ReportWire

Tag: jan 6

  • Former Capitol Police officer reflects on 5th anniversary of Jan. 6 riot – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Nearly five years after the Jan. 6 attack, former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn reflected on what happened during the riot and its aftermath.

    Tuesday will mark five years since hundreds of supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol and reiterated his false claims that the election was stolen.

    U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Harry Dunn testifies during a House select committee hearing on the Jan. 6 attack on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 27, 2021. (Jim Bourg/Pool via AP)(AP/Jim Bourg)

    The riot happened on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was certifying former President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

    More than 100 officers were injured in the Capitol riot; one died and several others took their own lives in the aftermath.

    About 1,500 people were convicted on charges associated with their actions during the attack, including some who were convicted of injuring police officers who were trying to protect the Capitol.

    On the day he was sworn into office for a second term, Trump pardoned the 1,500.

    WTOP’s Anne Kramer and Shawn Anderson reflected on the attack with former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who was at the Capitol on that day.

    Former Capitol Police Sgt. Harry Dunn reflects on the 5th anniversary of the Capitol Riot with WTOP’s Shawn Anderson and Anne Kramer.

    The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

    • Shawn Anderson:

      This has to be an incredibly difficult time for you. Walk us through what you were thinking about, and feeling, as the anniversary comes up tomorrow.

    • Harry Dunn:

      Well, it hasn’t just been this specific time being a difficult one. Every day since that day has been a difficult one. Not because of what happened on that day, but what happened in the aftermath and what continues to happen.

      The lying about what happened, the whitewashing about what happened, denying what happened, not acknowledging the heroic actions by the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police, the other departments that responded to save.

      It has been described as a peaceful protest, a tourist visit, by members of Congress, by the president of the United States, and they’re doing whatever they can to change the narrative of that day. It’s really unfortunate, because everybody saw with their own eyes what happened that day.

    • Anne Kramer:

      How difficult, Harry, is that to process — what’s being said? One of your colleagues told The Associated Press the same thing you’ve just mentioned, how difficult it is, even from family and friends, who don’t believe what happened was a big deal or doubt the police in the events of that day.

    • Harry Dunn:

      It’s extremely frustrating. But this isn’t anything new. Tomorrow will be five years and five years of dealing with it. So it’s kind of like you’ve almost gotten used to it.

      I hate that feeling, but I’ll never stop continuing to remind people what really did happen that day, to push back against the lies that are happening. A lot of people are saying, ‘Hey, we should move on from Jan. 6, we should get over it.’ I agree 100%. I would love nothing more than to get over it. But when you have people like the president, this administration doing everything they can, and they’re still talking about it. They’re still bringing it up.

      There’s an active lawsuit in the court to compel the architect of the Capitol to hang a federally mandated plaque up honoring the officers that day. Imagine officers having to go to court to sue to be recognized. It’s just really unfortunate the lengths that they’re going through to whitewash and change the history of that day.

    • Shawn Anderson :

      You became such an activist after Jan. 6, even trying to run for Congress in the state of Maryland. How do you talk to people as you continue to speak to the public these days? What do you tell them as you share your story?

    • Harry Dunn:

      It’s funny that you call me an activist, because I just think it’s standing up and doing what you believe in your heart is right. And I think that’s what it all comes down to, doing what you believe is right. Standing up for when you think something’s wrong, like John Lewis said, ‘Get into good trouble.’ And that’s kind of like been my mantra.

      I don’t know how this is all going to turn out. Everything that’s going on in the world, everything that’s going on with Jan. 6. I don’t know how it’s all going to turn out, none of us do. But I do know that if we don’t show up, if we don’t keep standing up and resisting and there’s some kind of opposition, that it won’t go well for us.

      So the message that I always say out there is keep showing up even when it’s bleak, even when it’s hard. And that’s in everything that you’re doing in life, not just Jan. 6 or political matters, just you have to continue getting up and showing up.

    • Anne Kramer:

      Harry tomorrow, the former leader of the proud boys, Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted and then pardoned by President Trump for his role in the Capitol riot is supposed to hold what’s being called a memorial march to honor those who died. What’s going through your head when you hear this is going to happen tomorrow?

    • Harry Dunn:

      When I first saw it that my honestly reaction was ‘whatever,’ like, I don’t give any credence to anything that those individuals do. They were convicted and pardoned by another criminal themselves, just to be blunt. Criminals pardoned by a criminal and that’s literally all that I see them as.

      Jan. 6 was bad for a lot of people, not just the officers who suffered violence that day; for America, for the rioters who participated, it was a bad day for everybody. And everybody should be seeking transparency. I mean the Proud Boys have lawsuit against the Department of Justice for convicting them, or whatever the specifics of their cases.

      But I just think it’s really unfortunate that they are seeing themselves as the good guys, so to speak, when there were hundreds of officers who protected the Capitol, protected members of Congress who they may or may not agree with just because it’s the right thing to do. They did their jobs. And it’s just really unfortunate. So when I saw that news, I was just like ‘whatever.’

    • Shawn Anderson:

      We mentioned that you did run for Congress a few years after Jan. 6. You didn’t make it through the primary first time around running for Congress? Do you still foresee a political career in your future? Will you try again in some way?

    • Harry Dunn:

      I see a career in just public service and just wherever I can be helpful, wherever I can be useful. I don’t want to give a politician answer. So no, I’ll never rule out an opportunity to run for Congress again. I haven’t ruled it out, but I haven’t made a decision to do so either at this moment.

      But I will always continue to show up, metaphorically speaking, when there’s a fight for it to show up. I will always be there, hopefully on the right side of it.

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Kronzer

    Source link

  • Florida woman spent 18 months in prison for threatening FBI. Trump pardoned her

    [ad_1]

    Boca Raton woman served 18 months after threatening FBI agents on Facebook amid a Jan. 6 inquiry. President Trump later granted her a full pardon for the offense.

    Boca Raton woman served 18 months after threatening FBI agents on Facebook amid a Jan. 6 inquiry. President Trump later granted her a full pardon for the offense.

    ARCHIVE MIAMI HERALD

    Suzanne Ellen Kaye spent a year and a half in a prison cell for social media threats against FBI agents who were going to her home to question her back in 2021 about her possible involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Friday, well after Kaye completed her sentence, President Donald J. Trump pardoned her of the crime.

    Trump’s order was made public Saturday by Edward R. Martin, Jr., the pardon attorney for the Justice Department. He cast Kaye as a martyr persecuted by President Joe Biden’s Justice Department.

    “President Trump is unwinding the damage done by Biden’s DOJ weaponization, so the healing can begin,” Martin wrote on X.

    READ MORE: FBI called a Florida woman about the Jan. 6 attack. What she did next landed her in prison

    In January 2021, the FBI called Kaye, from Boca Raton, in hopes of interviewing her about her possible involvement in the Jan. 6 attack. The FBI’s national threats operation center had received an online tip.

    Kaye, it turns out, was not at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to court records. But before agents arrived at her home, Kaye posted three videos on her Facebook page, ANGRY Patriot Hippie. One was captioned “F*** the FBI,” and mentioned that agents wanted to meet with her, court records show. Then, she threatened to exercise her “second amendment right to shoot your f****** a**” if the FBI pulled up to her home.

    Agents did go to her home and arrested her for the threats in the Facebook posts.

    Kaye, 61 at the time, said the videos were supposed to be a joke. But she was found guilty by a federal district judge in West Palm Beach in a 2022 jury trial. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison, which she served to completion, and two years of supervised release, which was terminated early in August, federal court records show.

    Andrew Adler, a federal public defender representing Kaye, did not immediately respond for comment on the pardon.

    Devoun Cetoute

    Miami Herald

    Miami Herald Cops and Breaking News Reporter Devoun Cetoute covers a plethora of Florida topics, from breaking news to crime patterns. He was on the breaking news team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2022. He’s a graduate of the University of Florida, born and raised in Miami-Dade. Theme parks, movies and cars are on his mind in and out of the office.

    [ad_2]

    Devoun Cetoute

    Source link

  • Trump pardons Jan. 6 rioter for gun offense and woman convicted of threatening to shoot FBI agents

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump has issued two pardons related to the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, including for a woman convicted of threatening to shoot FBI agents who were investigating a tip that she may have been at the Capitol, officials said Saturday.Related video above: BBC leaders resign amid scandal over misleading edit of Trump’s Jan. 6 speechIn a separate case, Trump issued a second pardon for a Jan. 6 defendant who had remained behind bars despite the sweeping grant of clemency for Capitol rioters because of a separate conviction for illegally possessing firearms.It’s the latest example of Trump’s willingness to use his constitutional authority to help supporters who were scrutinized as part of the Biden administration’s massive Jan. 6 investigation that led to charges against more than 1,500 defendants.Suzanne Ellen Kaye was released last year after serving an 18-month sentence in her threats case. After the FBI contacted her in 2021 about a tip indicating she may have been at the Capitol on Jan. 6, she posted a video on social media citing her Second Amendment right to carry a gun, and she threatened to shoot agents if they came to her house. In court papers, prosecutors said her words “were part of the ubiquity of violent political rhetoric that causes serious harm to our communities.”An email seeking comment was sent to a lawyer for Kaye on Saturday. Kaye testified at trial that she didn’t own any guns and didn’t intend to threaten the FBI, according to court papers. She told authorities she was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and wasn’t charged with any Capitol riot-related crimes.A White House official said Kaye suffers from “stress-induced seizures” and experienced one when the jury read its verdict. The White House said this is “clearly a case of disfavored First Amendment political speech being prosecuted and an excessive sentence.” The official requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss the case.In a separate case, Trump pardoned Daniel Edwin Wilson, of Louisville, Kentucky, who was under investigation for his role in the riot when authorities found six guns and roughly 4,800 rounds of ammunition in his home. Because of prior felony convictions, it was illegal for him to possess firearms.Wilson’s case became part of a legal debate over whether Trump’s sweeping pardons for Jan. 6 rioters in January applied to other crimes discovered during the sprawling federal dragnet that began after the attack on the Capitol. The Trump-appointed federal judge who oversaw Wilson’s case criticized the Justice Department earlier this year for arguing that the president’s Jan. 6 pardons applied to Wilson’s gun offense.Wilson, who had been scheduled to remain in prison until 2028, was released Friday evening following the pardon, his lawyer said on Saturday.”We are grateful that President Trump has recognized the injustice in my client’s case and granted him this pardon,” attorney George Pallas said in an email. “Mr. Wilson can now reunite with his family and begin rebuilding his life.”The White House official said Saturday that “because the search of Mr. Wilson’s home was due to the events of January 6, and they should have never been there in the first place, President Trump is pardoning Mr. Wilson for the firearm issues.”Wilson had been sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to impede or injure police officers and illegally possessing firearms at his home.Prosecutors had accused him of planning for the Jan. 6 riot for weeks and coming to Washington with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power. Authorities said he communicated with members of the far-right Oath Keepers extremist group and adherents of the antigovernment Three Percenters movement as he marched to the Capitol.Prosecutors cited messages they argued showed that Wilson’s “plans were for a broader American civil war.” In one message on Nov. 9, 2020, he wrote: “I’m willing to do whatever. Done made up my mind. I understand the tip of the spear will not be easy. I’m willing to sacrifice myself if necessary. Whether it means prison or death.”Wilson said at his sentencing that he regretted entering the Capitol that day but “got involved with good intentions.”The Justice Department had initially argued in February that Trump’s pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters on his first day back in the White House didn’t extend to Wilson’s gun crime. The department later changed its position, saying it had received “further clarity on the intent of the Presidential Pardon.”U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, criticized the department’s evolving position and said it was “extraordinary” that prosecutors were seeking to argue that Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons extended to illegal “contraband” found by investigators during searches related to the Jan. 6 cases.Politico first reported Wilson’s pardon on Saturday.Megerian reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.

    WASHINGTON (AP) —

    President Donald Trump has issued two pardons related to the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, including for a woman convicted of threatening to shoot FBI agents who were investigating a tip that she may have been at the Capitol, officials said Saturday.

    Related video above: BBC leaders resign amid scandal over misleading edit of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech

    In a separate case, Trump issued a second pardon for a Jan. 6 defendant who had remained behind bars despite the sweeping grant of clemency for Capitol rioters because of a separate conviction for illegally possessing firearms.

    It’s the latest example of Trump’s willingness to use his constitutional authority to help supporters who were scrutinized as part of the Biden administration’s massive Jan. 6 investigation that led to charges against more than 1,500 defendants.

    Suzanne Ellen Kaye was released last year after serving an 18-month sentence in her threats case. After the FBI contacted her in 2021 about a tip indicating she may have been at the Capitol on Jan. 6, she posted a video on social media citing her Second Amendment right to carry a gun, and she threatened to shoot agents if they came to her house. In court papers, prosecutors said her words “were part of the ubiquity of violent political rhetoric that causes serious harm to our communities.”

    An email seeking comment was sent to a lawyer for Kaye on Saturday. Kaye testified at trial that she didn’t own any guns and didn’t intend to threaten the FBI, according to court papers. She told authorities she was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and wasn’t charged with any Capitol riot-related crimes.

    A White House official said Kaye suffers from “stress-induced seizures” and experienced one when the jury read its verdict. The White House said this is “clearly a case of disfavored First Amendment political speech being prosecuted and an excessive sentence.” The official requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss the case.

    In a separate case, Trump pardoned Daniel Edwin Wilson, of Louisville, Kentucky, who was under investigation for his role in the riot when authorities found six guns and roughly 4,800 rounds of ammunition in his home. Because of prior felony convictions, it was illegal for him to possess firearms.

    Wilson’s case became part of a legal debate over whether Trump’s sweeping pardons for Jan. 6 rioters in January applied to other crimes discovered during the sprawling federal dragnet that began after the attack on the Capitol. The Trump-appointed federal judge who oversaw Wilson’s case criticized the Justice Department earlier this year for arguing that the president’s Jan. 6 pardons applied to Wilson’s gun offense.

    Wilson, who had been scheduled to remain in prison until 2028, was released Friday evening following the pardon, his lawyer said on Saturday.

    “We are grateful that President Trump has recognized the injustice in my client’s case and granted him this pardon,” attorney George Pallas said in an email. “Mr. Wilson can now reunite with his family and begin rebuilding his life.”

    The White House official said Saturday that “because the search of Mr. Wilson’s home was due to the events of January 6, and they should have never been there in the first place, President Trump is pardoning Mr. Wilson for the firearm issues.”

    Wilson had been sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to impede or injure police officers and illegally possessing firearms at his home.

    Prosecutors had accused him of planning for the Jan. 6 riot for weeks and coming to Washington with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power. Authorities said he communicated with members of the far-right Oath Keepers extremist group and adherents of the antigovernment Three Percenters movement as he marched to the Capitol.

    Prosecutors cited messages they argued showed that Wilson’s “plans were for a broader American civil war.” In one message on Nov. 9, 2020, he wrote: “I’m willing to do whatever. Done made up my mind. I understand the tip of the spear will not be easy. I’m willing to sacrifice myself if necessary. Whether it means prison or death.”

    Wilson said at his sentencing that he regretted entering the Capitol that day but “got involved with good intentions.”

    The Justice Department had initially argued in February that Trump’s pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters on his first day back in the White House didn’t extend to Wilson’s gun crime. The department later changed its position, saying it had received “further clarity on the intent of the Presidential Pardon.”

    U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, criticized the department’s evolving position and said it was “extraordinary” that prosecutors were seeking to argue that Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons extended to illegal “contraband” found by investigators during searches related to the Jan. 6 cases.

    Politico first reported Wilson’s pardon on Saturday.

    Megerian reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump pardons Jan. 6 rioter for gun offense and woman convicted of threatening to shoot FBI agents

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump has issued two pardons related to the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, including for a woman convicted of threatening to shoot FBI agents who were investigating a tip that she may have been at the Capitol, officials said Saturday.Related video above: BBC leaders resign amid scandal over misleading edit of Trump’s Jan. 6 speechIn a separate case, Trump issued a second pardon for a Jan. 6 defendant who had remained behind bars despite the sweeping grant of clemency for Capitol rioters because of a separate conviction for illegally possessing firearms.It’s the latest example of Trump’s willingness to use his constitutional authority to help supporters who were scrutinized as part of the Biden administration’s massive Jan. 6 investigation that led to charges against more than 1,500 defendants.Suzanne Ellen Kaye was released last year after serving an 18-month sentence in her threats case. After the FBI contacted her in 2021 about a tip indicating she may have been at the Capitol on Jan. 6, she posted a video on social media citing her Second Amendment right to carry a gun, and she threatened to shoot agents if they came to her house. In court papers, prosecutors said her words “were part of the ubiquity of violent political rhetoric that causes serious harm to our communities.”An email seeking comment was sent to a lawyer for Kaye on Saturday. Kaye testified at trial that she didn’t own any guns and didn’t intend to threaten the FBI, according to court papers. She told authorities she was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and wasn’t charged with any Capitol riot-related crimes.A White House official said Kaye suffers from “stress-induced seizures” and experienced one when the jury read its verdict. The White House said this is “clearly a case of disfavored First Amendment political speech being prosecuted and an excessive sentence.” The official requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss the case.In a separate case, Trump pardoned Daniel Edwin Wilson, of Louisville, Kentucky, who was under investigation for his role in the riot when authorities found six guns and roughly 4,800 rounds of ammunition in his home. Because of prior felony convictions, it was illegal for him to possess firearms.Wilson’s case became part of a legal debate over whether Trump’s sweeping pardons for Jan. 6 rioters in January applied to other crimes discovered during the sprawling federal dragnet that began after the attack on the Capitol. The Trump-appointed federal judge who oversaw Wilson’s case criticized the Justice Department earlier this year for arguing that the president’s Jan. 6 pardons applied to Wilson’s gun offense.Wilson, who had been scheduled to remain in prison until 2028, was released Friday evening following the pardon, his lawyer said on Saturday.”We are grateful that President Trump has recognized the injustice in my client’s case and granted him this pardon,” attorney George Pallas said in an email. “Mr. Wilson can now reunite with his family and begin rebuilding his life.”The White House official said Saturday that “because the search of Mr. Wilson’s home was due to the events of January 6, and they should have never been there in the first place, President Trump is pardoning Mr. Wilson for the firearm issues.”Wilson had been sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to impede or injure police officers and illegally possessing firearms at his home.Prosecutors had accused him of planning for the Jan. 6 riot for weeks and coming to Washington with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power. Authorities said he communicated with members of the far-right Oath Keepers extremist group and adherents of the antigovernment Three Percenters movement as he marched to the Capitol.Prosecutors cited messages they argued showed that Wilson’s “plans were for a broader American civil war.” In one message on Nov. 9, 2020, he wrote: “I’m willing to do whatever. Done made up my mind. I understand the tip of the spear will not be easy. I’m willing to sacrifice myself if necessary. Whether it means prison or death.”Wilson said at his sentencing that he regretted entering the Capitol that day but “got involved with good intentions.”The Justice Department had initially argued in February that Trump’s pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters on his first day back in the White House didn’t extend to Wilson’s gun crime. The department later changed its position, saying it had received “further clarity on the intent of the Presidential Pardon.”U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, criticized the department’s evolving position and said it was “extraordinary” that prosecutors were seeking to argue that Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons extended to illegal “contraband” found by investigators during searches related to the Jan. 6 cases.Politico first reported Wilson’s pardon on Saturday.Megerian reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.

    WASHINGTON (AP) —

    President Donald Trump has issued two pardons related to the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, including for a woman convicted of threatening to shoot FBI agents who were investigating a tip that she may have been at the Capitol, officials said Saturday.

    Related video above: BBC leaders resign amid scandal over misleading edit of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech

    In a separate case, Trump issued a second pardon for a Jan. 6 defendant who had remained behind bars despite the sweeping grant of clemency for Capitol rioters because of a separate conviction for illegally possessing firearms.

    It’s the latest example of Trump’s willingness to use his constitutional authority to help supporters who were scrutinized as part of the Biden administration’s massive Jan. 6 investigation that led to charges against more than 1,500 defendants.

    Suzanne Ellen Kaye was released last year after serving an 18-month sentence in her threats case. After the FBI contacted her in 2021 about a tip indicating she may have been at the Capitol on Jan. 6, she posted a video on social media citing her Second Amendment right to carry a gun, and she threatened to shoot agents if they came to her house. In court papers, prosecutors said her words “were part of the ubiquity of violent political rhetoric that causes serious harm to our communities.”

    An email seeking comment was sent to a lawyer for Kaye on Saturday. Kaye testified at trial that she didn’t own any guns and didn’t intend to threaten the FBI, according to court papers. She told authorities she was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and wasn’t charged with any Capitol riot-related crimes.

    A White House official said Kaye suffers from “stress-induced seizures” and experienced one when the jury read its verdict. The White House said this is “clearly a case of disfavored First Amendment political speech being prosecuted and an excessive sentence.” The official requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss the case.

    In a separate case, Trump pardoned Daniel Edwin Wilson, of Louisville, Kentucky, who was under investigation for his role in the riot when authorities found six guns and roughly 4,800 rounds of ammunition in his home. Because of prior felony convictions, it was illegal for him to possess firearms.

    Wilson’s case became part of a legal debate over whether Trump’s sweeping pardons for Jan. 6 rioters in January applied to other crimes discovered during the sprawling federal dragnet that began after the attack on the Capitol. The Trump-appointed federal judge who oversaw Wilson’s case criticized the Justice Department earlier this year for arguing that the president’s Jan. 6 pardons applied to Wilson’s gun offense.

    Wilson, who had been scheduled to remain in prison until 2028, was released Friday evening following the pardon, his lawyer said on Saturday.

    “We are grateful that President Trump has recognized the injustice in my client’s case and granted him this pardon,” attorney George Pallas said in an email. “Mr. Wilson can now reunite with his family and begin rebuilding his life.”

    The White House official said Saturday that “because the search of Mr. Wilson’s home was due to the events of January 6, and they should have never been there in the first place, President Trump is pardoning Mr. Wilson for the firearm issues.”

    Wilson had been sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to impede or injure police officers and illegally possessing firearms at his home.

    Prosecutors had accused him of planning for the Jan. 6 riot for weeks and coming to Washington with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power. Authorities said he communicated with members of the far-right Oath Keepers extremist group and adherents of the antigovernment Three Percenters movement as he marched to the Capitol.

    Prosecutors cited messages they argued showed that Wilson’s “plans were for a broader American civil war.” In one message on Nov. 9, 2020, he wrote: “I’m willing to do whatever. Done made up my mind. I understand the tip of the spear will not be easy. I’m willing to sacrifice myself if necessary. Whether it means prison or death.”

    Wilson said at his sentencing that he regretted entering the Capitol that day but “got involved with good intentions.”

    The Justice Department had initially argued in February that Trump’s pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters on his first day back in the White House didn’t extend to Wilson’s gun crime. The department later changed its position, saying it had received “further clarity on the intent of the Presidential Pardon.”

    U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, criticized the department’s evolving position and said it was “extraordinary” that prosecutors were seeking to argue that Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons extended to illegal “contraband” found by investigators during searches related to the Jan. 6 cases.

    Politico first reported Wilson’s pardon on Saturday.

    Megerian reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • There’s still no evidence FBI agents incited Jan. 6 attack

    [ad_1]

    Citing what they described as new information, President Donald Trump and his allies reinvigorated the debunked conspiracy theory that FBI agents on Jan. 6, 2021, baited rioters into storming the U.S. Capitol. 

    “It was just revealed that the FBI had secretly placed, against all Rules, Regulations, Protocols, and Standards, 274 FBI Agents into the Crowd just prior to, and during, the January 6th Hoax,” Trump wrote Sept. 27 on Truth Social. “This is different from what Director Christopher Wray stated, over and over again! That’s right, as it now turns out, FBI Agents were at, and in, the January 6th Protest, probably acting as Agitators and Insurrectionists, but certainly not as ‘Law Enforcement Officials.’”

    Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, posted Sept 26 on X that the information about FBI agents in the crowd, “was withheld from the American people by the Democrat-led J6 Committee and FBI Director Christopher Wray for over 5 years.”

    The information isn’t new; the FBI has long acknowledged it sent hundreds of agents to the Capitol that day to help police respond to the attack. Investigations into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and a recent news story do not show that FBI agents were there as “agitators and insurrectionists,” as Trump said.  

    The Justice Department inspector general’s office wrote in a December 2024 report that the FBI deployed “several hundred” special agents and employees on Jan. 6, 2021, at U.S. Capitol Police’s request — after the attack began, not before. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    The FBI sent agents in response to pipe bombs found outside the Republican and Democratic parties’ national headquarters, and to a vehicle believed to be filled with explosives, the report said.

    Conservative website Just the News reported the 274-agent number that Trump cited. The Sept. 25 article said the outlet obtained a 50-page FBI report that was given to a recently-launched House Oversight subcommittee to reinvestigate Jan. 6, .

    The FBI has not publicly released the report; the agency declined to comment or verify the document. But FBI Director Kash Patel referenced it in a recent interview and in social media posts.  

    The report detailed anonymous FBI employees’ submissions that agents did not have proper safety equipment and training on Jan. 6. Some complained, according to Just the News, that they had become “pawns in a political war” and that the FBI was less competent due to “wokeness.”

    The Just the News story also said the 274 agents were at the Capitol in “plainclothes,” but the FBI document makes no mention of that. (PolitiFact reached out to Just the News but did not hear back).

    Numerous federal investigations and years of reporting have found that Trump supporters who believed or promoted false claims that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” orchestrated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

    White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson did not provide evidence to support Trump’s statement and instead provided a statement attacking Democrats.

    Experts in criminal justice and law enforcement entrapment told PolitiFact they’ve seen no new evidence that any FBI agent or informant incited anyone to commit a crime on Jan. 6.

    What we know about FBI agents present on Jan. 6

    In the Justice Department’s December 2024 review examining the FBI’s handling of its confidential human sources and intelligence collection efforts in relation to Jan. 6, then-U.S. Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said the investigation found “no evidence” of undercover agents in the crowds at the Capitol or surrounding areas.

    The report also said FBI policy doesn’t permit undercover employees “in crowds at First Amendment-protected events absent some investigative authority.”

    The report said 26 FBI confidential sources who are not bureau employees were in the crowd that day but few of them told the bureau of their plans to attend. None, the report said, were instructed or authorized to violate any laws or participate in the riot, nor were they directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts.

    The report provided specific times and locations of FBI agents’ deployments. None of the times were before rioters began to breach the Capitol.

    “After the Capitol had been breached on January 6 by rioters, and in response to a request from the (U.S. Capitol Police) the FBI deployed several hundred Special Agents and employees to the U.S. Capitol and the surrounding area,” the report said.

    For example, around 2:30 p.m., the FBI’s Washington field office SWAT team came in to assist police in securing the Capitol, the report said, and around 3:15 p.m., another SWAT team deployed to help law enforcement secure the Senate Hart building. 

    Jesse Norris, a criminal justice professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia, has studied numerous alleged cases of entrapment in FBI counterterrorism investigations. He told PolitiFact the cases involved all types of extremism.

    “However, none of them involved undercover agents or informants inciting crowds to commit criminal offenses,” Norris said. “Instead, they typically arose from long-term undercover investigations, supervised by FBI agents but carried out in practice by informants, in which the goal was to secure criminal convictions for particular suspects.” 

    The FBI’s report said 274 agents were deployed on Jan. 6 and that the number includes agents that responded to Capitol grounds, inside the Capitol building, to the pipe bombs and to a vehicle believed to contain explosive devices.

    Patel appeared to counter Trump’s assertion that agents may have been insurrectionists when Patel told Fox News agents were “sent into a crowd control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police.” 

    Officials confirmed to Fox News that FBI agents were sent in after the riot had begun and there was “no indication” agents were involved in any events related to Trump’s speech that morning at the Ellipse.

    John Solomon, a Just the News reporter and founder of the website, responded to an X post about the article. “Our story does not misrepresent. It clearly states the agents were sent AFTER the violence started,” he wrote Sept. 26.

    In November 2023, Wray, who Trump appointed during his first term to head the FBI, told a House committee, “If you are asking if the violence at the Capitol was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, the answer is no,” Wray said.

    Evidence from court documents — including information that led to charges against 1,200 defendants — shows, person-by-person, who ransacked the Capitol and fought with police officers. The rioters’ goal was to prevent Congress from accepting the results of the 2020 election that Trump had lost. In 17 key findings, the House subcommittee that investigated the attack determined Trump disseminated false allegations about the election and summoned supporters to the Capitol and directed them to “take back” the country.

    Trump has repeatedly falsely reframed Jan. 6 as a day of peaceful protest, pardoning and ordering the dismissal of criminal charges of nearly every person who participated, including many who attacked law enforcement.

    Our ruling

    Trump said that on Jan. 6, 2021, FBI agents were “probably acting as Agitators and Insurrectionists, but certainly not as ‘Law Enforcement Officials.’”

    The FBI has long acknowledged it sent hundreds of agents to the Capitol that day to help police respond to the attack. Investigations do not support the idea that FBI agents were there as “agitators and insurrectionists.”

    A Sept. 25 story that shared a newly released report detailing anonymous FBI employee submissions about the agency’s Jan. 6 response also doesn’t support this. It specified agents were deployed after the violence started.

    A December 2024 government review into the attack said FBI agents deployed to the Capitol and surrounding areas were not instructed or authorized to violate any laws or participate in the riot, nor were they directed to encourage others to commit illegal acts.

    We rate this claim Pants on Fire!

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Jan. 6

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harris to give campaign closing argument at site of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech before Capitol riot

    Harris to give campaign closing argument at site of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech before Capitol riot

    [ad_1]

    Vice President Kamala Harris plans to lay out her campaign’s closing argument by returning to the site near the White House where Donald Trump helped incite a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 — hoping it will crystalize for voters the fight between defending democracy and sowing political chaos.Her campaign says Harris will give a speech at the Ellipse on Tuesday — one week before Election Day — and will urge the nation to “turn the page” toward a new era and away from Trump.The site is symbolic since it’s where Trump delivered a speech on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was convening to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the election that past November. In it, Trump lied repeatedly about widespread voter fraud that had not occurred and urged supporters to fight. Hundreds then stormed the Capitol in a deadly riot.Word of the speech came from a senior Harris campaign official who insisted on anonymity to discuss an address that is still in development. The Harris campaign is betting that her speaking at the Ellipse can provide an opportunity for the vice president to stress that the country no longer wants to be defined by a political combativeness that Trump seems to relish.Trump has promised to pardon those jailed for their role in the Capitol attack should he reclaim the presidency during the election on Nov. 5.Closing arguments are important opportunities for candidates to sum up their campaigns and make a concise case for why voters should back them. Trump’s campaign suggested he’d begin framing his closing argument while addressing a rally last weekend in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. Instead, the former president spent more than 10 minutes talking about the genitals of the late, legendary golfer Arnold Palmer, who was born in Latrobe.Her team announced the coming Ellipse addressed before Harris attended a CNN town hall in suburban Philadelphia on Wednesday night, where she took questions from an audience of undecided voters as part of what was once envisioned as a debate with Trump. Harris had said she would participate in a CNN debate but the two sides never worked out a formal agreement. CNN said it also invited Trump to a town hall. but that it didn’t happen.Harris told the audience that Jan. 6 saw a “president of the United States defying the will of the people in a free and fair election and unleashing a violent mob who attacked the United States Capitol.”The first audience question was from a self-described “anti-Trump Republican” who was concerned about the Jan. 6 attack.“I believe the American people deserve better, and they deserve a president who is focused on solutions, not sitting in the Oval Office plotting every day,” Harris said.When it comes to Jan. 6, about 4 in 10 likely voters in a CNN poll from September said the economy was their most important issue when deciding how to vote, and about 2 in 10 said protecting democracy was. That compared to about 1 in 10 who named either immigration or abortion and reproductive rights.Protecting democracy also seems to be more important to Democrats and Harris supporters. Roughly 4 in 10 voters who back Harris call it their top issue, compared to about 2 in 10 who say that about the economy. For Republicans and Trump supporters, about 6 in 10 name the economy as their top voting issue, followed by immigration. Only 5% of Trump supporters said protecting democracy was their top issue.During the town hall, Harris said Trump is “increasingly unstable and unfit to serve.” Asked directly if she thought her opponent was a fascist, Harris responded, “Yes, I do.”A short time later, Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt responded, “Kamala will say anything to distract from her open border invasion and record high inflation.”During the event, Harris was asked how her presidency would be different from Biden’s given that she’s been a part of his administration for nearly four years — a question she’s answered in recent weeks without naming major contrasts. This time, Harris seemed better prepared to talk about how things would be different, saying, “My administration will not be a continuation of the Biden administration” and saying she represented a “new generation of leadership on a number of issues.”“I’m pointing out things that haven’t been done that need to be done,” the vice president said of Biden’s policies, also noting, “I’m not going to shy away from saying, ‘Hey, these are still problems that we need to fix.’” She pointed specifically to her promises to increase federal grants for small businesses and to expand government funding for home health care to people caring for their elderly parents and children simultaneously.One audience member pressed Harris on key issues where she’s flip-flopped. That includes hydraulic fracturing, which she suggested that she’d support banning while running in the 2020 Democratic primary but now says should be allowed to continue. Harris said Wednesday that the U.S. can invest in a greener energy economy without halting fracking, which is key to the economy of parts of Pennsylvania.She added that she sees many key policies differently now: “Frankly I now have the experience and perspective of having been vice president.”Asked about the greatest weakness she’d bring to the White House, Harris offered, “I’m kind of a nerd sometimes, I confess” while admitting to making “parental mistakes” with her two stepchildren.The vice president also mentioned praying every day, saying, “I was raised to believe in a loving God, to believe faith is a verb.”__Weissert reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report from Washington.

    PHILADELPHIA —

    Vice President Kamala Harris plans to lay out her campaign’s closing argument by returning to the site near the White House where Donald Trump helped incite a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 — hoping it will crystalize for voters the fight between defending democracy and sowing political chaos.

    Her campaign says Harris will give a speech at the Ellipse on Tuesday — one week before Election Day — and will urge the nation to “turn the page” toward a new era and away from Trump.

    The site is symbolic since it’s where Trump delivered a speech on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was convening to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the election that past November. In it, Trump lied repeatedly about widespread voter fraud that had not occurred and urged supporters to fight. Hundreds then stormed the Capitol in a deadly riot.

    Word of the speech came from a senior Harris campaign official who insisted on anonymity to discuss an address that is still in development. The Harris campaign is betting that her speaking at the Ellipse can provide an opportunity for the vice president to stress that the country no longer wants to be defined by a political combativeness that Trump seems to relish.

    Trump has promised to pardon those jailed for their role in the Capitol attack should he reclaim the presidency during the election on Nov. 5.

    Closing arguments are important opportunities for candidates to sum up their campaigns and make a concise case for why voters should back them. Trump’s campaign suggested he’d begin framing his closing argument while addressing a rally last weekend in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. Instead, the former president spent more than 10 minutes talking about the genitals of the late, legendary golfer Arnold Palmer, who was born in Latrobe.

    Her team announced the coming Ellipse addressed before Harris attended a CNN town hall in suburban Philadelphia on Wednesday night, where she took questions from an audience of undecided voters as part of what was once envisioned as a debate with Trump. Harris had said she would participate in a CNN debate but the two sides never worked out a formal agreement. CNN said it also invited Trump to a town hall. but that it didn’t happen.

    Harris told the audience that Jan. 6 saw a “president of the United States defying the will of the people in a free and fair election and unleashing a violent mob who attacked the United States Capitol.”

    The first audience question was from a self-described “anti-Trump Republican” who was concerned about the Jan. 6 attack.

    “I believe the American people deserve better, and they deserve a president who is focused on solutions, not sitting in the Oval Office plotting every day,” Harris said.

    When it comes to Jan. 6, about 4 in 10 likely voters in a CNN poll from September said the economy was their most important issue when deciding how to vote, and about 2 in 10 said protecting democracy was. That compared to about 1 in 10 who named either immigration or abortion and reproductive rights.

    Protecting democracy also seems to be more important to Democrats and Harris supporters. Roughly 4 in 10 voters who back Harris call it their top issue, compared to about 2 in 10 who say that about the economy. For Republicans and Trump supporters, about 6 in 10 name the economy as their top voting issue, followed by immigration. Only 5% of Trump supporters said protecting democracy was their top issue.

    During the town hall, Harris said Trump is “increasingly unstable and unfit to serve.” Asked directly if she thought her opponent was a fascist, Harris responded, “Yes, I do.”

    A short time later, Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt responded, “Kamala will say anything to distract from her open border invasion and record high inflation.”

    During the event, Harris was asked how her presidency would be different from Biden’s given that she’s been a part of his administration for nearly four years — a question she’s answered in recent weeks without naming major contrasts. This time, Harris seemed better prepared to talk about how things would be different, saying, “My administration will not be a continuation of the Biden administration” and saying she represented a “new generation of leadership on a number of issues.”

    “I’m pointing out things that haven’t been done that need to be done,” the vice president said of Biden’s policies, also noting, “I’m not going to shy away from saying, ‘Hey, these are still problems that we need to fix.’” She pointed specifically to her promises to increase federal grants for small businesses and to expand government funding for home health care to people caring for their elderly parents and children simultaneously.

    One audience member pressed Harris on key issues where she’s flip-flopped. That includes hydraulic fracturing, which she suggested that she’d support banning while running in the 2020 Democratic primary but now says should be allowed to continue. Harris said Wednesday that the U.S. can invest in a greener energy economy without halting fracking, which is key to the economy of parts of Pennsylvania.

    She added that she sees many key policies differently now: “Frankly I now have the experience and perspective of having been vice president.”

    Asked about the greatest weakness she’d bring to the White House, Harris offered, “I’m kind of a nerd sometimes, I confess” while admitting to making “parental mistakes” with her two stepchildren.

    The vice president also mentioned praying every day, saying, “I was raised to believe in a loving God, to believe faith is a verb.”

    __

    Weissert reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report from Washington.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Trump’s Univision town hall with Latino voters

    Fact-checking Trump’s Univision town hall with Latino voters

    [ad_1]

    At a Noticias Univision town hall in South Florida, former President Donald Trump faced undecided Latino voters who questioned him on the cause-and-effect of his immigration agenda, his response to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots, and whether he believed the things he’s said about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio.

    Trump often avoided direct answers.

    Jorge Velázquez, a 64-year-old farmer who lives in California, asked Trump: “This tough job is mainly done by undocumented people, if you deport them, who would do the job and what price would we pay for food?”

    Trump replied with false campaign rally talking points, saying that people are coming in illegally, including from jails and mental institutions.

    Trump also avoided talking about his pledge to do mass deportations or to revoke birthright citizenship. He also left out a rally line about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country.”  

    Signup for Politifact Texts

    When Ramiro González, a 56-year-old Tampa man, told Trump he was disturbed by Trump’s inaction on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how he lost the support of former advisers, Trump downplayed  Jan. 6 as a “day of love.”

    Here, we fact-checked some of Trump’s statements. (We also fact-checked Vice President Kamala Harris’ Oct. 10 Univision town hall.)

    Trump downplayed Jan. 6, 2021, as a “day of love,” saying “nobody was killed” and that “there were no guns.” Video evidence, court documents and news coverage show this is false. Four people died Jan. 6, 2021, as Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol; one woman was fatally shot and three other people died from medical emergencies suffered during the riot. Court files say several defendants brought firearms with them, and some were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds.

    Trump said he told supporters who walked down the Capitol to act “peacefully and patriotically.” Trump told his supporters at a Jan. 6, 2021, “Save America” rally, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” But in the days leading up to the rights and also at the rally, he told them to “fight.” 

    Legal experts counter Trump’s claim that Biden dropping out of the race and Harris becoming the Democratic presidential candidate was a “coup.” A “coup d’etat” is a French term for overthrowing a government. Biden dropped out of the race July 21 and endorsed Harris, but he remains in power. Experts said that Democrats persuading him to drop out of the race and then using the party rules to replace him on the ticket is not illegal, nor a “coup.”

    Trump falsely said “that’s been in the newspapers and reported” that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, eat pets. This distorts reality. What’s been reported — repeatedly — is that this claim is wrong. Local officials have said it’s false that immigrants in Springfield are eating cats and dogs. The news coverage has focused largely on debunking the false narrative Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, have pushed. 

    Trump overstates how many immigrants are in Springfield, Ohio. “They added almost 30,000” immigrants, Trump told a town hall audience member. City officials have said 12,000 to 20,000 new migrants arrived in Springfield over the last four years, in a city of just less than 60,000 people. Most of the immigrants are Haitians and are allowed to temporarily live and work in the country legally.

    Audience members ask former President Donald Trump questions Oct. 16, 2024, during a Univision town hall in Doral, Fla. (AP)

    Trump said that “under Biden and Harris, they allowed 13,099 convicted murderers” to come into the U.S. But that misrepresents the data. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said there were 13,099 noncitizens convicted of homicide who are not in immigration detention. That represents people who entered the country in the past 40 years, not exclusively under the Biden-Harris administration. Many people are not in immigration detention because they’re in law enforcement custody serving sentences.

    Trump said, “Democrats want men to play women’s sports.” There is no official count, but estimates show the population of transgender athletes participating in school sports is very small. It’s up to states to decide whether to let transgender athletes participate in school sports. In recent years, 25 states have passed laws governing the eligibility of transgender students who wish to participate in school sports. Those restrictions are often focused on limiting the eligibility of transgender girls to play on girls’ teams. The U.S. Department of Education is working on a proposal that would ban schools from adopting “one-size-fits-all” policies that ban transgender students from participating on teams consistent with their gender identity.

    Trump falsely said that “they want transgender operations, to change a man into a woman, and in some cases a boy into a woman without parental consent.” We rated a similar Trump claim Pants on Fire. Gender-affirming surgery on minors is rare and laws and professional standards require parents and medical providers to be involved in those decisions. 

    Former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, speaks Oct. 16, 2024, during a Noticias Univision town hall in Doral, Fla. (AP)

    Speaking of Roe v. Wade, Trump said “every lawyer, every legal scholar, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives … everybody wanted it out.” This repeat is False. Before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, numerous legal scholars wrote briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold it. Some legal scholars who favor abortion rights have criticized Roe’s legal underpinnings, saying that different constitutional arguments, based on equal protection, would have provided a stronger case. But legal experts, including some who held this view, said those scholars would not have advocated for overturning Roe on this basis.

    Trump exaggerated interest rate levels during his presidency and under Biden, saying “interest rates went from 2% to 10%.” The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate reached a low 2.65% shortly before Trump left office, but rates had fallen amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The peak rate under Trump was 4.94% in November 2018. Mortgage rates are higher under Biden because the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to stem inflation. But they never went as high as 10%. The peak rate under Biden was 7.79% in October 2023. It’s now 6.32%.

    Trump is wrong (again) about presiding over the “greatest economy” in U.S. history. The unemployment rate fell during Trump’s presidency to levels untouched in five decades. But Biden matched or exceeded those levels. Another measure, the annual increases in gross domestic product — the monetary value of all goods and services a country produces — were broadly similar under Trump to what they were during the final six years under President Barack Obama. And GDP growth under Trump was below that of previous presidents. Wages increased under Trump, but they began rising during Obama’s presidency. The wage increases under Trump were modest compared with the 2% a year increase in the 1960s. 

    Trump offered a dubious take on farmers’ prosperity during his presidency. Trump said, “Farmers are doing very badly under this administration. Under my administration, farmers were doing very well.” Agriculture Department statistics paint a different picture. The past two editions of the department’s Census of Agriculture covered 2017 (Trump’s first year in office) and 2022 (Biden’s second). The net income per farm rose by 85% from 2017 to 2022. The share of farms registering in the top category for net income — $50,000 or more per year — rose from 33% in 2017 to 40% in 2022.

    PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman, Staff Writer Maria Ramirez Uribe, Grace Abels and Samantha Putterman, contributed to this report.

    RELATED: Fact-checking Kamala Harris’ Univision town hall with Latino voters.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta rolls back restrictions on Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts

    Meta rolls back restrictions on Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts

    [ad_1]

    Meta, the parent company of social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, has decided to remove restrictions placed on former President Donald Trump’s accounts.

    Meta updated its original statement announcing the end of Trump’s suspension on Facebook and Instagram in January of 2023 to reflect the Republican presumptive presidential nominee’s new online status. Axios first reported on the news.

    Meta removed Trump from all of its platforms following the attack on the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 amid “extreme and highly unusual circumstances,” according to Meta’s original statement.

    Seven people were killed as a result of violence on or collateral damage as a result of the attack on the Capitol building.

    The following May, the Oversight Board ruled that Facebook failed to apply an appropriate penalty with its indefinite suspension of Trump’s accounts for “severely” violating Facebook and Instagram’s community guidelines and standards. Trump said in a video statement released less than three hours after the violence began “We love you. You’re very special” and called the insurrectionists “great patriots.” Those and other statements made in the wake of the US Capitol attack convinced the board that Trump violated its standard against praising or supporting people engaging in violence on its platforms.

    Two years later, Meta restored Trump’s accounts following a time-bound suspension with stricter penalties for violating its terms of service, a standard that was higher than any other user on Facebook and Instagram. Meta noted in its latest update that the ex-president will be subject to the same standard as everyone else.

    “With the party conventions taking place shortly, including the Republican convention next week, the candidates for President of the United States will soon be formally nominated,” according to Meta’s statement. “In assessing our responsibility to allow political expression, we believe that the American people should be able to hear from the nominees for President on the same basis.”

    Twitter, now X, also took action against President Trump in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection on the Capitol for three tweets he posted that were labeled for inciting violence. It started with a 12-hour suspension on Jan. 6, 2021. Two days later, Twitter banned him completely after determining that subsequent posts also violated its community standards. The following year, Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk conducted an informal poll on his account asking if he should remove President Trump’s ban and reinstated his account a few days later.

    [ad_2]

    Danny Gallagher

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Pelosi’s role with National Guard on Jan. 6

    Fact-checking Pelosi’s role with National Guard on Jan. 6

    [ad_1]

    Newly released video footage from Jan. 6, 2021, has reignited conservatives’ long-standing claims that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bears the blame for the National Guard’s delayed response to the U.S. Capitol attack.

    On June 10, Republicans on the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight shared on X a short video of Pelosi leaving the Capitol by car as rioters overtook the building Jan. 6. In the clip, Pelosi presses her chief of staff Terri McCullough about why the National Guard hadn’t arrived yet.

    The subcommittee’s X post said, “Since January 6, 2021, Nancy Pelosi spent 3+ years and nearly $20 million creating a narrative to blame Donald Trump. NEW FOOTAGE shows on January 6, Pelosi ADMITTED: ‘I take responsibility.’”

    Social media users across X, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok reshared the footage and made a slightly different claim: that the video shows Pelosi, D-Calif., saying “she takes responsibility for not having the National Guard” at the Capitol that day.

    The Instagram and Facebook posts were flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The TikTok posts were identified as part of TikTok’s efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact’s partnership with TikTok.)

    No member of Congress has the authority to activate the District of Columbia National Guard. Only the president, Defense secretary and U.S. Army secretary do.

    In response to the newly released footage, Pelosi said in a June 10 MSNBC interview that former President Donald Trump and “his toadies do not want to face the facts. They’re trying to do revisionist history.”

    Aaron Bennett, Pelosi’s spokesperson, told PolitiFact in a statement that Jan. 6, 2021, footage in its entirety shows Pelosi called Pentagon officials who can authorize use of the National Guard and urged them to deploy the guard.

    “Cherry-picked, out-of-context clips do not change the fact that the Speaker of the House is not in charge of the security of the Capitol Complex — on January 6th or any other day of the week,” Bennett said.

    What does the newly released footage show?

    As part of Republican efforts to reinvestigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, the Oversight Subcommittee obtained 45 minutes of footage from HBO that Alexandra Pelosi, a documentary filmmaker and Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, had filmed, Politico reported June 9. Politico reviewed the footage and said much of it had never been seen before; the news outlet did not say how it obtained the footage, which the Oversight Subcommittee has not publicly released in full.

    The subcommittee shared on X two versions of the same Jan. 6, 2021, scene of Pelosi leaving the Capitol by car.

    The first clip, which is 41 seconds long, has been more widely shared online than the second clip, which is 1 minute and 28 seconds long. The subcommittee described the longer clip as “the full video” on X.

    The longer clip begins with Pelosi talking about Capitol security officials’ guidance to congressional members: “I mean, we asked them to put out a piece of paper saying, you know, ‘Go through the tunnel, don’t go outside.’ They say they got stuff, but they can’t tell us what it is. It’s too — they don’t want the other side to know.”

    The 41-second clip doesn’t include this. It begins when Pelosi says, “We have responsibility, Terri. We did not have any accountability for what was going on there, and we should have. This is ridiculous. You’re going to ask me in the middle of the thing — when they’ve already breached the inaugural stuff — ‘Should we call the Capitol Police?’ I mean, ‘the National Guard?’ Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?”

    McCullough begins to reply that Capitol security officials thought that they had “sufficient resources” before Pelosi interrupts.

    “There’s not a question of how they — they don’t know. They clearly didn’t know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more,” Pelosi said.

    This is where the 41-second clip ends.

    In the longer clip, Pelosi continues, “Because it’s stupid that we should be in a situation like this. Because they thought they had what? They thought these people would act civilized? They thought these people gave a damn? What is it that is missing here, in terms of anticipation? They give us a piece of paper. It says, ‘Walk through the tunnel, don’t walk outside.’ That’s our preparation for what’s going on?”

    Pelosi’s role in the National Guard deployment on Jan. 6, 2021

    PolitiFact and other news outlets have previously fact-checked false and misleading claims related to Pelosi’s role on Jan. 6, 2021, including that the former House speaker was culpable for the attack, that she was responsible for Capitol security that day, and that footage of Pelosi on Jan. 6, 2021, proves the attack was staged.

    There’s ample evidence that Pelosi was a target of the attack and no evidence that she was responsible for the event or that the attack was contrived.

    As House speaker, Pelosi shared responsibility for Capitol security. The House and Senate sergeants-at-arms, who report to the House speaker and Senate majority leader, respectively, serve as the Capitol’s chief law enforcement officers. The two sergeants-at-arms, along with the Senate doorkeeper and the Capitol architect, comprise the board that oversees the Capitol Police.

    The U.S. president, defense secretary and U.S. Army secretary are the only people authorized to activate the District of Columbia National Guard. The House select committee on Jan. 6, after its 18-month-long investigation, concluded that official records and witness testimony showed Trump didn’t make that order Jan. 6, 2021.

    On the day of the Capitol attack, Paul Irving, then-House sergeant-at-arms, first asked Pelosi’s chief of staff for permission to contact the Pentagon for National Guard support at 1:40 p.m. — about 30 minutes after rioters had broken through the barricades surrounding the Capitol. A few minutes later, Pelosi approved Irving’s request. But because of delayed approval from Pentagon officials, National Guard troops didn’t arrive at the Capitol for another four hours, The New York Times reported.

    Previously released footage shows Pelosi and then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., after they evacuated the Capitol, negotiating with government officials to deploy the National Guard. (Schumer was sworn in as Senate majority leader on Jan. 20, 2021.)

    Also, MSNBC aired June 10 other clips, which the network said it obtained from “congressional sources,” of Pelosi and Schumer discussing the National Guard’s delayed deployment Jan. 6, 2021.

    One clip showed Schumer on the telephone with then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy demanding to know why the National Guard had not yet been deployed. Pelosi is seen beside Schumer talking on the phone.

    In another clip, Pelosi tells then-Vice President Mike Pence, “And we were disappointed that the fact that it took so long to approve the National Guard. But I’m glad to hear that that’s at least moving.”

    Politico reported that these clips of Schumer and Pelosi were part of the 45 minutes of footage that HBO sent to the Oversight Subcommittee. The subcommittee has not shared these clips on its website or social media accounts.

    “The new footage does not bolster GOP claims of Pelosi being at fault,” Politico reported. “Instead, it largely aligns with and adds depth to previous snippets of Alexandra Pelosi’s footage released by the Jan. 6 select committee and in an HBO documentary that was released in 2022.”

    Our ruling

    Social media users said a video shows Pelosi “takes responsibility for not having the National Guard” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    In the video, Pelosi said, “I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more,” when talking about U.S. Capitol security. As then-House speaker, Pelosi did not have the authority to deploy the National Guard. The president, defense secretary and U.S. Army secretary are the only people authorized to deploy the District of Columbia National Guard.

    Records show that Pelosi approved a request to contact the Pentagon for help getting National Guard troops to the Capitol as rioters laid siege.

    We rate the statement False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NC Proud Boy was in ‘front ranks’ of Jan. 6 violence at Capitol, feds say

    NC Proud Boy was in ‘front ranks’ of Jan. 6 violence at Capitol, feds say

    [ad_1]

    The FBI arrested a 46-year-old Concord man in Charlotte on Tuesday, accusing him of participating in the violent breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Jay Robert Thaxton joined other members of the Proud Boys in storming the Capitol to disrupt a joint session of Congress, according to a U.S. Department of Justice news release.

    Congress convened the session to count electoral votes, certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election over Donald Trump.

    Publicly available footage shows Jay Robert Thaxton, 46, of Concord, at “the front ranks of the rioters” as they neared the Lower West Plaza of the Capitol, according a criminal complaint filed against Thaxton in the District of Columbia.
    Publicly available footage shows Jay Robert Thaxton, 46, of Concord, at “the front ranks of the rioters” as they neared the Lower West Plaza of the Capitol, according a criminal complaint filed against Thaxton in the District of Columbia. SCREEN SHOT OF PHOTO in FBI AFFIDAVIT

    ‘Grabbed, pushed and pulled’ barricades

    Publicly available footage shows Thaxton heading to “the front ranks of the rioters” as they neared the Lower West Plaza of the Capitol, according to a criminal complaint filed against Thaxton in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

    The FBI charged Thaxton with the felony offense of obstruction of law enforcement during a civil disorder. He also was charged with: Misdemeanor counts of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol building or grounds; and obstructing or impeding passage in a Capitol building or grounds.

    According to an FBI affidavit, Jay Robert Thaxton, a 46-year-old Concord, N.C., resident, is shown grabbing black fencing that rioters destroyed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
    According to an FBI affidavit, Jay Robert Thaxton, a 46-year-old Concord, N.C., resident, is shown grabbing black fencing that rioters destroyed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. SCREEN SHOT OF PHOTO IN FBI AFFIDAVIT

    Thaxton and other members of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, marched along the west, north and east sides of the Capitol before breaching it, an FBI agent said in an arrest warrant affidavit.

    On the Lower West Plaza, Thaxton “grabbed, pushed and pulled” police bike racks that served as temporary barricades against the rioters, according to court documents.

    Rioters eventually breached the police line on the Lower West Plaza, court records show.

    According to an FBI affidavit, Jay Robert Thaxton, a 46-year-old Concord, N.C., resident, is shown in this photo grabbing, pushing and pulling police bike racks that served as temporary barricades against rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
    According to an FBI affidavit, Jay Robert Thaxton, a 46-year-old Concord, N.C., resident, is shown in this photo grabbing, pushing and pulling police bike racks that served as temporary barricades against rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. SCREEN SHOT OF FBI AFFIDAVIT

    Thaxton was arrested in Washington that night on a curfew violation charge, prosecutors said. He couldn’t be reached by The Charlotte Observer on Tuesday.

    Thaxton joins at least 1,423 others from nearly all 50 states to be charged in connection with the violence.

    Members of the U.S. House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack found that Trump provoked his supporters to violence through his false allegations of fraud in the election.

    Related stories from Charlotte Observer

    Joe Marusak has been a reporter for The Charlotte Observer since 1989 covering the people, municipalities and major news events of the region, and was a news bureau editor for the paper. He currently reports on breaking news.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This Capitol rioter’s own messages helped the feds convict him of attacking police

    This Capitol rioter’s own messages helped the feds convict him of attacking police

    [ad_1]

    David Gietzen of Sanford, N.C., was seen on U.S. Capitol grounds. He attacked Capitol police with a metal pole and was sentenced on Tuesday.

    David Gietzen of Sanford, N.C., was seen on U.S. Capitol grounds. He attacked Capitol police with a metal pole and was sentenced on Tuesday.


    FBI document

    A North Carolina man who struck Capitol police with a metal pole after being one of the first to breach U.S. Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021, was sentenced to six years in prison Tuesday.

    After slamming and grabbing officers’ face masks, David Joseph Gietzen, 30, told friends and family it was “a beautiful day” spent with thousands of people ascending the Capitol after former president Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally.

    An armed civil war would come next, he hoped.

    The Sanford man was arrested one year and four months later. He was one of several thousand Trump supporters — and at least 16 now-convicted North Carolinians — who stormed the Capitol, where a crowd broke through police barricades, breached the building and attempted to stop the joint session of Congress where electoral votes were being counted in the 2020 presidential election.

    “Never been prouder to be an American,” Gietzen wrote in another message someone later shared with FBI agents.

    Court documents lay out Gietzen’s movements around Washington D.C., both on the day of the Capitol riots and his return two weeks later on the day of President Joe Biden’s inauguration.

    While Gietzen was the first publicly-identified N.C. defendant to have been in Washington for both Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally and the inauguration, he has not been charged with any crimes connected to his inaugural visit.

    U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols sentenced Gietzen to 72 months – or six years – in prison and 36 months of supervised release after a federal jury found him guilty of seven felonies and one misdemeanor for his actions at the Capitol.

    Members of the U.S. House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack found that Trump provoked his supporters to violence through his false allegations of fraud in the 2020 election. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear arguments over whether Trump is immune from prosecution in a criminal indictment charging him with trying to overturn the election result.

    David Gietzen’s Capitol riot route

    Gietzen —who wore a helmet, goggles, and knee pads on Jan. 6 — consistently pushed his way to the front of the Capitol’s crowds, documents filed by the FBI show.

    Cameras fastened to the building above show him lined at the barriers in front of the Capitol around 2 p.m. His white helmet and green jacket set him aside from the crowd of red MAGA-hat wearers and police officers uniformed in black helmets and vests.

    Screenshots of surveillance videos soon show Gietzen pushing through the barrier as a crowd of others follow.

    “F— disgrace,” he yells at officers. “We Want Trump!” he chants.

    By 2:30 p.m., Gietzen is carrying a long metal pipe, which he later uses to assault officers after they were toppled by a door-sized piece of plywood. He leaves the area — and his helmet — and appears at the front of a tunnel entrance by 4 p.m.

    That’s the last time Gietzen was captured on camera that day.

    He later sent a message to friends saying: “Btw they are trying to give credit to storming congress on the news to Antifa….BULLSHIT, I was there in a hallway helping to push the line of guards back. Today was 100 what happens when you piss of normal people, and the next protest is going even further.”

    FBI agents contacted Gietzen by phone on Jan. 19, 2021, and he told them that he and his brother were en route to D.C., but that “he had no intentions of committing any acts of violence.”

    A friend in one of Gietzen’s group chats contacted the FBI in May 2021 after Gietzen’s college acquaintance did the same in February. A year later, police arrested him.

    Gietzen does not regret his actions, he said at both the trial and sentencing, according to a news release by the U.S. District Attorney for the District of Colombia.

    Gietzen was suspect No. 217 on the FBI’s page of Jan. 6 participants. Agents learned of his identity in February 2021 after receiving a tip from an N.C. resident who knew Gietzen from college, according to court records.

    More than 1,230 people — including 34 North Carolinians — have been charged with federal crimes in the riot, ranging from misdemeanor offenses like trespassing to felonies like assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy.

    At least five deaths have been linked to the violence. More than 140 police officers were injured, while the Capitol was left with an estimated $1.5 million in damages.

    This story was originally published April 24, 2024, 3:28 PM.

    Related stories from Charlotte Observer

    Julia Coin overs local and federal courts and legal issues after previously working as a breaking news reporter for the Observer. Julia has reported on fentanyl in local schools, the aftermath of police shootings and crime trends in Charlotte. Michigan-born and Florida-raised, she studied journalism at the University of Florida, where she covered statewide legislation, sexual assault on campus and Hurricane Ian’s destruction.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • No, CNN coverage doesn’t prove 2020 election was stolen

    No, CNN coverage doesn’t prove 2020 election was stolen

    [ad_1]

    As a new presidential election quickly approaches, the legitimacy of the 2020 election is still being questioned online.

    A viral Facebook post claims the vote total for former President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania was suspiciously reduced. The April 5 post includes two screenshots, one labeled “before” that shows Trump’s vote count at 1,690,589 and second one labeled “33 second later” that shows his count at 1,670,631. “We ALL saw it… 2020 was stolen!,” the post’s caption said.

    The Facebook post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    This claim is inaccurate. Biden was certified as the winner of Pennsylvania and several courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have rejected attempts to challenge the state’s election result. Biden won the state by more than 80,000 votes.

    Pennsylvania has the fifth largest number of electoral college votes, and voters there have flipped between Democratic and Republican candidates, making it a crucial state for presidential candidates.

    In the hours and days after polls close, television stations rely on partners to supply them with information about vote counts. Sometimes human error means that information is inaccurate. Results also change as more votes are counted after Election Day. In the case of the 2020 presidential election, Pennsylvania had a high number of mail-in ballots. Most of the mail-in ballots went to Biden, propelling him to victory in that state.

    PolitiFact has previously debunked similar claims that attempt to use television news coverage as evidence of electoral fraud. Such claims were made in the 2022 Georgia Senate runoff and in the 2021 California governor recall election.

    Claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump were a rallying call that eventually led the former president’s supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an effort to disrupt Congress’ certification of Joe Biden as the winner.

    We rate the claim that photos of Pennsylvania vote tallies on CNN prove the 2020 election was stolen False. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • RFK Jr.’s falsehood about Jan. 6 and weapons

    RFK Jr.’s falsehood about Jan. 6 and weapons

    [ad_1]

    Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on April 5 espoused a common falsehood about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    “I have not examined the evidence in detail, but reasonable people, including Trump opponents, tell me there is little evidence of a true insurrection,” Kennedy said in his April 5 statement. “They observe that the protestors carried no weapons, had no plans or ability to seize the reins of government, and that (former President Donald) Trump himself had urged them to protest ‘peacefully.’”

    Kennedy published the statement following a fundraising email earlier in the week that referred to Jan. 6, 2021, defendants as “activists” who had been “stripped of their Constitutional liberties.” (PolitiFact did not see the fundraising email directly but multiple news outlets reported on it, including CNN and NBC.)

    In July 2021, we fact-checked Trump who said “there were no guns whatsoever” at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. We rated his statement False. 

    Kennedy’s statement goes further than Trump, because he said protesters “carried no weapons.” A weapon doesn’t have to be a gun.

    About six months after the Capitol attack, PolitiFact reviewed the case files of approximately 430 defendants. We found several defendants who police say were found to have brought firearms with them. Some were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds.

    Court records in the cases of nearly 1,400 defendants now provide even more details about the defendants who carried weapons.

    Marking 39 months since the attack, the U.S. Attorney’s Office on April 5 wrote that “approximately 493 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 129 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.” (The office publishes a monthly update about the cases; the statement was not in response to Kennedy’s comments.)

    A Justice Department spokesperson told PolitiFact that John Banuelos was the 10th person accused of bringing weapons to Washington, D.C., for the insurrection. He was charged in March 2024.

    We searched Justice Department press releases and the federal government’s database of cases to find several examples of defendants who had weapons at the Capitol grounds Jan. 6:

    • Mark Mazza was ​​convicted of carrying two loaded guns on Capitol grounds and assaulting law enforcement officers. Mazza brought a Taurus revolver, loaded with three shotgun shells and two hollow point bullets to the Capitol. He admitted to law enforcement that he was also armed with a second firearm, a loaded .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol.  

    • Guy Wesley Reffitt was found guilty by a jury in 2022 of five charges including entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a firearm.

    • Christopher Michael Alberts was convicted of nine charges, including six felonies. He was found in possession of a firearm. Alberts arrived at the Capitol with a pocketknife and carried with him, in a holster, a 9-millimeter pistol loaded with 12 rounds of ammunition and an additional bullet in the chamber. Alberts also wore a separate holster containing an additional 12 rounds of ammunition.

    • Jerod Thomas Bargar pleaded guilty to one felony count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon. Bargar entered onto the restricted Capitol grounds while illegally carrying a loaded, 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol.

    • Peter Francis Stager pleaded guilty to assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers using a deadly or dangerous weapon. “Stager watched as co-defendants attacked the police line and dragged a police officer, facedown and headfirst, out of the line and into the crowd of rioters,” a U.S. Attorney’s Office press release stated. Once the others had dragged the officer into the crowd, Stager raised the flagpole that he was carrying and beat the downed police officer, striking him at least three times.

    • Robert Sanford Jr., a retired firefighter, was sentenced for assaulting law enforcement officers with a dangerous weapon. He “threw a fire extinguisher at a group of U.S. Capitol Police officers, striking three of them in the head,” a U.S. Attorney’s Office press release stated.

    • Riley Kasper was sentenced for assaulting law enforcement officers. Kasper sprayed an aerosol canister of bear spray toward law enforcement officers. He “described the image of himself holding the can of bear spray against officers as making him look like a “badass,” a press release stated.

    Our ruling

    Kennedy said that on Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol “protestors carried no weapons.”

    More than three years after the attack, we have more information than ever as to why this claim is wrong. The U.S. Attorney’s Office said that as of April 5, there had been approximately 129 people charged with using deadly or dangerous weapons or causing serious bodily injury to an officer that day.

    And we found numerous examples of convicted defendants who brought firearms or used other weapons. 

    We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Jan. 6

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 committee didn’t ‘suppress testimony’ about Trump

    Jan. 6 committee didn’t ‘suppress testimony’ about Trump

    [ad_1]

    Recent reporting claimed the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol hid evidence related to the White House’s response that day.

    Conservative news outlets, including The Federalist, The Blaze and Newsmax, reported that the select committee “suppressed testimony” from former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato that proves former President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops at the Capitol.

    Facebook posts also shared news articles making this claim. These posts were flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    (Screengrab from Facebook)

    We reached out to these news outlets for comment but did not hear back before publication.

    The news outlets cited a transcript of a Jan. 28, 2022, interview with Ornato that Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., who leads the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, publicly released March 8. House Republicans have reopened an investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack because they deemed the select committee’s work “incomplete.”

    “The Select Committee’s failure to disclose this transcript is additional evidence that the Select Committee only released evidence that fit their narrative,” the Oversight Subcommittee said in its first report, released March 11.

    The Jan. 6 select committee, composed of seven Democratic members and two Republican members, concluded its work in December 2022 with a 845-page final report. During its 18-month investigation, the select committee held 10 public hearings, interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses and collected more than 1 million documents.

    Ornato’s January 2022 interview transcript was not publicly released until recently for security reasons, Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told PolitiFact. Both Raskin and Lofgren served on the select committee.

    The transcript aligns with the select committee’s conclusion that Trump didn’t order the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops before or during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. It provides no evidence to negate this finding.

    We previously fact-checked claims that Trump requested thousands of troops and Democrats rejected this request. These claims are False. There’s no evidence Trump gave this order.

    Why Ornato’s transcript wasn’t publicly released until now

    As part of the select committee’s investigation, the committee members and staff interviewed Ornato and Secret Service personnel. Ornato left the Secret Service in 2019 to become Trump’s deputy chief of staff and was still in that role Jan. 6, 2021.

    The select committee was “obligated to return certain Secret Service transcripts,” including this Ornato transcript, to the Department of Homeland Security “for redaction of sensitive security information before public release,” Raskin told PolitiFact.

    Lofgren also said this was the case.

    This obligation was documented in a publicly available letter the select committee sent to the Department of Homeland Security in December 2022.

    The letter said the transcribed interviews with Secret Service personnel were “not intended for public release” at the Secret Service’s direction. Therefore, the select committee said it summarized facts from these interviews for its final report without revealing the Secret Services’ operational details or its agents’ personal information.

    One of Ornato’s transcribed interviews, conducted in November 2022, was among the select committee’s publicly released materials. The committee said in the letter that this transcript was published because it “addressed a range of intelligence information important to the Committee’s conclusions about January 6th.”

    The committee noted in the letter that Ornato was not a functioning Secret Service agent at the time and it significantly redacted the November 2022 transcript to address the Secret Service’s security concerns.

    The Oversight Subcommittee said in its report that Loudermilk sent letters to the Department of Homeland Security in August 2023 and January 2024 requesting all of the select committee’s interview transcripts. The department said it possessed 12 transcripts and gave the subcommittee six of them. The others have not been released because the department’s review is not complete, the Oversight Subcommittee’s report said.

    What the Ornato transcript says about Trump’s National Guard comments

    In the 153-page transcript of Ornato’s January 2022 interview, mentions the National Guard multiple times. Ornato said he recalled Trump floating the number 10,000, but said the president never gave the order.

    First, Ornato was asked whether he knew if Trump had asked Jan. 4, 2021, for 10,000 National Guard troops to be deployed Jan. 6, 2021.

    Ornato responded, “I was not aware of that.”

    Soon after, Ornato was asked again whether he recalled any discussions before Jan. 6, 2021, about “having 10,000 troops or any other number of troops” to deploy.

    Ornato said he recalled overhearing a phone conversation a day or two before the Capitol attack between Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in which Meadows asked if Bowser needed more guards. Ornato said he had heard only Meadows’ side of the conversation.

    “I remember the number 10,000 coming up, you know, the president wants to make sure that you have enough. You know, he is willing to ask for 10,000,” Ornato said. “I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it.”

    Ornato said he did not hear any discussion of 10,000 troops after this. Ornato said Meadows asked the Defense Department to set up a quick reaction force at Joint Base Andrews, just outside of Washington, D.C., in case additional National Guard troops were needed.

    When asked, Ornato said he knew of no order to deploy National Guard troops on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021.

    “And apart from that conversation that you overheard with Mayor Bowser and Chief Meadows, you did not learn of any other additional efforts or (an) order regarding 10,000 troops?” Senior Investigative Counsel Soumyalatha Dayananda asked Ornato.

    Ornato responded, “No, not 10,000 troops, no.”

    Our ruling

    Conservative news outlets and social media posts claimed the Jan. 6 select committee “suppressed testimony” from Ornato that proves Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops at the Capitol.

    The select committee did not release this transcribed interview with Ornato because it was under the Department of Homeland Security’s review. As a former Secret Service member, Ornato’s transcript needed to be reviewed for potential security concerns.

    The select committee considered Ornato’s and other Secret Service testimony when publishing its final report on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. The report concluded that Trump did not directly order deploying 10,000 National Guard troops before or during the attack. Ornato’s interview transcript does not negate this finding.

    We rate the claim that the Jan. 6 select committee “suppressed testimony” involving 10,000 National Guard troops False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nancy Pelosi is not responsible for Jan. 6, 2021, attack

    Nancy Pelosi is not responsible for Jan. 6, 2021, attack

    [ad_1]

    There is ample evidence that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a target of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, but none that she was responsible for the event during which five people died. 

    A March 3 Facebook post said, “The face behind Jan. 6, 2021” with a black-and-white image of Pelosi, the California Democrat who was House speaker during the attack. The image appears to be the same one in a PBS “Frontline” video about how Pelosi responded as the Jan. 6 events unfolded.

    This Facebook post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    PolitiFact has debunked many claims about Pelosi and Jan. 6:

    Some claims stemmed from the release of footage showing Pelosi speaking that day with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and then-Vice President Mike Pence. The claims falsely said that a “camera crew” following Pelosi around that day proved Jan. 6 was staged. 

    But Pelosi was not followed by a “camera crew;” the footage was taken by her daughter, Alexandra Pelosi, a documentary filmmaker who routinely shot videos of her mother at the Capitol using a small, handheld camera that she always carries. 

    Multiple news organizations have also confirmed this, including Fox News, which reported that Alexandra Pelosi has filmed her mother at the Capitol for decades. 

    Several news reports documented how Pelosi was a target for those who stormed the Capitol. Video footage shows some rioters saying, “Where are you, Nancy? We’re looking for you,” before entering and looting her office. 

    In the three years since the Capitol attack, PolitiFact has fact-checked numerous false claims about the attack. Fabrications about the attack were named PolitiFact’s 2021 Lie of the Year. The insurrection was a real event that has resulted in at least 1,265 individuals charged, with 718 guilty pleas and 467 people serving jail time for their roles in the attack as of January 2024.

    We rate the claim that Pelosi is responsible for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol False.

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UPDATE: Every Texan Charged for Crimes During the Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

    UPDATE: Every Texan Charged for Crimes During the Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

    [ad_1]

    UPDATE Feb. 6, 2023: On Friday, Feb. 2, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia announced that a Fort Worth man had been found guilty for his role in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach, and a Houston-area woman had been arrested for her role in the events that attempted to delay the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

    Jason Benjamin Blythe, 24, was found guilty of assaulting an officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon, a metal crowd control barrier, in this instance, and on a misdemeanor charge for committing an act of physical violence on the Capitol grounds. According to a press release, Blythe stayed on the Capitol grounds “for hours,” while he resisted officers and climbed the media tower near the Capitol steps. A sentencing hearing for Blythe is scheduled for June 13.

    Judy Fraize, 70, of Highlands, was arrested on Monday and charged with four crimes, including disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building. Federal court records identify Fraize in more than a dozen images taken from the Capitol’s closed circuit security video. At one point during her time inside the building, Fraize, sporting a red Make America Great Again cap, can be heard yelling at an officer “we gotta take our country back!” Investigators zeroed in on Fraize by connecting her to a mobile device registered under her name and linked to her Gmail account that was used at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    These are the latest developments related to Texans arrested in connection to the Jan. 6 insurrection to add to the total since the Observer originally published this article on Nov. 8, 2023. The article and list below is updated to reflect the latest information as of Feb. 6, 2024.

    Just over three years ago, thousands of pro-Donald Trump protesters stormed into the building in an attempt to prevent Congressional certification of the election of President-elect Joe Biden. The chaos quickly became deadly when Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter who illegally attempted to climb through a shattered Capitol window while at the front of a violent mob, was shot and killed by police.

    The third anniversary of the insurrectionist attacks on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is just over two weeks away. Nearly three years ago, thousands of pro-Donald Trump protesters stormed into the building in an attempt to prevent Congressional certification of the election of President-elect Joe Biden. The chaos quickly became deadly when Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter who illegally attempted to climb through a shattered Capitol window while at the front of a violent mob, was shot and killed by police.

    Since then, law enforcement agencies have continued to announce the arrests of many of those who participated, no doubt aided by a host of videos and photos posted to social media by the eventual defendants of their Jan. 6 rampage exploits. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia released a report detailing the arrests, charges, pleas and other action that have followed in the wake of the attack.

    “The government continues to investigate losses that resulted from the breach of the Capitol, including damage to the Capitol building and grounds, both inside and outside the building,” the report reads. “As of October 14, 2022, the approximate losses suffered as a result of the siege at the Capitol totaled $2,881,360.20. That amount reflects, among other things, damage to the Capitol building and grounds and certain costs borne by the U.S. Capitol Police.”

    So far, more than 1,200 arrests have been made in connection with the Jan. 6 case, and more than half of them have already resulted in guilty pleas.

    Filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of former U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, recently released her latest documentary, The Insurrectionist Next Door, a harrowing look at several of the people who were arrested for their roles in the Jan. 6 attack.

    “The government continues to investigate losses that resulted from the breach of the Capitol, including damage to the Capitol building and grounds, both inside and outside the building.” – U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

    tweet this

    Some of the subjects featured in the film displayed no remorse for their actions, while others had undergone a change of heart since early 2021. One man admitted he didn’t really know what he was even doing that day since he had never been a Trump supporter. Perhaps as much as any other point, the film hammers home the fact that the hordes of rioters involved on Jan. 6 represent an unexpectedly wide cross-section of the American population, and that it’s not a stretch to think one of them might be living near you.

    That’s especially true if you live in Texas. The Lone Star state is home to the second most people charged with a role in the Capitol breach, behind only Florida. An X account that tracks arrests related to the Jan. breach, @Jan6thData, reports that Texas is now home to more than 100 Jan. 6 arrests with North Texas being home to more than a third of that total.

    People from nearly all 50 states have been arrested for their Jan. 6 misdeeds, but Texas sits near the top of the list. According to a July report from the Center for Policy and Research at Seton Hall University, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York and California account for just over 43% of those charged with Capitol breach crimes.

    Texans played pivotal roles in the violent attack on the peaceful transfer of power above and beyond the basic number of participants. On the second anniversary of the attack and following the release of a 2022 Congressional report on Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the Texas Tribune wrote “[t]he Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection would not have been possible without the help of a number of key Texans.” Later in the piece, Tribune reporter Robert Downen noted the massive report read “like a who’s who of Texas conspiracy theorists, conservative activists and extremists.”

    The charges that the dozens of arrested Texans face include, but are not limited to, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Capitol grounds or buildings; acts of physical violence in the Capitol grounds or buildings; parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building; obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder; assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers; and seditious conspiracy.

    There will likely be more added to the list of people charged. The U.S. Attorney’s 34-month report noted that “the FBI currently has 13 videos of suspects wanted for violent assaults on federal officers and (ONE) video of (TWO) suspects wanted for assaults on members of the media on January 6th and is seeking the public’s help to identify them.”

    But before those suspects are arrested, let’s take a look at all of the Texans who have been charged by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for their role in the attack (in alphabetical order, with location of arrest).

    Daniel Page Adams, Goodrich

    Wilmar Jeovanny Montano Alvarado, Houston

    Philip Anderson, Mesquite

    David Arredondo, El Paso*

    Thomas John Ballard, Fort Worth*

    Richard Franklin Barnard, Liberty*

    Dana Jean Bell, Princeton

    Kevin Sam Blakely, McKinney*

    Jason Blythe, Fort Worth

    Brandon Bradshaw, San Antonio

    Cory Ray Branan, Midland*

    Paul Thomas Brinson, Flower Mound

    Larry Rendell Brock, Fort Worth*

    Daniel Ray Caldwell, The Colony*

    Steven Cappuccio, Universal City*

    Luke Russell Coffee, Dallas

    Thomas Paul Conover, Keller*

    Nolan B. Cooke, Sherman*

    Christian Cortez, Seabrook*

    Jenny Louise Cudd, Midland*

    Matthew Dasilva, Lavon

    Nicholas Decarlo, Fort Worth*

    Lucas Denney, Kinney County*

    Robert Wayne Dennis, Garland*

    Alexander Fan, Houston

    Jason Farris, Arlington

    Frederic Fiol, San Antonio

    Judy Fraize, Highlands

    Jacob Garcia, Fort Worth*

    Anthime Joseph Gionet, Houston*

    Billy Joe Gober, Smithville

    Daniel Goodwyn, Corinth*

    Christopher Ray Grider, Austin*

    Leonard Gruppo, Lubbock*

    Stacy Wade Hagar, Waco

    Alex Kirk Harkrider, Carthage*

    Donald Hazard, Hurst

    Alan Hostetter, Parker County*

    David Howard, Frisco

    Jason Lee Hyland, Plano*

    Adam Jackson, Katy

    Brian Jackson, Katy

    Sergio Jaramillo, Dallas

    Raul Jarrin, Houston

    Shane Jenkins, Houston

    Joshua Johnson, Plano

    David Lee Judd, Carrollton

    Joseph Zvonimir Jurlina, Austin

    John Lammons, Galveston

    Benjamin Larocca, Seabrook*

    Joshua R. Lollar, Spring

    Duong Dai Luu, Katy

    Mario Mares, Ballinger

    Michael Marroquin, Nederland

    Felipe Antonio Martinez, Austin

    Victor Martinez, San Antonio

    Matthew Carl Mazzacco, San Antonio*

    Kyle McMahaon, Watauga

    William Hendry Mellors, Houston

    Jalise Middleton, Forestburg

    Mark Middleton, Forestburg

    Garrett Miller, Richardson

    Samuel Christopher Montoya, Austin*

    Andrew Jackson Morgan Jr., Maxwell

    Dawn Munn, Borger*

    Kayli Munn, Borger*

    Kristi Marie Munn, Borger*

    Thomas Munn, Borger*

    Ryan Taylor Nichols, Tyler*

    Jason Douglas Owens, Blanco*

    Paul Orta, Rio Hondo

    Nathan Donald Pelham, Frisco

    Tam Dinh Pham, Houston*

    Daniel Dink Phipps, Corpus Christi

    Jeffrey Reed, Rosanky

    Guy Wesley Reffitt, Bonham*

    Sebastian Reveles, Dallas

    Stewart Elmer Rhodes III, Little Elm*

    Eliel Rosa, Midland*

    Jennifer Leigh Ryan, Plano*

    Aron Sanchez, Dallas

    Katherine Staveley Schwab, Fort Worth*

    Geoffrey Samuel Shough, Austin*

    Jonathan Owen Shroyer, San Antonio

    Troy Anthony Smocks, Dallas*

    Kellye Sorelle, Junction

    Edward Spain Jr. (city not provided)*

    Andrew Taake, Houston*

    Timothy Tedesco, Corpus Christi

    Chance Anthony Uptmore, San Antonio*

    James Herman Uptmore, San Antonio*

    Sean David Watson, Alpine*

    Adam Mark Weibling, Katy*

    Dustin Ray Williams, Brady

    Elizabeth Rose Williams, Kerrville*

    Vic Williams, Odessa*

    Jeffrey Shane Witcher, Bastrop*

    Darrell Alan Youngers, Houston*

    Ryan Scott Zink, Lubbock
    *Defendant has either pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of at least one count against them as of Feb. 6, 2024.



    [ad_2]

    Kelly Dearmore

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – The FBI didn’t orchestrate Jan. 6, but poll shows the false belief has staying power

    PolitiFact – The FBI didn’t orchestrate Jan. 6, but poll shows the false belief has staying power

    [ad_1]

    Three years of investigations and hundreds of arrests have not surfaced evidence that the FBI orchestrated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    But ahead of the insurrection’s third anniversary, one poll of more than 1,000 respondents found that 25% of U.S. adults said it was “probably” or “definitely” true that “FBI operatives organized and encouraged” the 2021 Capitol attack. 

    The Justice Department has charged more than 1,200 people in connection with the day’s events. PolitiFact and other news organizations have repeatedly rebutted the unsubstantiated theory that federal agents instigated the violence, finding no evidence to support the claim. 

    Numerous federal investigations into the day’s events, and court filings against hundreds of defendants show the attack was carried out by people who believed or perpetuated false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. 

    The FBI told PolitiFact, “Any suggestion that the violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 was orchestrated by the FBI is categorically false.”

    How did this theory emerge? 

    The FBI narrative emerged in June 2021, when right-leaning website Revolver News published an article encouraging that “all discussion” of Jan. 6, 2021, focus on determining “exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol.” 

    It theorized that the “unindicted co-conspirators” mentioned in some indictments could have been confidential FBI informants or undercover operatives. The article also questioned whether FBI informants might have been “active instigators” in the attack. 

    When we looked into these claims, experts told PolitiFact that under almost any circumstances, undercover federal operatives or informants cannot be described in government filings as co-conspirators. Part of criminal conspiracy involves the agreement to commit a crime, and that’s not what undercover operatives do. 

    Still, the narrative that the FBI orchestrated the events of Jan. 6, 2021, quickly spread, amplified by influential voices in the political right, including former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Republican politicians such as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Matt Gaetz of Florida.

    Trump supporters try to break through a police barrier, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP)

    What was the FBI’s role on Jan. 6, 2021?

    Politicians and government reports criticized the FBI for failing to provide warnings about potential violence ahead of Jan. 6, 2021. But officials maintain that the FBI did not instigate the violence.

    In June, Steven D’Antuono, the former assistant director-in-charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, told the House Judiciary Committee that the agency had maybe “a handful” of confidential human sources present in the crowd on Jan. 6, 2021. And when asked about the theory that the FBI had directed those sources and orchestrated a false flag attack on Jan. 6, 2021, D’Antuono said, “that is furthest from the truth.”

    In his opinion, he said, there was “no nefarious or maliciousness” to having confidential sources in the crowd. That’s what such sources are for “all the time,” he said. 

    “None of this was orchestrated by the FBI, nor myself,” D’Antuono said.

    As recently as November, FBI Director Christopher Wray also dismissed the allegations.

    “If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, the answer is an emphatic no,” Wray told lawmakers during a Nov. 15, 2023, House Committee on Homeland Security hearing.

    U.S. Capitol Police officers with guns drawn as rioters try to break into the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. (AP)

    Specific allegations that certain people involved in the attack were affiliated with the FBI have proved false.

    An Arizona man named Ray Epps was falsely accused of being an undercover FBI agent or informant, even though he was there to protest. Epps told the House committee investigating the Capitol attack that was untrue. “Epps informed us that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on Jan 5th or 6th or at any other time, & that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency,” the committee wrote in a Jan. 11, 2022, statement.

    Prosecutors on Jan. 2 filed a memo in federal court seeking a six-month prison sentence against Epps following his guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge of disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds. They say he sought “to inspire and gather a crowd to storm the Capitol to protest the certification of the election.” Epps, they wrote, “has never been a government employee or agent, other than his four years of service in the Marines from 1979-1983.”

    In November 2023, some people — including Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah — promoted the theory that Capitol footage showed a man in a “Make America Great Again” hat flashing a badge, signifying he was an undercover federal agent. NBC News identified that man as Kevin Lyons, a Trump supporter who was convicted and is serving four years in federal prison for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021. The alleged badge was likely a vape, NBC News reported.

    “I was stupid. I don’t know what came over me,” Lyons said during his sentencing. “I apologize to you, the country and my family.”

    Who is pushing this theory?

    The unsubstantiated tale persists, in part, because people with influence keep repeating it. 

    “Over the past few years, we have seen various conspiracies take hold — including Jan. 6 — because some of our politicians have pushed this lie, then some media outlets have amplified these lies, and then social media further amplifies, creating a vicious feedback cycle,” said Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Information.

    Pundits, elected officials and political candidates aligned with Trump have made these claims, downplaying the role that the Trump supporters played in the violence that unfolded on the Capitol that day. 

    • In November 2021, Carlson promoted the unsubstantiated theory in his “Patriot Purge” series for Fox Nation, claiming that federal agents incited people on Jan. 6 and “intentionally entrapped” American citizens. We rated that False.

    • In June 2022, a Texas businessman and congressional candidate ran a television ad that questioned if FBI agents were “used as political agitators.” We rated that False, too.

    • During a House Committee hearing in November 2023, Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., claimed that an undercover bus “filled with FBI informants dressed as Trump supporters, deployed onto our Capitol on January 6th.” We rated that False.

    Dustin Carnahan, a Michigan State University communications professor who studies political misinformation, told The Associated Press ahead of the first anniversary of the Capitol attack that conspiracy theories become dangerous when they lead people to distrust democracy or to excuse or embrace violence.

    “If we’re no longer operating from the same foundation of facts, then it’s going to be a lot harder to have conversations as a country,” Carnahan said at the time, forewarning that it could fuel more political division.

    Today, Carnahan reflected on the FBI narrative’s staying power and said it is often difficult for supporters of a group — in this case, Trump supporters — to accept that some members might be capable of criminal actions they do not condone. 

    “Since we’re motivated to view the groups we belong to in a favorable way, accepting that these bad actors were Trump supporters presents an inconsistency,” Carnahan said. “In response, some group members will go to great lengths to seek alternative explanations for the actions of Jan. 6 in order to protect their view of the group and their connection to it.”

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Jan. 6

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Ramaswamy’s Pants on Fire debate claim that Jan. 6 was an ‘inside job’

    PolitiFact – Ramaswamy’s Pants on Fire debate claim that Jan. 6 was an ‘inside job’

    [ad_1]

    Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy portrayed himself as a truth-teller during the fourth presidential primary debate in Alabama.

    “If you want somebody who’s gonna speak truth to power, then vote for somebody who’s gonna speak the truth to you,” he said Dec. 6 in Tuscaloosa. But he followed that statement with false claims and a conspiracy theory.

    “Why am I the only person on the stage at least who can say that Jan. 6 now does look like it was an inside job,” he said. Ramaswamy then listed a heap of questionable, misleading and wrong comments, including that the 2020 election was “stolen by Big Tech.”

    The Jan. 6 claim is extraordinarily egregious. 

    Numerous investigations have found the U.S. Capitol attack was orchestrated and executed by people who supported Donald Trump’s presidency and believed or pushed false claims that the 2020 election was “stolen.” Although evidence shows FBI informants were at the Capitol that day, none shows the FBI or its informants instigated the violence that followed.

    Evidence from court documents shows, person by person, who ransacked the Capitol and fought with police officers. The rioters’ goal was preventing Congress from accepting the results of the election showing that Trump had lost. Officials have charged more than 1,200 defendants, more than two-thirds of whom have pleaded guilty or been found guilty at trial so far.

    In 17 key findings, the House committee investigating the attack determined Trump himself disseminated false allegations about the election and summoned supporters to the Capitol and directed them to “take back” the country.

    We contacted a Ramaswamy’s campaign spokesperson on debate night and did not immediately hear back.

    The public record for hundreds of defendants shows that many considered their actions patriotic; they believed they were on the front lines of a revolution or civil war. Rioters scaled walls, broke windows, forced their way into the building and clashed with police.

    Among people sentenced for seditious conspiracy are multiple members of far-right groups including the Proud Boys extremist group and militia groups including the Oath Keepers. 

    How we’ve fact-checked similar claims

    Similar claims about Jan. 6 being a “false flag” took off in the months after the insurrection following a blog post by Revolver News, a right-leaning website run by a former Trump White House speechwriter who was fired in 2018 after appearing on a discussion panel with a white nationalist.

    The website’s unproven theory focused on charging documents and that the FBI had used informants and undercover operatives to foil an extremist plot to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. 

    A cursory look showed the theory was rife with holes, inaccuracies and circumstantial speculation, which was amplified by multiple pundits and politicians. PolitiFact rated the claim that federal agents directly incited people as False. 

    In late November, PolitiFact examined a claim by U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., about “ghost buses” carrying undercover FBI agents to the Capitol that day. We rated the unsupported claim False, with experts telling us they were unfamiliar with the term “ghost bus” and that there are reasons the FBI would not bus a group of informants to an event.

    PolitiFact named claims that downplay the violence about the Jan. 6 attack its 2021 Lie of the Year.

    Our ruling

    Ramaswamy said, “Jan. 6 now does look like it was an inside job.”

    Numerous investigations into what happened Jan. 6, 2021, including by a congressional committee, have found the U.S. Capitol attack was orchestrated and executed by people who supported Donald Trump’s presidency and believed or pushed false claims that the 2020 election was “stolen.” Extensive court records involving more than 1,200 defendants also back this up.

    The onus is on Ramaswamy to back up his statement with evidence, and he has failed to do that. 

    We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

    RELATED: Live fact-checking the fourth 2024 Republican presidential primary debate

    RELATED: Why a Republican’s claim about ‘ghost buses’ of FBI informants on Jan. 6 is dubious

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Jan. 6

    RELATED: The 2021 Lie of the Year: Lies about the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and its significance

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Olympic Swimmer Sentenced In Jan. 6 Capitol Attack

    Former Olympic Swimmer Sentenced In Jan. 6 Capitol Attack

    [ad_1]

    “Klete Derik Keller once wore the American flag as an Olympian,” prosecutors said. “On January 6, 2021, he threw that flag in a trash can.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Footage of Nancy Pelosi on Jan. 6, 2021, doesn’t prove Capitol attack was staged

    PolitiFact – Footage of Nancy Pelosi on Jan. 6, 2021, doesn’t prove Capitol attack was staged

    [ad_1]

    Following news that House Speaker Mike Johnson would release 44,000 hours of footage from Jan. 6, 2021, social media users are claiming pre-existing videos of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., from that day show the Capitol attack was staged.

    A Nov. 19 Instagram reel showed two clips from Jan. 6, 2021, of then-House Speaker Pelosi speaking on the phone with then-Vice President Mike Pence about when members of Congress would be able to safely return to the Capitol after rioters stormed the building.

    In the first clip, Pelosi stands by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and holds a phone. Pence says on speaker phone: “I’m at the Capitol building. I’m literally standing with the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police. … They believe that the House and the Senate will be able to reconvene in roughly an hour.”

    The second clip shows Schumer holding the phone with Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, listening as Pence says the same three sentences.

    “Exact same recording. Two different shots. One with Grassley — one without Grassley,” text on the video read.

    The Instagram post’s caption said, “Some of you are confused. It’s called a movie, with great actors, central casting ‘cause it’s all a show.”

    (Screengrab from Instagram)

    Another Instagram post, also shared Nov. 19, showed the same video clips of Pelosi and made a similar claim that the Capitol attack was a setup. These posts were flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    Although the video clips in the Instagram posts appear to have the same audio recording, a full video of the Congress members’ phone call with Pence shows that’s not so.

    A short clip of the conversation with Pence was released Oct. 13, 2022, by the House select committee on the Jan. 6 attack. CNN obtained and published a longer video of that conversation the same day. Both videos were filmed by Alexandra Pelosi, a documentary filmmaker and Nancy Pelosi’s daughter.

    In the full video, Nancy Pelosi holds the cellphone beside Schumer as Pence says the Capitol Police chief believes the House and Senate will be able to reconvene in an hour. Pence later says he will call Schumer, unless Schumer is present, and Pelosi hands the phone to Schumer.

    At this point, about a minute and a half later, Grassley walks up to Pelosi and Schumer and listens to Pence relay the same information about when Congress can reconvene. But the audio from earlier in the clip is not repeated, as it is in the Instagram posts.

    This footage shows congressional leaders coordinating with the vice president to resume certifying the 2020 election after rioters stormed the Capitol. It does not prove that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, were scripted or part of a movie.

    In the nearly three years since the Capitol attack, PolitiFact has fact-checked numerous false claims about the attack and found no evidence that it was contrived. Falsehoods about the attack were named PolitiFact’s 2021 Lie of the Year. It was a real event with real consequences.

    Hundreds of people, fueled partly by the false belief that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen, stormed the Capitol as Congress was certifying the election results. The rioters, many armed and clad in Trump-branded apparel and combat gear, scaled walls, broke windows, forced their way into the building and repeatedly clashed with police.

    One woman was fatally shot by police during the attack. And five police officers who served at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, died soon after, The New York Times reported.

    In February 2021, the cost of the attack, including repairs, enhanced security and increased mental health services, was estimated to exceed $30 million, The New York Times reported.

    Since the attack, more than 1,100 people have been charged with federal crimes, including obstruction of Congress, use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, and causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Of those, 714 have pleaded guilty and 709 have been sentenced, according to an NPR analysis.

    We rate the claim that videos of Nancy Pelosi from Jan. 6, 2021, show the Capitol attack was staged False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link