SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-jan-6/ar-AANxOuQ
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
…
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections. Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
None of this excuses the violent riot that happened on Jan. 6. The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots. Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn't won’t make the Capitol any safer.
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/even-if-it-crime-asst-ag-testifies-he-doesnt-know-anyone-jan-6-whos-been
https://youtu.be/-7PcwMk3cOg
‘Even if It Is a Crime’: Asst. AG Testifies He Doesn’t Know of Anyone from Jan. 6 Who’s Been Charged with ‘Insurrection’
Even though many Democrats insist that the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol was an “insurrection,” Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen testified Tuesday in a Senate hearing that he doesn’t know of anyone who has been charged with insurrection for participating in the riot.
While Olsen appeared uncertain whether or not “insurrection” is, technically, a crime, he did testify that he didn’t know of anyone charged with it.
“Has anyone been charged with the crime of insurrection following January 6?” Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Olsen, to which the assistant attorney general replied he wasn’t aware of any such charge being made:
“I am not aware that anyone’s been charged with particular offense, even if it is an offense. I just am not aware of that. It would be inappropriate for me to speak about any particular investigation at this point.
“But, I am just not aware of anyone being charged with that.”
“I’m not either – I’ve just heard that word used several times today,” Sen. Lee said. “But, to my knowledge, nobody’s been charged with that. They’ve been charge with other things, not that one.”
Sen. Lee also tried, unsuccessfully, to get answers comparing the surveillance, arrests and prosecutions of the Capitol rioters to those of the summer 2020 riots that ravaged cities across the U.S. Sen. Lee said he had previously asked his questions in a letter, but the response he received – four and a half months later – “failed to answer a single question.”
Can anyone explain to me how you can have an insurrection, without any insurrectionists?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 14 2022, @01:43PM (4 children)
Investigations plural? The only one I've been against is the one in Congress which probably would devolve into a show trial, if they ever got the opportunity. I guess there's more than one? I haven't opposed the FBI's investigations, for a glaring counterexample.
Nope. Instead, the circular logic goes the other way. If you need an investigation in order to find evidence to justify the investigation, well, then the investigation shouldn't happen. That's the whole point of due process - that the power of the state in investigating crimes isn't used willy nilly, but only with proper justification and consistency.
Or because they have terrible debating and reasoning skills. I favor that view. Look. This is no different than any other relatively complex crime. I don't expect the investigation to immediately dig out who did what. But I do expect them to follow the rule of law. And a key rule is that you start digging where you can show you have probable cause to dig.
Because that power can be used against us far easier than it can be used against an ex-president with a prepared legal defense team.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14 2022, @06:26PM
You're boned! You'd better say something nice about Justice Sonia Sotomayor, quick!
(Hint: include words like Wise and Latina in your remarks.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14 2022, @10:40PM (2 children)
Much of Trump's defense involves a significant expansion of executive privilege. A president does have some protections not afforded to anyone else such as the de facto policy to not indict a sitting president for crimes. That privilege does not extend to former presidents. Executive privilege is intended to allow the president to decline having high level officials comply with the legislative or judicial branches when doing so would interfere with the duties of the executive branch. It is the president who asserts executive privilege.
Trump is no longer president. The protections afforded to him while in office are no longer present. In fact, Republicans argued the relevance of no longer being a sitting president as a justification for opposing the second impeachment of Trump. This reasoning is a bit dubious because of the possible outcome of barring Trump from being president again, but it's the reasoning opponents of impeachment used.
The president is Joe Biden. It is Biden who currently decides whether or not to assert executive privilege. Trump is not in a position to determine if complying with a congressional investigation would impede the current functions of the executive branch. That's Biden's job. Biden has decided to almost completely cooperate with the congressional investigation, with very limited exceptions.
Trump is trying to assert executive privilege even though he's no longer president. That would be a massive expansion of executive privilege. Just as former presidents most certainly can be indicted for crimes, they also don't get to assert executive privilege. Extending this protection to former presidents would be an affront to the rule of law, the same rule of law you say you want upheld.
Also, the activities of a public employee while conducting official business are not afforded the same protections as the activities of a person as a private citizen.
Trump does not have the authority to compel Biden to assert executive privilege, but that's exactly what he's trying to do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 15 2022, @03:27AM (1 child)
I guess we better not do that then, right?
Even normal defense teams will try out there legal strategies on occasion. I'm not surprised that Trump has done so brazenly, particularly given the Kraken shenanigans. We don't have to take them seriously.
Another reason to consider holding back on the legislative investigation is that it can interfere with law enforcement investigations. And this interference can come from anywhere, congressional people and their staffers in particular. For example, a Trump ally might pass on secrets to Trump's defense team. Or someone might selectively release information or leak to the press. Or they can prejudice an investigation or potential jurors by announcing their own non-legally binding conclusions, or even double jeopardy.
My take is that we have a history of sloppy and ineffective legislative investigations - for example, perjury to congress is rarely prosecuted [thefederalist.com].
That was followed by
So Holder committed perjury and withheld evidence from Congress. No penalty for any of that aside from a slap on the wrist for the latter.
So I see legislative investigations as enabling both the chance of suspects walking free because of incompetence of the investigation or generating minor to non-existent penalties for those that they do manage to catch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @06:15AM
Although I disagree with your conclusion, your reply was in good faith and makes a cogent argument. Thank you.
Even if the committee didn't look into connections between the Trump administration and members of Congress, and the rioters on January 6, the committee still has a purpose. Part of their investigation involves examining law enforcement failures, why warnings about the threat of violence on January 6 weren't acted upon. Not only is that a valid thing for Congress to investigate, but there is significant precedent with the 9/11 Commission. That investigation should take place in Congress.
As for the issue of coordination between the rioters and high-level government officials, there wouldn't be any risk of interfering with a law enforcement investigation once the FBI concludes their probe. Under ideal circumstances, delaying the House probe into those matters might be a good way to resolve those concerns. As a practical matter, that's just not feasible.
When this committee was first proposed, it was supposed to have equal representation from both parties. Speaker Pelosi proposed seven Democrats and one Republican. Minority Leader McCarthy proposed five Republicans. Pelosi agreed to three of McCarthy's choices but rejected the other two, who were Jim Banks and Jim Jordan. Pelosi's justification was effectively that by allowing those two representatives to serve on the committee, it would present a conflict of interest and might present issues with the integrity of the investigation. Indeed, the committee has since inquired into the actions of Banks and Jordan as they pertain to January 6. Pelosi offered McCarthy the opportunity to nominate two other Republicans instead, but McCarthy refused. McCarthy indicated that none of his five choices would serve on the committee unless all five were approved. That's the reason for the committee's membership as it is.
Given that history and that Republicans are likely to take control of the House after the November election, it's virtually certain that the House would not continue with the January 6 investigation in the next Congress. If Congress waits until after the law enforcement investigation concludes, it's very likely that there will never be an investigation in Congress. Time is already not on the committee's side as Trump and his associates are using litigation to delay complying with the committee's requests. I don't know McCarthy's motivations for sure, but I'm wondering if Jordan and Banks were recommended as poison pills to create a pretext for not supporting the investigation. Regardless, if this investigation doesn't happen now, it probably never will.