Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
bail isnt a requirement. He's had a couple hearings at least.Hecwas denied. Its the Judges discretion.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
“Chief Judge Beryl Howell cited the news interviews Barnett gave after leaving the Capitol, calling him "a braggart," and added that he is "brazen, entitled, and dangerous."”
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.
You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.
You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.
You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.
I still say he gets bail.
The judge disagrees with you.
Apparently, lol. With all the hoopla about bail reform I'm surprised he is being denied.
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.
You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.
You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.
I still say he gets bail.
well when they issue you the robe......
Like I mentioned before, with all the talk about bail reform I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal.
Because someone who shows up to an insurrection with a 950,000 volt walking stick stun gun isn't a threat, particularly after posting on social media how they're going to hurt someone. The bail reform movement is typically centered around non-violent drug offenses and other non-violent petty crimes, like shop lifting.
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.
You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.
I still say he gets bail.
well when they issue you the robe......
Like I mentioned before, with all the talk about bail reform I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal.
The guy wrote on Facebook in December that he "came into this world kicking and screaming, covered in someone else's blood" and that he was "not afraid to go out the same way,"
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.
You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.
I still say he gets bail.
well when they issue you the robe......
Like I mentioned before, with all the talk about bail reform I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal.
The guy wrote on Facebook in December that he "came into this world kicking and screaming, covered in someone else's blood" and that he was "not afraid to go out the same way,"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Isn't this guy in a local DC court and not a federal one? Wasn't that a story that they weren't going to prosecute everyone because it would clog up the local court system?
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Isn't this guy in a local DC court and not a federal one? Wasn't that a story that they weren't going to prosecute everyone because it would clog up the local court system?
all Capital related charges are federal. its a federal fucking building. they can spread these across the federal system as needed.
as to your last sentence, it would clog up the local federal court. they arent designed to that scale.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip.
I read that and I replied w this on another site.
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it. Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Isn't this guy in a local DC court and not a federal one? Wasn't that a story that they weren't going to prosecute everyone because it would clog up the local court system?
all Capital related charges are federal. its a federal fucking building. they can spread these across the federal system as needed.
as to your last sentence, it would clog up the local federal court. they arent designed to that scale.
We established that the stun gun was legal to own but not legal to bring in the building. What more are you pushing back on?
As far as spreading them out to other federal buildings I don't think they are doing that. I think they should and charge every person that went past those barriers.
I found a good article about the court system. Judges that are "seniors" are taking on full loads to help process it all.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
FBI arrests 2, including Stone bodyguard, in Capitol riot
By JIM MUSTIAN
Yesterday
NEW YORK (AP) — Two men wanted in the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol were arrested over the weekend, including one who reportedly served as a bodyguard to former President Donald Trump's longtime political confidant Roger Stone, federal authorities said Monday.
Roberto Minuta breached the Capitol grounds and “aggressively berated and taunted U.S. Capitol police officers" during the Jan. 6 insurrection, the FBI said in court papers.
Also arrested over the weekend was Isaac Steve Sturgeon, 32, of Dillon, Montana, who is charged with shoving a metal police barricade into police officers during the insurrection, according to court records.
Meanwhile, Jacob Chansley, the Phoenix man who sported face paint, no shirt and a furry hat with horns while inside the Capitol during the siege, will remain jailed until trial, a judge in Washington ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth explained that Chansley carried a spear into the Capitol, ignored orders from police to leave, used a bullhorn to encourage other rioters and was among the first rioters into the building.
Chansley doesn’t fully appreciate the severity of the charges against him, Lamberth said. The judge said he has no faith that Chansley would follow release conditions.
At least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a result of the violence at the Capitol, and two other officers killed themselves after. More than 300 people have been charged with federal crimes.
Minuta, 36, of Hackettstown, New Jersey, had been “equipped with military-style attire and gear, including apparel emblazoned with a crest related to the Oath Keepers," the FBI said, referring to the far-right antigovernment militia.
The New York Times identified Minuta as one of six people who provided security to Stone in the hours before the assault on the Capitol. Stone, who was pardoned after his sentence for several felony charges was initially commuted by Trump, was in Washington the day of the assault but has denied any involvement.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Gianforti told a magistrate judge in White Plains federal court that Minuta was among Oath Keepers who illegally provided freelance security in Washington for “various high-profile individuals who I won’t name."
Minuta, who was arrested at his tattoo shop in Newburgh, New York, told federal agents “something to the effect of: ‘Why am I being targeted here? Why aren’t you going after Antifa and Black Lives Matter members?'” Gianforti said.
The prosecutor said the statements suggest “a lack of remorse for his actions and an ongoing allegiance to the ideology that led him to break the law.”
He accused Minuta of “screaming at Capitol Police officers on Jan. 6 and indeed spitting at their feet, which is one of the most disrespectful gestures that one can do.”
Gianforti said Minuta had cancelled his phone account on March 1 and gotten rid of his iPhone while moving between a Texas dwelling and his New York business.
Ben Gold, Minuta's court-appointed attorney, said his client was not violent on Jan. 6. A magistrate judge agreed, letting him be freed on $150,000 bail despite the prosecutor's request he be held as a danger to the community and risk to flee.
“He’s not a flight risk. He’s not a danger to the community,” Gold said.
The lawyer said a criminal complaint describing the charges say Minuta entered the Capitol forcefully, but yet the description afterward “doesn't say he used an ounce of force.”
Authorities said Sturgeon, the Montana man, was identified through police body camera video and photographs posted to social media.
The FBI said Sturgeon, who owns a lawn care business, traveled to Kenya on Jan. 24 and was deported from that country to New York. He was arrested Saturday at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
Sturgeon told a federal magistrate Monday he “wasn't trying to flee,” adding he's a frequent traveler.
His defense attorney declined to comment on the charges.
Prosecutors said Sturgeon faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
___
Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister in New York and Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The
Justice Department and FBI are gathering evidence to try to build a
large conspiracy indictment against members of the Oath Keepers for
their roles in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to people
familiar with the matter, but the group’s sometimes fractious and
fantasy-laden internal workings may complicate efforts to bring such a
case.
In
the wake of the short-lived insurrection, the Oath Keepers is the most
high-profile, self-styled militia group in the country. While members
use the jargon and trappings of a paramilitary organization, in daily
practice they are often more akin to a collection of local chapters with
a similar, conspiracy theory-fueled ideology about what they view as
the inevitable collapse of the U.S. government as it becomes more
tyrannical.
“This
was not a well-trained army or a disciplined military unit, this was a
loose structure,” said Karl Schmae, who dealt with Oath Keepers when he
was an FBI negotiator responding to the 2016 occupation of a wildlife
refuge building in eastern Oregon.
The Oath Keepers group is a major target of the sprawling FBI investigation
into the riot at the U.S. Capitol, along with another militant group,
the Proud Boys, according to the people familiar with the matter who
spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
How aggressively the Justice Department pursues such extremists will be
a major test not only of the Biden administration’s pledge to combat
domestic terrorism, but the law and the courts.
Twelve alleged Oath Keepers members or associates have already been arrested on charges related to Jan. 6. In court documents, the group’s founder Stewart Rhodes
is usually referred to not by name but as “Person One.” The people
familiar with the case said agents are working to see if a conspiracy
case can be made against Rhodes and other senior members of the group.
Rhodes,
who once worked as a congressional staffer for former libertarian
congressman Ron Paul, was in Washington on Jan. 6 but insists he did not
tell his members to attack Congress, and did not want them to.
The
Oath Keepers members who allegedly went into the U.S. Capitol “went
totally off mission,” Rhodes said this week in an interview. “There was a
bunch of chaos. And I wanted to make sure my guys didn’t get into
trouble . . . some of them had gone stupid and jumped inside the
Capitol.”
Asked
if he expected to be charged with a crime, Rhodes said: “I don’t know”
but prosecutors “are trying to manufacture a nonexistent conspiracy. I
didn’t say, ‘Don’t enter the Capitol.’ I never figured they would do
that.”
Peter
Skinner, a former federal prosecutor, said the government “tends to
view conspiracies very broadly. You need an agreement to commit a crime,
but you don’t need the actual commission of the underlying crime. But
proving that the leaders agreed that the individuals would do something
can be difficult, because they would have to show some kind of meeting
of the minds. . . . The best way to move up the chain in these kinds of
things is by flipping someone who will testify.”
Rhodes,
a former Army paratrooper who wears an eye patch due to an accident
with a firearm, started the Oath Keepers in 2009 with the stated mission
of preventing a “full-blown totalitarian dictatorship,” and the group
has emphasized recruitment among members of the military and law
enforcement.
Apocalyptic
talk has always been central to the appeal of Oath Keepers. Days before
the 2016 election, members spoke openly about that election sparking
the country’s demise and offered an online course about what items to
stock up on, how to stay warm outdoors, and how to set up a “kill zone
maze” in communities to defeat imagined attackers.
By
August of last year, the Oath Keepers had more than 30,000 Twitter
followers, and hundreds of thousands on Facebook, before those sites
barred Rhodes from posting further, saying he had incited violence,
including by declaring: “Civil war is here, right now,” and predicting
“open warfare with Marxist insurrectionists by Election Day.”
Rhodes’s
apocalyptic rhetoric dovetailed with the Trump campaign’s “Stop the
Steal” message, arguing falsely that massive voter fraud was afoot in
the run-up to Election Day. Video and new court filings show contacts
between Rhodes and some of the charged rioters dating back to November.
On
Nov. 8, one day after major news networks projected Joe Biden the
election winner, Rhodes shared the stage with a Virginia man later
charged in the Capitol riot, Thomas Edward Caldwell.
Live-streaming the small Stop the Steal rally in Purcellville, Va., on
the Oath Keepers’ YouTube channel, Rhodes urged viewers “to stand up now
and call on the president to suppress the insurrection.”
“You
must declare that Joe Biden is not just not your president. He is not
anybody’s president. He will be a usurper, he will be a pretender, and
everything that comes out of his mouth, and everything he signs into
so-called legislation will be null and void from inception,” Rhodes told
the channel’s 40,000 subscribers.
“Because
if [Trump] does not do it, it will fall to us. Trump is not your last
stand against the deep state against communism. We are. You are.”
Caldwell,
66, a retired Navy intelligence officer, also spoke, calling Democrats
“all socialists and communists” plotting to steal the election and
following “the Adolf Hitler playbook.”
Two
days later, Rhodes told Alex Jones on Infowars.com that he had “armed”
men stationed outside Washington, D.C., prepared to engage in violence
on Trump’s command and that Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act to
secure reelection.
Over
the following week, prosecutors alleged Caldwell, while not a formal
member of the Oath Keepers, hosted out-of-state members of the group at
his home in Berryville, Va., near the West Virginia border, leading up
to the pro-Trump “Million MAGA march” in Washington on Nov. 14. That
same week, the group carried out “final vetting” for security volunteers
at a Lowe’s parking lot not far from Caldwell’s home, Rhodes said.
Two
of those who stayed with Caldwell, according to charging papers against
them, were Jessica Watkins, a former Army private, and Donovan Crowl, a
former U.S. Marine Corps mechanic, who would later be arrested and
charged along with nine other Oath Keepers members or associates,
including Caldwell. Prosecutors allege Caldwell and Watkins were key
figures in the riot that led to five deaths and assaults on about 140
police officers.
One
day after Rhodes and Caldwell spoke together, charging papers alleged,
Watkins texted recruits of the small group she founded, the Ohio State
Regular Militia, describing a “Basic Training class coming up in the
beginning of January” and telling one recruit: “I need you fighting fit
by innaugeration.”
On
Dec. 30, Caldwell allegedly complained to Watkins that he still hadn’t
been contacted by anyone about Jan. 6, adding that if Rhodes “isn’t
making plans, I’ll take charge myself, and get the ball rolling.”
However,
prosecutors alleged that one day later, Watkins was invited to a
“leadership only” conference call on Signal for the “DC op.” She also
participated with Rhodes in an encrypted Signal chat called “DC OP: Jan 6
21,” in which prosecutors allege Rhodes was in contact with regional
Oath Keepers leaders from multiple states.
Meanwhile,
Rhodes and other Oath Keepers leaders heavily recruited members to come
to Washington on Jan. 6. On a Signal chat to regional leaders, Rhodes
allegedly warned against risking arrest by bringing firearms in
violation of District law, saying: “Leave that outside DC.” Instead, he
said: “We will have several well-equipped QRFs [Quick Reaction Forces]
outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will
be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case
scenarios.”
Rhodes
also allegedly recommended participants wear helmets, hard gloves, eye
protection, flashlights and legal weapons; “Collapsible Batons are a
grey area in the law. I bring one. But I’m willing to take that risk
because I love em.”
The
Oath Keepers issued a public call on the group’s website Jan. 4 for
“patriots” to come to the District “to stand tall in support of
President Trump. . . . Prepare to do whatever must be done to honor our
oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and
domestic . . . whatever happens.”
In
a recent court filing in which prosecutors argued that Caldwell should
remain behind bars while he awaits trial, prosecutors cited a message
sent shortly after 2 p.m. on Jan. 6 — as the mob was storming the
Capitol — by an unnamed person who allegedly led a group of Oath Keepers
members providing “security” that day. It stated: They “have taken
ground at the capital[.] We need to regroup any members who are not on
mission.”
Rhodes
reposted that message to the Signal group, prosecutors said, with
instructions to gather on the southeast side of the Capitol, followed at
2:41 p.m. by a photograph captioned: “South side of US Capitol.
Patriots pounding on doors.” At about 2:40 p.m., prosecutors say, a line
of Oath Keepers members that included Watkins “forcibly entered the
Capitol through the Rotunda door in the center of the east side of the
building.”
“We
are surging forward. Doors breached,” Caldwell wrote to his Facebook
contacts at 2:48 p.m. from the other side of the Capitol, the government
said.
Some
of the charged Oath Keepers defendants have denied anyone made the
decision or gave a command to enter the building. Another charged
defendant denied knowing Rhodes was on the Capitol grounds.
Nevertheless,
prosecutors wrote, about 4 p.m., a number of Oath Keepers members who
had exited the building gathered around Rhodes, where they were
photographed and recorded.
In
a court filing Wednesday, Caldwell’s lawyer David Fischer said
prosecutors have grossly exaggerated his conduct and said the government
“has effectively admitted that it does not possess one piece of
‘smoking gun’ evidence that the ‘overt acts’ that occurred before
January 6th had anything to do specifically with a plot to invade the
Capitol.”
A court hearing for Caldwell is set for Friday.
On
Thursday, prosecutors disclosed conspiracy charges against the latest
Oath Keeper suspect, Army veteran Kenneth Harrelson, 41, of Brevard
County, Fla., alleging that he communicated with a member of Watkins’s
group and was photographed with members inside the Capitol.
Watkins’s
lawyer has argued that she came to Washington not to join an
insurrection, but to provide security to speakers, lawmakers and other
marchers to the Capitol directed by the President.
Since
Jan. 6, Rhodes has blasted the government’s tightening circle around
his organization in phone interviews, text messages and in one
hour-long, in-person interview with The Washington Post.
“Just
so we’re clear on this: We had no plan to enter the Capitol, zero plan
to do that, zero instructions to do that,” Rhodes said last week in an
interview in Texas.
Rhodes
has maintained that he was not at the Capitol when the siege began.
Once he returned and found a chaotic scene, Rhodes said, he tried to be a
“good leader” and call Oath Keepers members to rendezvous outside the
building, where he could “keep them out of trouble.”
He said he only learned afterward that some Oath Keepers members had already entered the building.
“They got nothing,” he said. “They got a message from me saying, ‘Meet here.’ ”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
A
U.S. Army reservist arrested on suspicion of participating in the Jan. 6
Capitol riot was known to most of his co-workers as a white supremacist
and Nazi sympathizer and grew a “Hitler mustache” while working as a
Navy contractor with security clearance, according to federal
prosecutors.
Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, of Colts Neck, N.J., is among a growing number of people connected to the military or police
who are charged with participating in the storming of the U.S. Capitol.
The arrests come as law enforcement and military leaders confront the
infiltration of their ranks by extremist ideologies. Hale-Cusanellifaces five federal charges, including three counts of crimes on restricted grounds.
Arguing
in a Friday filing that Hale-Cusanelli should remain in pretrial
detention, the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. released parts of
interviews with his co-workers at the Naval Weapons Station Earle.
Several of the nearly four dozen Navy service members and contractors
told Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents that Hale-Cusanelli was
a white supremacist.
One Navy petty officer alleged that Hale-Cusanelli once said, “Hitler should have finished the job,” according to the filing.
A
Navy seaman told investigators that he heard Hale-Cusanelli say that
“babies born with any deformities or disabilities should be shot in the
forehead” and that if he were a Nazi, “he would kill all the Jews and
eat them for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and he wouldn’t need to season
them because the salt from their tears would make it flavorful enough,”
prosecutors disclosed.
Another
Navy petty officer said Hale-Cusanelli referred to Black people in
profane, dehumanizing terms, according to the document.
Multiple
co-workers remembered seeing Hale-Cusanelli’s mustache shaved to look
like the short mustache Hitler wore, including a supervisor who
admonished him for it. Photos on his phone obtained by federal agents
showed his hair cut in a way reminiscent of Hitler’s hairdo, including
selfies taken at work. Other images on his phone portrayed Hitler saving
White Americans from the Republican and Democratic parties and
contained “statistics” to “bolster his assertions that the ‘white race’
was superior,” according to prosecutors.
The
interviews, as well as racist and offensive photos and cartoons found
on Hale-Cusanelli’s phone, are not legal grounds to halt his release,
prosecutors acknowledge. But they said the ideology is a driving force
behind his aspiration for a “civil war,” making him a danger to the
community. He deleted social media accounts and videos from his YouTube
channel before his arrest, leading authorities to believe he could
obstruct justice, according to the filing.
Hale-Cusanelli’s
attorney, Jonathan Zucker, said in a filing arguing for his release
that it was inaccurate to say that his client is an “avowed white
supremacist and Nazi sympathizer.” There is no evidence that he is a
member of “any white supremacist organizations,” the lawyer wrote, and
Hale-Cusanelli denied he was a Nazi in an interview with the FBI. Zucker
declined to comment on the case.
In
arguing for Hale-Cusanelli’s release, Zucker also cited a letter
written by one of his supervisors, Sgt. John Getz, who said
Hale-Cusanelli is not prejudiced, blaming the “media” for calling him a
white supremacist. However, in Friday’s filing, prosecutors cited
comments by Getz that contradicted the letter.
Getz
told agents that Hale-Cusanelli would walk up to new people and ask, “
‘You’re not Jewish, are you?’ ” with a demeanor that was “joking but
not.” Getz said he knew Hale-Cusanelli was a Nazi sympathizer and
Holocaust denier, according to the document. Getz told authorities that
he did not mention that in his letter submitted to the court because he
was not personally offended by Hale-Cusanelli, prosecutors wrote.
A
fellow contractor told Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents that
no one wanted to report Hale-Cusanelli for his conduct because he was
“crazy” and people were afraid, according to prosecutors.
Hale-Cusanelli
was a sergeant in the Army Reserve, serving in the 174th Infantry
Brigade out of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, according
to the Army.
Legal filings from prosecutors and his attorney indicate that he was
discharged after his arrest and barred from the naval station.
Navy
Region Mid-Atlantic and Army Reserve did not immediately respond to
questions from The Washington Post about Hale-Cusanelli’s status.
Army
Reserve Strategic Communications previously told The Post: “The Army
does not tolerate racism, extremism or hatred in our ranks and is
committed to working closely with the FBI as they identify people who
participated in the violent attack on the Capitol to determine if the
individuals have any connection to the Army.”
Hale-Cusanelli
came to the FBI’s attention on Jan. 12 when an informant told agents
that he had boasted about being at the Capitol on Jan. 6, with videos
that showed Hale-Cusanelli verbally harassing police officers, according
to charging documents. Hale-Cusanelli told the federal informant that
he urged others to charge and stole a flagpole that was used by another
rioter to attack a member of the Capitol Police, according to the FBI.
In
conversations with the informant shared by prosecutors, Hale-Cusanelli
said the mob that stormed the Capitol could have overtaken it had the
crowd been larger.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Who thinks that's a good look, regardless of its historical connection? I mean are there women who look at that photo and think. "I need to have me some of that"?
Comments
I don't understand people sometimes...
He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant. Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.
I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
“Chief Judge Beryl Howell cited the news interviews Barnett gave after leaving the Capitol, calling him "a braggart," and added that he is "brazen, entitled, and dangerous."”
https://www.4029tv.com/article/richard-barnett-ordered-to-stay-in-jail/35355343
Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like. Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given.
Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still. If not then let him make bail. He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I still say he gets bail.
well when they issue you the robe......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/richard-barnett-self-proclaimed-white-nationalist-pictured-pelosi-desk-2021-1
I'm going to go out on a limb and trust the judge's decision making process on this one.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Isn't this guy in a local DC court and not a federal one? Wasn't that a story that they weren't going to prosecute everyone because it would clog up the local court system?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
As far as spreading them out to other federal buildings I don't think they are doing that. I think they should and charge every person that went past those barriers.
I found a good article about the court system. Judges that are "seniors" are taking on full loads to help process it all.
Interesting.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/capitol-riot-criminal-cases-flood-d-c-federal-court-11613730601
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
NEW YORK (AP) — Two men wanted in the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol were arrested over the weekend, including one who reportedly served as a bodyguard to former President Donald Trump's longtime political confidant Roger Stone, federal authorities said Monday.
Roberto Minuta breached the Capitol grounds and “aggressively berated and taunted U.S. Capitol police officers" during the Jan. 6 insurrection, the FBI said in court papers.
Also arrested over the weekend was Isaac Steve Sturgeon, 32, of Dillon, Montana, who is charged with shoving a metal police barricade into police officers during the insurrection, according to court records.
Meanwhile, Jacob Chansley, the Phoenix man who sported face paint, no shirt and a furry hat with horns while inside the Capitol during the siege, will remain jailed until trial, a judge in Washington ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth explained that Chansley carried a spear into the Capitol, ignored orders from police to leave, used a bullhorn to encourage other rioters and was among the first rioters into the building.
Chansley doesn’t fully appreciate the severity of the charges against him, Lamberth said. The judge said he has no faith that Chansley would follow release conditions.
At least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a result of the violence at the Capitol, and two other officers killed themselves after. More than 300 people have been charged with federal crimes.
Minuta, 36, of Hackettstown, New Jersey, had been “equipped with military-style attire and gear, including apparel emblazoned with a crest related to the Oath Keepers," the FBI said, referring to the far-right antigovernment militia.
The New York Times identified Minuta as one of six people who provided security to Stone in the hours before the assault on the Capitol. Stone, who was pardoned after his sentence for several felony charges was initially commuted by Trump, was in Washington the day of the assault but has denied any involvement.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Gianforti told a magistrate judge in White Plains federal court that Minuta was among Oath Keepers who illegally provided freelance security in Washington for “various high-profile individuals who I won’t name."
Minuta, who was arrested at his tattoo shop in Newburgh, New York, told federal agents “something to the effect of: ‘Why am I being targeted here? Why aren’t you going after Antifa and Black Lives Matter members?'” Gianforti said.
The prosecutor said the statements suggest “a lack of remorse for his actions and an ongoing allegiance to the ideology that led him to break the law.”
He accused Minuta of “screaming at Capitol Police officers on Jan. 6 and indeed spitting at their feet, which is one of the most disrespectful gestures that one can do.”
Gianforti said Minuta had cancelled his phone account on March 1 and gotten rid of his iPhone while moving between a Texas dwelling and his New York business.
Ben Gold, Minuta's court-appointed attorney, said his client was not violent on Jan. 6. A magistrate judge agreed, letting him be freed on $150,000 bail despite the prosecutor's request he be held as a danger to the community and risk to flee.
“He’s not a flight risk. He’s not a danger to the community,” Gold said.
The lawyer said a criminal complaint describing the charges say Minuta entered the Capitol forcefully, but yet the description afterward “doesn't say he used an ounce of force.”
Authorities said Sturgeon, the Montana man, was identified through police body camera video and photographs posted to social media.
The FBI said Sturgeon, who owns a lawn care business, traveled to Kenya on Jan. 24 and was deported from that country to New York. He was arrested Saturday at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
Sturgeon told a federal magistrate Monday he “wasn't trying to flee,” adding he's a frequent traveler.
His defense attorney declined to comment on the charges.
Prosecutors said Sturgeon faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
___
Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister in New York and Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
DOJ seeks to build large conspiracy case against Oath Keepers for Jan. 6 riot
The Justice Department and FBI are gathering evidence to try to build a large conspiracy indictment against members of the Oath Keepers for their roles in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the matter, but the group’s sometimes fractious and fantasy-laden internal workings may complicate efforts to bring such a case.
In the wake of the short-lived insurrection, the Oath Keepers is the most high-profile, self-styled militia group in the country. While members use the jargon and trappings of a paramilitary organization, in daily practice they are often more akin to a collection of local chapters with a similar, conspiracy theory-fueled ideology about what they view as the inevitable collapse of the U.S. government as it becomes more tyrannical.
“This was not a well-trained army or a disciplined military unit, this was a loose structure,” said Karl Schmae, who dealt with Oath Keepers when he was an FBI negotiator responding to the 2016 occupation of a wildlife refuge building in eastern Oregon.
The Oath Keepers group is a major target of the sprawling FBI investigation into the riot at the U.S. Capitol, along with another militant group, the Proud Boys, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. How aggressively the Justice Department pursues such extremists will be a major test not only of the Biden administration’s pledge to combat domestic terrorism, but the law and the courts.
Twelve alleged Oath Keepers members or associates have already been arrested on charges related to Jan. 6. In court documents, the group’s founder Stewart Rhodes is usually referred to not by name but as “Person One.” The people familiar with the case said agents are working to see if a conspiracy case can be made against Rhodes and other senior members of the group.
Rewriting January 6th: Republicans push false and misleading accounts of Capitol riot
Rhodes, who once worked as a congressional staffer for former libertarian congressman Ron Paul, was in Washington on Jan. 6 but insists he did not tell his members to attack Congress, and did not want them to.
The Oath Keepers members who allegedly went into the U.S. Capitol “went totally off mission,” Rhodes said this week in an interview. “There was a bunch of chaos. And I wanted to make sure my guys didn’t get into trouble . . . some of them had gone stupid and jumped inside the Capitol.”
Asked if he expected to be charged with a crime, Rhodes said: “I don’t know” but prosecutors “are trying to manufacture a nonexistent conspiracy. I didn’t say, ‘Don’t enter the Capitol.’ I never figured they would do that.”
Peter Skinner, a former federal prosecutor, said the government “tends to view conspiracies very broadly. You need an agreement to commit a crime, but you don’t need the actual commission of the underlying crime. But proving that the leaders agreed that the individuals would do something can be difficult, because they would have to show some kind of meeting of the minds. . . . The best way to move up the chain in these kinds of things is by flipping someone who will testify.”
Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper who wears an eye patch due to an accident with a firearm, started the Oath Keepers in 2009 with the stated mission of preventing a “full-blown totalitarian dictatorship,” and the group has emphasized recruitment among members of the military and law enforcement.
Apocalyptic talk has always been central to the appeal of Oath Keepers. Days before the 2016 election, members spoke openly about that election sparking the country’s demise and offered an online course about what items to stock up on, how to stay warm outdoors, and how to set up a “kill zone maze” in communities to defeat imagined attackers.
‘Be ready to fight’: FBI probe of U.S. Capitol riot finds evidence detailing coordination of an assault
By August of last year, the Oath Keepers had more than 30,000 Twitter followers, and hundreds of thousands on Facebook, before those sites barred Rhodes from posting further, saying he had incited violence, including by declaring: “Civil war is here, right now,” and predicting “open warfare with Marxist insurrectionists by Election Day.”
Rhodes’s apocalyptic rhetoric dovetailed with the Trump campaign’s “Stop the Steal” message, arguing falsely that massive voter fraud was afoot in the run-up to Election Day. Video and new court filings show contacts between Rhodes and some of the charged rioters dating back to November.
On Nov. 8, one day after major news networks projected Joe Biden the election winner, Rhodes shared the stage with a Virginia man later charged in the Capitol riot, Thomas Edward Caldwell. Live-streaming the small Stop the Steal rally in Purcellville, Va., on the Oath Keepers’ YouTube channel, Rhodes urged viewers “to stand up now and call on the president to suppress the insurrection.”
“You must declare that Joe Biden is not just not your president. He is not anybody’s president. He will be a usurper, he will be a pretender, and everything that comes out of his mouth, and everything he signs into so-called legislation will be null and void from inception,” Rhodes told the channel’s 40,000 subscribers.
“Because if [Trump] does not do it, it will fall to us. Trump is not your last stand against the deep state against communism. We are. You are.”
Caldwell, 66, a retired Navy intelligence officer, also spoke, calling Democrats “all socialists and communists” plotting to steal the election and following “the Adolf Hitler playbook.”
Two days later, Rhodes told Alex Jones on Infowars.com that he had “armed” men stationed outside Washington, D.C., prepared to engage in violence on Trump’s command and that Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act to secure reelection.
Over the following week, prosecutors alleged Caldwell, while not a formal member of the Oath Keepers, hosted out-of-state members of the group at his home in Berryville, Va., near the West Virginia border, leading up to the pro-Trump “Million MAGA march” in Washington on Nov. 14. That same week, the group carried out “final vetting” for security volunteers at a Lowe’s parking lot not far from Caldwell’s home, Rhodes said.
Two of those who stayed with Caldwell, according to charging papers against them, were Jessica Watkins, a former Army private, and Donovan Crowl, a former U.S. Marine Corps mechanic, who would later be arrested and charged along with nine other Oath Keepers members or associates, including Caldwell. Prosecutors allege Caldwell and Watkins were key figures in the riot that led to five deaths and assaults on about 140 police officers.
FBI focuses on video of Capitol Police officer being sprayed with chemicals before he died in pro-Trump riot
One day after Rhodes and Caldwell spoke together, charging papers alleged, Watkins texted recruits of the small group she founded, the Ohio State Regular Militia, describing a “Basic Training class coming up in the beginning of January” and telling one recruit: “I need you fighting fit by innaugeration.”
On Dec. 30, Caldwell allegedly complained to Watkins that he still hadn’t been contacted by anyone about Jan. 6, adding that if Rhodes “isn’t making plans, I’ll take charge myself, and get the ball rolling.”
However, prosecutors alleged that one day later, Watkins was invited to a “leadership only” conference call on Signal for the “DC op.” She also participated with Rhodes in an encrypted Signal chat called “DC OP: Jan 6 21,” in which prosecutors allege Rhodes was in contact with regional Oath Keepers leaders from multiple states.
Meanwhile, Rhodes and other Oath Keepers leaders heavily recruited members to come to Washington on Jan. 6. On a Signal chat to regional leaders, Rhodes allegedly warned against risking arrest by bringing firearms in violation of District law, saying: “Leave that outside DC.” Instead, he said: “We will have several well-equipped QRFs [Quick Reaction Forces] outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios.”
Rhodes also allegedly recommended participants wear helmets, hard gloves, eye protection, flashlights and legal weapons; “Collapsible Batons are a grey area in the law. I bring one. But I’m willing to take that risk because I love em.”
The Oath Keepers issued a public call on the group’s website Jan. 4 for “patriots” to come to the District “to stand tall in support of President Trump. . . . Prepare to do whatever must be done to honor our oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . whatever happens.”
In a recent court filing in which prosecutors argued that Caldwell should remain behind bars while he awaits trial, prosecutors cited a message sent shortly after 2 p.m. on Jan. 6 — as the mob was storming the Capitol — by an unnamed person who allegedly led a group of Oath Keepers members providing “security” that day. It stated: They “have taken ground at the capital[.] We need to regroup any members who are not on mission.”
Rhodes reposted that message to the Signal group, prosecutors said, with instructions to gather on the southeast side of the Capitol, followed at 2:41 p.m. by a photograph captioned: “South side of US Capitol. Patriots pounding on doors.” At about 2:40 p.m., prosecutors say, a line of Oath Keepers members that included Watkins “forcibly entered the Capitol through the Rotunda door in the center of the east side of the building.”
“We are surging forward. Doors breached,” Caldwell wrote to his Facebook contacts at 2:48 p.m. from the other side of the Capitol, the government said.
Some of the charged Oath Keepers defendants have denied anyone made the decision or gave a command to enter the building. Another charged defendant denied knowing Rhodes was on the Capitol grounds.
Nevertheless, prosecutors wrote, about 4 p.m., a number of Oath Keepers members who had exited the building gathered around Rhodes, where they were photographed and recorded.
In a court filing Wednesday, Caldwell’s lawyer David Fischer said prosecutors have grossly exaggerated his conduct and said the government “has effectively admitted that it does not possess one piece of ‘smoking gun’ evidence that the ‘overt acts’ that occurred before January 6th had anything to do specifically with a plot to invade the Capitol.”
A court hearing for Caldwell is set for Friday.
On Thursday, prosecutors disclosed conspiracy charges against the latest Oath Keeper suspect, Army veteran Kenneth Harrelson, 41, of Brevard County, Fla., alleging that he communicated with a member of Watkins’s group and was photographed with members inside the Capitol.
Watkins’s lawyer has argued that she came to Washington not to join an insurrection, but to provide security to speakers, lawmakers and other marchers to the Capitol directed by the President.
Since Jan. 6, Rhodes has blasted the government’s tightening circle around his organization in phone interviews, text messages and in one hour-long, in-person interview with The Washington Post.
“Just so we’re clear on this: We had no plan to enter the Capitol, zero plan to do that, zero instructions to do that,” Rhodes said last week in an interview in Texas.
Rhodes has maintained that he was not at the Capitol when the siege began. Once he returned and found a chaotic scene, Rhodes said, he tried to be a “good leader” and call Oath Keepers members to rendezvous outside the building, where he could “keep them out of trouble.”
He said he only learned afterward that some Oath Keepers members had already entered the building.
“They got nothing,” he said. “They got a message from me saying, ‘Meet here.’ ”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Alleged Capitol rioter is a Nazi sympathizer and grew a ‘Hitler mustache,’ military colleagues told prosecutors
A U.S. Army reservist arrested on suspicion of participating in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was known to most of his co-workers as a white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer and grew a “Hitler mustache” while working as a Navy contractor with security clearance, according to federal prosecutors.
Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, of Colts Neck, N.J., is among a growing number of people connected to the military or police who are charged with participating in the storming of the U.S. Capitol. The arrests come as law enforcement and military leaders confront the infiltration of their ranks by extremist ideologies. Hale-Cusanelli faces five federal charges, including three counts of crimes on restricted grounds.
Arguing in a Friday filing that Hale-Cusanelli should remain in pretrial detention, the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. released parts of interviews with his co-workers at the Naval Weapons Station Earle. Several of the nearly four dozen Navy service members and contractors told Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents that Hale-Cusanelli was a white supremacist.
One Navy petty officer alleged that Hale-Cusanelli once said, “Hitler should have finished the job,” according to the filing.
A Navy seaman told investigators that he heard Hale-Cusanelli say that “babies born with any deformities or disabilities should be shot in the forehead” and that if he were a Nazi, “he would kill all the Jews and eat them for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and he wouldn’t need to season them because the salt from their tears would make it flavorful enough,” prosecutors disclosed.
Another Navy petty officer said Hale-Cusanelli referred to Black people in profane, dehumanizing terms, according to the document.
Multiple co-workers remembered seeing Hale-Cusanelli’s mustache shaved to look like the short mustache Hitler wore, including a supervisor who admonished him for it. Photos on his phone obtained by federal agents showed his hair cut in a way reminiscent of Hitler’s hairdo, including selfies taken at work. Other images on his phone portrayed Hitler saving White Americans from the Republican and Democratic parties and contained “statistics” to “bolster his assertions that the ‘white race’ was superior,” according to prosecutors.
Veteran charged in Capitol riot once served in Marine One squadron, officials say
The interviews, as well as racist and offensive photos and cartoons found on Hale-Cusanelli’s phone, are not legal grounds to halt his release, prosecutors acknowledge. But they said the ideology is a driving force behind his aspiration for a “civil war,” making him a danger to the community. He deleted social media accounts and videos from his YouTube channel before his arrest, leading authorities to believe he could obstruct justice, according to the filing.
Hale-Cusanelli’s attorney, Jonathan Zucker, said in a filing arguing for his release that it was inaccurate to say that his client is an “avowed white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer.” There is no evidence that he is a member of “any white supremacist organizations,” the lawyer wrote, and Hale-Cusanelli denied he was a Nazi in an interview with the FBI. Zucker declined to comment on the case.
In arguing for Hale-Cusanelli’s release, Zucker also cited a letter written by one of his supervisors, Sgt. John Getz, who said Hale-Cusanelli is not prejudiced, blaming the “media” for calling him a white supremacist. However, in Friday’s filing, prosecutors cited comments by Getz that contradicted the letter.
Getz told agents that Hale-Cusanelli would walk up to new people and ask, “ ‘You’re not Jewish, are you?’ ” with a demeanor that was “joking but not.” Getz said he knew Hale-Cusanelli was a Nazi sympathizer and Holocaust denier, according to the document. Getz told authorities that he did not mention that in his letter submitted to the court because he was not personally offended by Hale-Cusanelli, prosecutors wrote.
A fellow contractor told Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents that no one wanted to report Hale-Cusanelli for his conduct because he was “crazy” and people were afraid, according to prosecutors.
Pentagon faces scrutiny over response to Capitol riot
Hale-Cusanelli was a sergeant in the Army Reserve, serving in the 174th Infantry Brigade out of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, according to the Army. Legal filings from prosecutors and his attorney indicate that he was discharged after his arrest and barred from the naval station.
Navy Region Mid-Atlantic and Army Reserve did not immediately respond to questions from The Washington Post about Hale-Cusanelli’s status.
Army Reserve Strategic Communications previously told The Post: “The Army does not tolerate racism, extremism or hatred in our ranks and is committed to working closely with the FBI as they identify people who participated in the violent attack on the Capitol to determine if the individuals have any connection to the Army.”
Hale-Cusanelli came to the FBI’s attention on Jan. 12 when an informant told agents that he had boasted about being at the Capitol on Jan. 6, with videos that showed Hale-Cusanelli verbally harassing police officers, according to charging documents. Hale-Cusanelli told the federal informant that he urged others to charge and stole a flagpole that was used by another rioter to attack a member of the Capitol Police, according to the FBI.
In conversations with the informant shared by prosecutors, Hale-Cusanelli said the mob that stormed the Capitol could have overtaken it had the crowd been larger.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I mean are there women who look at that photo and think. "I need to have me some of that"?