Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Edge-]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/j...ally-gave-them

Some of the people who were convicted for their actions during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol have insisted the unit where they were held before sentencing in the Washington D.C. jail is an abusive “gulag.” It’s also ground zero for a burgeoning media empire that appears to violate jail policy and features broadcasts starring people who were convicted for their role in storming the Capitol as former President Trump’s loss in the 2020 election was being certified.

A pair of the so-called “J6ers” have hosted a “DC Gulag podcast” where they have interviewed their fellow inmates while promoting various aspects of their agenda including false conspiracy theories about the 2020 vote and the idea they are waging a noble political struggle. Despite the obvious issues with these claims, hero worship of the people who attacked the Capitol has become a persistent feature of MAGA politics. And, thanks to an unusual setup, some of the prisoners themselves are embracing that spotlight.

Inmates are generally restricted from accessing the internet and communicating with the outside world, a situation that has raised questions for years about how to properly balance security concerns and freedom of speech. In their premiere episode, which was released earlier this month and filmed last year, one of the podcast hosts, Jonathan Mellis, now an inmate at FCI Ashland in Kentucky, explained how they were able to get their unique show online.

“What I think the establishment didn’t count on is us being able to have laptops to view our discovery that accidentally have a camera attached to it so that we can actually get to know some of us while we’re in here,” Mellis explained.

Daniel Ball, a public affairs specialist with the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which prosecuted the podcast’s hosts, declined to comment on the podcast.

“The housing of inmates at the D.C. jail is the responsibility of the D.C. Department of Corrections. I would recommend reaching out to them for response of the specifics of your question,” Ball said in an email.

Setareh Yelle, chief of strategic communications for the D.C. DOC, responded with an emailed statement that suggested the broadcasts were a violation of the jail’s policy.

“Residents are required to receive additional legal resources, including a laptop, at the request of their defense attorneys, specifically for reviewing voluminous or electronic discovery – any other use by residents is in violation of the current DOC policy,” Yelle wrote.

The “podcast” was published on Rumble, a video streaming site popular with the far right. It was posted by an account affiliated with the website “We Are Good Men,” a site containing content supporting the people imprisoned in D.C. on Jan. 6 charges, including streams of nightly vigils held on their behalf. The listed contact for “We Are Good Men,” which refers to the prisoners as “patriots,” did not respond to a request for comment.

Two episodes of the podcast have been posted online in the past 11 days. Text in the videos indicates they were taped last November. Both episodes were hosted by Mellis and another man, Edward Badalian.

Truly, nobody has suffered like these political prisoners. You can listen all about their struggle on their latest podcast.

Also, are prisoners allowed to have cameras and run podcasts?

Anyways, pathetic people are still pathetic. I hope their struggles in prison continue.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...ase-rcna159328

he federal judge overseeing presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's Jan. 6 criminal case on Thursday sentenced a Capitol rioter who assaulted police officers to more than 4.5 years in prison.

Anthony Mastanduno — known to online sleuths as "Shield Grampy" — pleaded guilty to nine criminal offenses in March, which was when Trump was originally supposed to be on trial in his own Capitol attack case under the trial schedule laid out by Judge Tanya Chutkan back in August. (Trump's case was paused as the Supreme Court considers his immunity claim.)

Mastanduno's arrest came in August 2023, a few weeks after Trump was arrested in the Jan. 6 case against him brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

But Mastanduno's case has not been subjected to the same delays as the Trump case. Chutkan ordered Mastanduno into custody after he pleaded guilty in March. Trump, by comparison, is appearing Thursday night at a debate with President Joe Biden.

Gramps gonna be spending some of his golden years in prison because he's a stupid extremist that assaulted Capitol police.

[Paranoid Android]

Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker (R) said that the Supreme Court was “absolutely right” in blocking the Justice Department (DOJ) from charging Jan. 6 rioters with obstruction.

Just fuck off The Hill.

I know most will push back with who cares about The Hill. Yea I guess, but bold of them to publish an opinion from this hack, piece of shit. They Attorney General who was appointed with the intent to subvert democracy. They guy, which points out a BIG ass loophole, where he was not approved by the Senate, thus never the official AG.

[Breccia]

Expect more sentencings soon.

James Beeks and Donovan Crowl waived their right to a trial by jury, instead opting for a stipulated bench trial starting Monday before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, according to court filings. A third co-defendant, former Oath Keepers lawyer Kellye SoRelle, was determined to be mentally incompetent to stand trial.

UPDATE: Former Oath Keepers lawyer pleads guilty to obstruction related to US Capitol riot

An attorney for the far-right Oath Keepers pleaded guilty Wednesday to instructing members of the far-right group to delete their text messages after the January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot on behalf of its leader Stewart Rhodes.

Kellye SoRelle, an attorney who volunteered for Lawyers for Trump during efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, was first charged in 2022. The judge overseeing her case, however, temporarily ruled that she was incompetent to stand trial and sent SoRelle to a federal custody for mental health treatment.

Wednesday, she pleaded guilty to charges including tampering with evidence, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. SoRelle will be sentenced in January.

SoRelle had close ties to pro-Trump and “Stop the Steal” groups in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, according to court documents and her own public statements. She is also the former girlfriend of Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, and has claimed to be the general counsel for the militia.

Rhodes was charged in one of the highest-profile prosecutions to arise out of the January 6 Capitol riot. He and several of his followers were convicted of seditious conspiracy for concocting a far-reaching plot to keep then-President Donald Trump in power after he lost his reelection bid. Rhodes was sentenced last year to serve 18 years in prison.

Prosecutors showed evidence at Rhodes’ trial which they claimed showed how the militia leader and SoRelle worked together in the weeks surrounding the riot. SoRelle was present at an infamous underground meeting the evening before the riot that both Rhodes and a leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, attended.

So not only was she no longer found too crazy to be tried, she knew she'd be found guilty and plead out. I wonder what the requirements for that plea deal were? Because she's a co-conspirator.

[Gelannerai]

UPDATE: Former Oath Keepers lawyer pleads guilty to obstruction related to US Capitol riot



So not only was she no longer found too crazy to be tried, she knew she'd be found guilty and plead out. I wonder what the requirements for that plea deal were? Because she's a co-conspirator.

It’s the anticipation that gets me. If her sentence ends up being like a nickel or something, I wonder how many ratfuckers are gonna be suddenly “incompetent to stand trial.”

[Shadowferal]

If she has to serve a mandatory 5yrs.. Well, lets not overlook what that means. She'll be 50yrs old, a felony conviction, career as a lawyer...done, and spent most of those 5yrs wondering, and wondering...and more wondering, just where the hell did things go so wrong.

[Kaleredar]

If she has to serve a mandatory 5yrs.. Well, lets not overlook what that means. She'll be 50yrs old, a felony conviction, career as a lawyer...done, and spent most of those 5yrs wondering, and wondering...and more wondering, just where the hell did things go so wrong.

I’d be interested to know how many of these people that have been convicted actually showed remorse for their actions in a genuine “I messed up, I was misled” kind of way instead of what I suspect is the far more likely “blame the libs for having been caught.”

[Lenonis]

So not only was she no longer found too crazy to be tried

I'm confused about something - if you aren't mentally fit to stand trial how are you mentally fit to participate in a plea bargain? Or is it because it was a temporary ruling about mental fitness? @cubby - do you have any insight on how this works? I kind of see it if you aren't deemed capable of giving consent but then someone lets you sign a contract. How would that contract be deemed valid? Just a weird question from me if anyone has any insights.

[cubby]

I'm confused about something - if you aren't mentally fit to stand trial how are you mentally fit to participate in a plea bargain? Or is it because it was a temporary ruling about mental fitness? @cubby - do you have any insight on how this works? I kind of see it if you aren't deemed capable of giving consent but then someone lets you sign a contract. How would that contract be deemed valid? Just a weird question from me if anyone has any insights.

The events are separated.

First - she was found mentally incompetent, and sentenced to a mental care facility. There she would have evaluated, treated, and if treatment worked, "released" and found competent to stand trial.
Second - she would have stood for trial, with all the bells and whistles. At that point....
Finally - with advice of counsel, which is key here, she was able to enter into a plea agreement.

So - to answer your question directly, they are able to sign the contract because they have been "cured" of their mental illness, so to speak - and they have attorney representation. They understand the consequences of their actions, i.e. signing the contract.

And the whole thing always seems a bit odd, because the whole point of the mental facility is too get them mentally healthy, but if/when that happens, then they face their crimes.

However, there are times when, during a criminal trial, the person is found to be temporarily insane or cannot stand trial, etc. At that point, in very rare exceptions, the person is remitted to a mental care facility (psychiatric hospital) until they are cured, then just released (this happens rarely, but we see it more on television).

[Lenonis]

MMO's favorite lawyer to the rescue

Thank you!! Appreciate the breakdown.

[Poopymonster]

The events are separated.

First - she was found mentally incompetent, and sentenced to a mental care facility. There she would have evaluated, treated, and if treatment worked, "released" and found competent to stand trial.
Second - she would have stood for trial, with all the bells and whistles. At that point....
Finally - with advice of counsel, which is key here, she was able to enter into a plea agreement.

So - to answer your question directly, they are able to sign the contract because they have been "cured" of their mental illness, so to speak - and they have attorney representation. They understand the consequences of their actions, i.e. signing the contract.

And the whole thing always seems a bit odd, because the whole point of the mental facility is too get them mentally healthy, but if/when that happens, then they face their crimes.

However, there are times when, during a criminal trial, the person is found to be temporarily insane or cannot stand trial, etc. At that point, in very rare exceptions, the person is remitted to a mental care facility (psychiatric hospital) until they are cured, then just released (this happens rarely, but we see it more on television).

The timetable is interesting.
Be declared mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Hope Trump wins for pardons you hope are coming.
Assassination attempt, grazed ear, healed by magical sanitary napkins.
No bounce, no play in polls.
Biden gets Covid, there is hope.
Biden steps down.
Harris steps up.
Harris polls well.
Harris chooses the most midwestern dad to every midwestern dad as VP.
Harris campaign says "Ope" at it rushes past Trump.
Trump delivers low energy, rambling, incoherent rants.
Reality sets in "I could be here forever...."

HEY! My brain meats are healed. I'll plead guilty!

[gondrin]

The events are separated.

First - she was found mentally incompetent, and sentenced to a mental care facility. There she would have evaluated, treated, and if treatment worked, "released" and found competent to stand trial.
Second - she would have stood for trial, with all the bells and whistles. At that point....
Finally - with advice of counsel, which is key here, she was able to enter into a plea agreement.

So - to answer your question directly, they are able to sign the contract because they have been "cured" of their mental illness, so to speak - and they have attorney representation. They understand the consequences of their actions, i.e. signing the contract.

And the whole thing always seems a bit odd, because the whole point of the mental facility is too get them mentally healthy, but if/when that happens, then they face their crimes.

However, there are times when, during a criminal trial, the person is found to be temporarily insane or cannot stand trial, etc. At that point, in very rare exceptions, the person is remitted to a mental care facility (psychiatric hospital) until they are cured, then just released (this happens rarely, but we see it more on television).

The best example of this is John Hinckley Jr.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/polit...iot/index.html

The federal appeals court in Washington, DC, on Tuesday upheld the conviction of the Cowboys for Trump founder who entered the restricted area of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, saying rioters didn’t have to know the Secret Service was protecting then-Vice President Mike Pence inside when they breached the area.

The case is among a handful that tested the foundational approach the Justice Department took to prosecute hundreds of Capitol rioters, and the decision has been long-awaited since it was argued last December by those handling cases coming through the DC federal court.

It also strengthens federal protection the Secret Service can offer, by defining more clearly the law around trespassing in areas where public officials are being protected.

“The basis of the Secret Service’s authority to prevent access to designated areas for the safety of its protectees … need not be in the mind of the trespasser,” DC Circuit Judge Nina Pillard wrote in the opinion Tuesday.

The unsuccessful challenge to the law was brought by Couy Griffin, a New Mexico local official who organized a group called Cowboys for Trump, who jumped a stone wall outside the Capitol to board the inauguration stage. Griffin was convicted of two misdemeanors, including the trespassing charge, and was sentenced to 14 days in jail and a year of supervised release.

“In [Griffin’s] view, the statute also requires proof that he knew why the Capitol grounds were so restricted when he entered or remained there —i.e. that a Secret Service protectee was or would be temporarily visiting the Capitol grounds. We decline to adopt such a rule,” Pillard wrote in the 2-1 opinion. “Griffin’s approach would surely hinder the Secret Service’s capacity to handle the full range of potential threats.”

It’s possible Griffin continues to fight his trespass charge with further appeals, including potentially to the US Supreme Court, which has shown interest in reinterpreting the law around the Capitol riot.

Griffin previously asked the Supreme Court to hear a different legal challenge he brought related to January 6, following his removal from an elected public office. A judge jettisoned Griffin from his role as a New Mexico county commissioner, and the high court declined to hear his case seeking reinstatement.

An attorney for Griffin from the federal public defender service didn’t immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment.

Years later, Jan. 6 rioters are still trying to find ways to get away with the crimes they committed. Thankfully, it appears the courts largely are not terribly sympathetic to the pleas of insurrectionist rioters who assaulted the Capitol building and attempted to prevent the certification of election results. And hang Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and all that.