Unless you have clips of people screaming HANG DONALD TRUMP!!! Come to think of it, I don't think even your right-wing tabloid echo chamber has labeled it an "insurrection"....

            In any case, in your world, yes, it's no stretch. In reality, once again, the people in the article that you posted were Standing Down. To Avoid Violence.

            OK, we'll pause you can move 'em back some more. I'll wait.

            Click image for larger version  Name:	0*E1eNateTiDThGcYI.jpg Views:	0 Size:	260.3 KB ID:	1575790
            Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

              Another tabloid link? Oh man...
              Yes yes, opinion you don't like. I get it. You wanna call jan 6 an insurrection, fine. I'll use the same word for what you do, and plan to do. Your rules, learn to live by them.
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                Yes yes, opinion you don't like. I get it.
                Well, more like "Source that you ought to be ashamed of using but clearly aren't".

                So was the InfoWars and Stormfront servers down for maintenance or something?

                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                You wanna call jan 6 an insurrection, fine.
                Ain't just me sport, it's anybody who isn't a Trump worshiper. But at least you're being true to yourself. That's progress.

                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                I'll use the same word for what you do, and plan to do. Your rules, learn to live by them.
                You can call it anything you want. Trumpers live in a world of "alternative facts" to begin with. Doesn't mean it's true.

                What I do? What I plan to do? What is it that I do, and plan to do, pray tell?

                This oughta be good
                Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                  Well, more like "Source that you ought to be ashamed of using but clearly aren't".

                  So was the InfoWars and Stormfront servers down for maintenance or something?


                  Ain't just me sport, it's anybody who isn't a Trump worshiper. But at least you're being true to yourself. That's progress.


                  You can call it anything you want. Trumpers live in a world of "alternative facts" to begin with. Doesn't mean it's true.

                  What I do? What I plan to do? What is it that I do, and plan to do, pray tell?

                  This oughta be good
                  Ah, the American left, screaming RACIST at anyone they disagree with. You're hilarious white boy.
                  In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                  Leibniz

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                    Ah, the American left, screaming RACIST at anyone they disagree with. You're hilarious white boy.
                    Welp, you appear to be accusing me of participating in, and planning, an insurrection against the United States Government. So, as long as you've well and truly gone off the deep end and are happily living in a reality of your own making, I guess you should be treated as "alternative facts" yourself. Your rules, learn to live by them.
                    Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                      Welp, you appear to be accusing me of participating in, and planning, an insurrection against the United States Government.
                      Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                      Ain't just me sport, it's anybody who isn't a Trump worshiper. But at least you're being true to yourself. That's progress.
                      Your rules whiteboy, live by them
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post


                        Your rules whiteboy, live by them
                        Umm, ok? I'll get right on that...
                        Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                        Comment


                        • TH, Weren't you in Florida on 29 May - 2 June 2000?

                          Hard to blame you for protesting outside the White House.

                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            TH, Weren't you in Florida on 29 May - 2 June 2000?

                            Hard to blame you for protesting outside the White House.
                            Hey you know me man, traitor to my country, that's definitely my thing
                            Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post


                              Your rules whiteboy, live by them
                              You do know what you can do with that racist shit, right?
                              Well folded?
                              And, where the sun don’t shine?
                              Trust me?
                              I'm an economist!

                              Comment


                              • McCarthy threatens companies that comply with Jan. 6 probe’s phone records requests

                                Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday threatened to use a future GOP majority to punish companies that comply with the House’s Jan. 6 investigators, warning that “a Republican majority will not forget.”

                                McCarthy called out Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for what he called “attempts to strong-arm private companies to turn over individuals’ private data.” He asserted that such a forfeiture of information would “put every American with a phone or computer in the crosshairs of a surveillance state run by Democrat politicians.”

                                The select panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection took its first step in obtaining phone records on Monday, asking an array of telecommunications companies to save records relevant to the attack — a request that could include records from some lawmakers. More than 30 companies, including Apple, AT&T and Verizon, received a request for records from April 1, 2020, to Jan. 31, 2021.
                                “The Select Committee is investigating the violent attack on the Capitol and attempt to overturn the results of last year’s election,” a committee spokesperson said in a statement, responding to McCarthy's threat. “We’ve asked companies not to destroy records that may help answer questions for the American people. The committee’s efforts won’t be deterred by those who want to whitewash or cover up the events of January 6th, or obstruct our investigation.”

                                On the substance of McCarthy’s complaint, congressional committees have routinely used subpoena power to obtain data from private companies, including phone records, emails and other communications. The Jan. 6 committee has not identified whose communications it is seeking, but it has made clear that members of Congress are among the potential targets, which would be a departure from past practices — one that members of the panel have said they believe is warranted in this case.

                                The Democratic-led committee’s investigators are looking for a fuller picture of the communications between then-President Donald Trump and members of Congress during the attack. McCarthy is among the Republicans known to have spoken with Trump on Jan. 6.

                                Republicans have already slammed the investigation’s interest in phone records as an “authoritarian” overreach by Democrats. Though two anti-Trump Republican lawmakers, Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, sit on the select panel, most of the party voted against the committee’s creation, and GOP senators filibustered a bill that would have formed an independent commission to investigate the Capitol insurrection.

                                “If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States,” McCarthy said in Tuesday’s statement. “If companies still choose to violate federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law.”

                                Schiff said on Tuesday that McCarthy’s threat was “premised on a falsehood.”

                                “He’s scared. And I think his boss is scared,” Schiff said on MSNBC. “They didn’t want this commission and this select committee to go forward. They certainly didn’t want it to go forward as it is on a bipartisan basis, and they don’t want the country to know exactly what they were involved in.

                                “And Kevin McCarthy lives to do whatever Trump wants. But he is trying to threaten these companies, and it shows yet again why this man, Kevin McCarthy, can never be allowed to go anywhere near the speaker’s office.”
                                ________

                                Just more obstruction of justice, nothing to see here....
                                Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X