Mike Johnson calls to blur Jan. 6 video to protect rioters from DOJ

[Ana the Ist]

Malice or corrupt intent aren't needed.

Ok...so does intent matter or not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm just pointing out to you that the problem is the lie, not the obscuring of faces.

I'm pointing out you can't read minds.

Because for some reason you are mischaracterising the other side by trying to say they are all tortured by Johnson blurring faces.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Tortured?

 

[Hans Blaster]

If the DOJ or FBI wants to present the unblurred footage....they can. They don't seem to want the public's help in catching the blurred individuals.

I wonder why?

Control of the footage belongs to congress. That's why that fool Mike Johnson is involved.

 

[stevil]

Given points one and two, the DOJ and FBI have the same footage.

Yes, correct. So why did Johnson say that he is blurring the images to protect people from repercussions from the DOJ?

The Speaker is not altering the footage currently in possession of the FBI or DOJ.

Yip, so what he is doing, is wasting time and money in altering the footage. His publicly stated excuse doesn't pass the muster. Instead it adds fuel to the fire of distrust, in the eyes of the MAGA faithful, in the the DOJ and hence inches USA towards another insurrection attempt or a civil war.

As a member of the majority party in Congress, the Speaker is obligated by duty to oversee any corruption or competence of the federal government.

The Republican party have no interest in this. They are soley focused on trying to win points for the next election, hence the nonsense of what Comer is doing, and the nonsense of the GOP inquiry into the "weaponisation of government".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Control of the footage belongs to congress. That's why that fool Mike Johnson is involved.

Oh I don't know if evidence of a federal investigation is "in control of Congress".

But if there's anything you can cite I'll surely consider it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, correct. So why did Johnson say that he is blurring the images to protect people from repercussions from the DOJ?

Probably because the DOJ, FBI, and multiple other agencies have been shown to be engaged in an unequal application of justice along political lines and gross violations of basic rights.

Yip, so what he is doing, is wasting time and money in altering the footage.

I don't see why transparency and a more complete picture of the events that day are a "waste of time".

For all the left demanded transparency in police shooting after police shooting....they seem to want little here.

His publicly stated excuse doesn't pass the muster.

Sure it does. There's a ton of evidence I'll gladly cite if you promise not to whine about it being off topic.

You haven't cited anything for your opinions.

Instead it adds fuel to the fire of distrust,

Rightly so.

in the eyes of the MAGA faithful,

In the eyes of anyone looking.

in the the DOJ and hence inches USA towards another insurrection attempt or a civil war.

It certainly doesn't have to....I suppose this administration could end it's illegal violations of citizens' rights. I suppose it could hold people accountable.

Seems unlikely though.

The Republican party have no interest in this.

I don't see the Republican Party as uninterested.

They are soley focused on trying to win points for the next election,

Well if that's what you choose to imagine.

hence the nonsense of what Comer is doing, and the nonsense of the GOP inquiry into the "weaponisation of government".

You would have to look at the evidence of it to begin to assess the validity of the claim.

You'll notice, that the moment I started posting evidence of it....everyone on the left started crying "off topic".

Make up your mind....do you want to consider if the Speaker has a point? Or do you prefer to stick your head in the sand and just imagine everyone to your right is lying?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh I don't know if evidence of a federal investigation is "in control of Congress".

But if there's anything you can cite I'll surely consider it.

Law enforcement agencies do share evidence with the public outside of court exhibits. The originals of the security footage at the Capitol are in the control of Congress. If it is to be released, it must be from Congress.

 

[stevil]

Probably because the DOJ, FBI, and multiple other agencies have been shown to be engaged in an unequal application of justice along political lines and gross violations of basic rights.

Your perception of the DOJ etc is irrelevant.
They already have the raw footage. Johnson's theatrics is purely for theatre, it has no substance.

I don't see why transparency and a more complete picture of the events that day are a "waste of time".

No one is complaining about having footage released. I have said this multiple times, and yet you persist with this narrative.
The Tucker Carlson release and accompanying narrative was a fiasco
An altered and selectively chosen by Johnson release is certainly something to be wary of, but hey, whatever.

It's the theatrics of his excuse as to why he is obscuring faces...that is what people are criticising.

For all the left demanded transparency in police shooting after police shooting....they seem to want little here.

No one is opposed to transparency.

Sure it does. There's a ton of evidence I'll gladly cite if you promise not to whine about it being off topic.

His reason for obscuring faces doesn't pass muster as the FBI/DOJ already have the unaltered footage.
But if you want to talk about whether the DOJ is "weaponised", there is a whole thread for that now. I created it for you. But you haven't bothered to participate there.

Rightly so.

I don't see it. Maybe you could make an argument for it in the weaponisation of the DOJ thread.

I don't see the Republican Party as uninterested.

When Trump was being impeached, they voted not to have witnesses or evidence presented in the Sentate trial.

You would have to look at the evidence of it to begin to assess the validity of the claim.

Comer has yet to present any evidence to anyone.

You'll notice, that the moment I started posting evidence of it....everyone on the left started crying "off topic".

This thread isn't about trying to debate if the DOJ is weaponised or not.
If you want to discuss that, if you want to present your evidence, hey, great news, I created a thread for you on this very topic. Isn't that great?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Law enforcement agencies do share evidence with the public outside of court exhibits. The originals of the security footage at the Capitol are in the control of Congress. If it is to be released, it must be from Congress.

I've only been inside the Capitol grounds myself a few times and I readily admit that I am not familiar with who would be in charge of the security camera footage apart from a security official of some sort...and any agencies who are investigating a crime in the building or on the grounds (for example, a bag of cocaine misplaced somewhere).

I'll tell you what @Hans Blaster, even though I relied upon your statements earlier in the thread and was let down....I'm willing to try and take your word for it on this.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Law enforcement agencies do share evidence with the public outside of court exhibits.

Sure...sometimes out of necessity to find someone missing or warn of someone dangerous. Sometimes because they have hit a dead end, or simply have too much work to devote a significant amount of time pursuing someone and request the public's help.

The originals of the security footage at the Capitol are in the control of Congress. If it is to be released, it must be from Congress.

There's obviously security related footage of sensitive features of the Capitol grounds, like the "secret tunnel" the Democratic Party allowed a documentary to film.

However, regarding the disclosure of evidence, particularly classified information, there's no rather uncomplicated set of rules that federal agencies are required to follow and can be bypassed under certain circumstances when disclosing such classified information (which the footage, as part of a federal investigation which is ongoing, is certainly classified) whether it is disclosed to another federal agency, another official within the same agency, outside of department to another department or state or local law enforcement, or with a foreign official in all cases. It just requires the understanding of "need to know" and originating agencies and other small details. I'm well aware of these rules, as my duties require the dissemination of certain information. I have to certify my understanding of these policies annually. I can probably recite most of them from memory lol.

I have never seen any statute, policy, or regulations that would require me or any other federal agent to seek prior approval of a public servant in a non-law enforcement capacity before disclosing such information to anyone....and I can think of several reasons why even if it were a Congressman or Senator....such a policy would be absurd as it would make it nearly impossible for a federal agent to investigate such public servants. Even if such a policy exists, it would almost certainly be the approval of the same individual who turned said evidence over....which I'm sure happened no later than January 7th in 2021.

So I hope you can understand why I'm not going to take your word on this claim.

However, I've only been to the Capitol a few times....and I've never conducted an investigation there. If some bizarre rule exists and you can cite it...I'll gladly agree I'm wrong on this.

I won't be holding my breath though.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've only been inside the Capitol grounds myself a few times and I readily admit that I am not familiar with who would be in charge of the security camera footage apart from a security official of some sort...and any agencies who are investigating a crime in the building or on the grounds (for example, a bag of cocaine misplaced somewhere).

I'll tell you what @Hans Blaster, even though I relied upon your statements earlier in the thread and was let down....I'm willing to try and take your word for it on this.

Even the Capitol police work for Congress.

United States Capitol Police - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure...sometimes out of necessity to find someone missing or warn of someone dangerous. Sometimes because they have hit a dead end, or simply have too much work to devote a significant amount of time pursuing someone and request the public's help.




There's obviously security related footage of sensitive features of the Capitol grounds, like the "secret tunnel" the Democratic Party allowed a documentary to film.

However, regarding the disclosure of evidence, particularly classified information, there's no rather uncomplicated set of rules that federal agencies are required to follow and can be bypassed under certain circumstances when disclosing such classified information (which the footage, as part of a federal investigation which is ongoing, is certainly classified) whether it is disclosed to another federal agency, another official within the same agency, outside of department to another department or state or local law enforcement, or with a foreign official in all cases. It just requires the understanding of "need to know" and originating agencies and other small details. I'm well aware of these rules, as my duties require the dissemination of certain information. I have to certify my understanding of these policies annually. I can probably recite most of them from memory lol.

I have never seen any statute, policy, or regulations that would require me or any other federal agent to seek prior approval of a public servant in a non-law enforcement capacity before disclosing such information to anyone....and I can think of several reasons why even if it were a Congressman or Senator....such a policy would be absurd as it would make it nearly impossible for a federal agent to investigate such public servants. Even if such a policy exists, it would almost certainly be the approval of the same individual who turned said evidence over....which I'm sure happened no later than January 7th in 2021.

So I hope you can understand why I'm not going to take your word on this claim.

However, I've only been to the Capitol a few times....and I've never conducted an investigation there. If some bizarre rule exists and you can cite it...I'll gladly agree I'm wrong on this.

I won't be holding my breath though.

I have no idea what the specific legal issues are, but the reporting about this footage for almost 3 years has made it clear that the Congress itself is the only actor that can do bulk reveal of this data in public. This also invokes all three branches. The footage is controlled by the legislative, the DOJ/FBI is executive, and the courts (which have published exhibits after presentation in court) is judiciary.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Even the Capitol police work for Congress.

United States Capitol Police - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gotcha. That's certainly who turned over the evidence to the FBI then.

Let's look up whether they are a local or federal department....

And it turns out....they don't have any federal law enforcement authority, despite being a "federal agency". Their authority is derived from (as far as I can tell) a local mandate. That certainly makes one wonder why they aren't empowered at the federal level, if they aren't enforcing laws at the federal level.

Regardless, as a federal agency outside the executive branch, once they turned over evidence to the FBI....the FBI can and has used it as they please. They aren't under any obligations to the legislative branch other than answering subpoenas.

If you're under some notion that the FBI has to ask Congress before proceeding with the investigations....or asking the public for help identifying individuals, take a look at the Ray Epps case.

They aren't required to ask Congress for anything.

I can show you where the FBI disseminated pictures of individuals of interest and asked for the public's help identifying them.

I can show you multiple Congressmen asking why the FBI hadn't charged Ray Epps with a crime (until they charged him with the misdemeanor, despite multiple felony violations) and I can show you where they stonewalled in explaining why they hadn't.

Regardless, the Capitol police doesn't really have any enforcement capacity of their own. If they arrest someone on the Capitol and want them charged with federal crimes...they turn them over to the DOJ. If they want them charged with local crimes, they turn them over to the DC police department, as a non-executive agency, they do answer to Congress but lack any real ability to prosecute any crimes. They have to turn over subjects to local or federal agencies.

This explains a lot...for example, why Pelosi was blamed for not requesting any help with the January 6th riot. As they are considered to have jurisdiction at the Capitol, and the Chief of Police for the Capitol Police made multiple requests for National Guard assistance, Pelosi apparently had to approve them (as she was Speaker at the time) and she turned them down repeatedly.

Odd that she isn't being asked as to why she turned those requests down.

Anyway...they aren't in the federal executive government, they aren't actually empowered beyond the local level despite calling themselves a federal agency.

They aren't subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. That's why Congress had to approve of the release of the footage.

That's also why the FBI can release the footage, unblurred, at any point....at any time they please.

Unless another federal executive agency collected the evidence before them...the FBI is the first agency to have the evidence so what they do with it is their choice. They don't really answer to Congress unless Congress is engaged in oversight of them. Congress is limited to budgeting decisions regarding the FBI as that's really the only power they hold over the DOJ and it's various departments.

Anything else?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have no idea what the specific legal issues are, but the reporting about this footage for almost 3 years has made it clear that the Congress itself is the only actor that can do bulk reveal of this data in public.

Again...I have no idea why you think this is true. There's been plenty of footage released by the FBI along with person's of interest.

If you're saying that Congress has control over the evidence of a crime that the DOJ is investigating...all you're really telling me is you don't understand the idea of separation of powers.

You do understand that Congress has no law enforcement authority, right?

You understand that the purpose of the Executive branch is law enforcement at the federal level, right? (skipping all the other duties related to foreign policy)

I can't really explain those things in any detail if you don't understand them...without going wayyyy off topic in this thread.

This also invokes all three branches.

No idea what you mean by that.

The footage is controlled by the legislative,

They certainly possess the footage. They can't conduct federal investigations though.

That's why they turned it over to the DOJ and possibly the DHS.

Once it's been turned over....that's it. They have copies of the footage, I'm sure, and they can release the footage if they choose, I'm sure.

If you think the DOJ or FBI has to request anything of Congress before they proceed to use the footage to investigate any crime....you're wrong. There's a clear COC in the executive branch and Congress won't be found anywhere in it.

the DOJ/FBI is executive,

Good for you! Do they answer to Congress when conducting federal investigations of any kind (including those regarding Congress, or where Congress is the subject of investigation)?

Go ahead and try to look up all power Congress holds regarding federal criminal investigations.

I'll wait.

and the courts (which have published exhibits after presentation in court) is judiciary.

It's quite simple in this case....the FBI only has to answer to Congress during Congressional oversight actions.

That's it.

They don't have to answer to Congress regarding any investigation they are currently conducting. In fact, for the past 3 years, they've been repeatedly asked by Congress to answer questions regarding the Hunter laptop investigation, and multiple questions surrounding the January 6th investigation, and the FBI has said almost nothing every time. They simply claim they are still investigating and won't answer questions regarding the investigation. It does draw attention to question of how much time they could possibly need to investigate one laptop? Or if you prefer...just what they intend to do once this administration ends. It's rather clear, the problems facing the Democratic Party won't end regardless of who wins the next election.

I agree that Congress also has a copy of the evidence. If it helps, think of it this way....

A person videos an encounter between police and a black man that ends in the death of someone. They clip a portion of video...it goes viral...and the police request a warrant for the video, go collect it, and continue their investigation. The person who shot the video however, made multiple copies.

Is that person able to release that footage to the public? Absolutely. Are they able to protect the identities of those individuals in the footage by blurring faces? Of course. In fact, I'd recommend it. Are they able to deceptively edit the footage, alter the footage, use AI generative models to place say Donald Trump at the scene and present it as a narrative of guilt for anyone involved? No...they'll be charged with obstruction at least.

Are the police able to release the footage if they choose, either because it's being distorted by the media or the person who shot it? Yes they can.

Can the police release the footage in hopes that individuals present are identified? Sure...it's a risky move if they intend to charge those people but they can and have done it before.

That's basically the same situation we have here. Congress turned over the evidence....and they have a copy. If they want to release the footage, they can. If the federal agency who collected the evidence (the FBI most likely in this case) wants to release the footage, they absolutely can.

Anything else?

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Hans Blaster , maybe it would be easier if you just described how you think this works....

For example...

Do you think Congress retains possession of the physical/digital evidence itself and every time the FBI or anyone wants to see the evidence, they have to send someone over to the Speaker's office and ask to see it?

Do you think that Congress turned over the evidence to the FBI, in full, but retain some level of legal authority over the evidence and how it's used by the FBI during the course of a federal investigation?

Because when you say "it's clear Congress itself is the only actor that can do bulk reveal of this data in public"

It's not at all clear why you imagine this is true....or even believe it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Gotcha. That's certainly who turned over the evidence to the FBI then.

Let's look up whether they are a local or federal department....

And it turns out....they don't have any federal law enforcement authority, despite being a "federal agency". Their authority is derived from (as far as I can tell) a local mandate. That certainly makes one wonder why they aren't empowered at the federal level, if they aren't enforcing laws at the federal level.

Regardless, as a federal agency outside the executive branch, once they turned over evidence to the FBI....the FBI can and has used it as they please. They aren't under any obligations to the legislative branch other than answering subpoenas.

Are you dizzy yet.

If you're under some notion that the FBI has to ask Congress before proceeding with the investigations....or asking the public for help identifying individuals, take a look at the Ray Epps case.

O brother.

They aren't required to ask Congress for anything.

I can show you where the FBI disseminated pictures of individuals of interest and asked for the public's help identifying them.

They have more than 500 just from the Capitol mob. Don't remember how many include security footage.

I can show you multiple Congressmen asking why the FBI hadn't charged Ray Epps with a crime (until they charged him with the misdemeanor, despite multiple felony violations) and I can show you where they stonewalled in explaining why they hadn't.

Not all Congressmen are supergeniuses. (take Mr. Tuberville, for example). They can make demonstrably ridiculous claims.

Ray Epps did *not* commit multiple felony violations. He is covered well on footage publicly available and in that footage there is *one* marginal felony, not multiple. Someone brought a large rolling TRUMP sign (6'x8', that kind of thing) mounted in a rolling aluminum frame and then it got turned sideways to use a battering ram against the police. Epps briefly (1-2 seconds tops) touched it with his outstretched hand. I'm sure they could have indicted him on the civil disorder (18 USC 231) felony (as were a few others handling the sign/battering ram), but they probably would have just plead him out on a "Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds" charge, which is what he plead to. They just skipped the felony charge and went straight to the plea.

Regardless, the Capitol police doesn't really have any enforcement capacity of their own. If they arrest someone on the Capitol and want them charged with federal crimes...they turn them over to the DOJ. If they want them charged with local crimes, they turn them over to the DC police department, as a non-executive agency, they do answer to Congress but lack any real ability to prosecute any crimes. They have to turn over subjects to local or federal agencies.

This explains a lot...for example, why Pelosi was blamed for not requesting any help with the January 6th riot. As they are considered to have jurisdiction at the Capitol, and the Chief of Police for the Capitol Police made multiple requests for National Guard assistance, Pelosi apparently had to approve them (as she was Speaker at the time) and she turned them down repeatedly.

Odd that she isn't being asked as to why she turned those requests down.

Anyway...they aren't in the federal executive government, they aren't actually empowered beyond the local level despite calling themselves a federal agency.

They aren't subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. That's why Congress had to approve of the release of the footage.

That's also why the FBI can release the footage, unblurred, at any point....at any time they please.

And apparently, the FBI don't want to do a bulk reveal of the footage. Don't know why. I could guess, but it would just be speculation.

Unless another federal executive agency collected the evidence before them...the FBI is the first agency to have the evidence so what they do with it is their choice. They don't really answer to Congress unless Congress is engaged in oversight of them. Congress is limited to budgeting decisions regarding the FBI as that's really the only power they hold over the DOJ and it's various departments.


Anything else?

A whole 'nother post? Nah, don't need that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are you dizzy yet.

No.

They have more than 500 just from the Capitol mob. Don't remember how many include security footage.

Right.

Not all Congressmen are supergeniuses. (take Mr. Tuberville, for example). They can make demonstrably ridiculous claims.

That's not a claim, it's a question.

Ray Epps did *not* commit multiple felony violations.

Well let's see...

If I recall correctly he's in footage breaking a window, either assaulting an officer and breaching a barrier or perhaps the officer was hit by the barrier as it was breached (hard to tell exactly from angle and distance) and he's definitely trying his hardest to incite a mob to enter the Capitol....literally recorded trying to convince people to enter the Capitol.

He got charged with....what exactly? Misdemeanor trespassing? Even after all that intent was displayed?

He's also the only person that left wing media has repeatedly insisted was not involved with anything serious on January 6th....despite being a former high ranking Oath Keepers member.

Which itself is odd...as those same outlets celebrated the convictions of even extremely minor actors. Yet they all went to bat for Ray Epps...

I'm not saying there aren't perfectly justifiable reasons for protecting him. Perhaps he gave inside information on more dangerous suspects who were there....people cut deals all the time. I don't know why that would inspire the media to insist upon his innocence though....as he was involved in much of the bad behavior there.

He is covered well on footage publicly available and in that footage there is *one* marginal felony, not multiple. Someone brought a large rolling TRUMP sign (6'x8', that kind of thing) mounted in a rolling aluminum frame and then it got turned sideways to use a battering ram against the police. Epps briefly (1-2 seconds tops) touched it with his outstretched hand. I'm sure they could have indicted him on the civil disorder (18 USC 231) felony (as were a few others handling the sign/battering ram), but they probably would have just plead him out on a "Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds" charge, which is what he plead to. They just skipped the felony charge and went straight to the plea.

And skipped over the deliberate attempt to convince the crowd to break the law?

And apparently, the FBI don't want to do a bulk reveal of the footage. Don't know why. I could guess, but it would just be speculation.

But they could.

A whole 'nother post? Nah, don't need that.

Well the point was that the FBI can release the footage if they choose.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Regarding Mr. Epps (who was never in the Capitol):

Well let's see...

If I recall correctly he's in footage breaking a window,

He is not. No 18 USC 1361 charge.

either assaulting an officer and breaching a barrier or perhaps the officer was hit by the barrier as it was breached (hard to tell exactly from angle and distance)

Not that either. So No 18 USC 111 charge either.

Like I said, he is seen very briefly touching a large object being used (poorly) as a battering ram.

and he's definitely trying his hardest to incite a mob to enter the Capitol....literally recorded trying to convince people to enter the Capitol.

If you want to charge him with incitement, you'd need to demonstrate that in court by finding people that he incited. Good luck with that.

He got charged with....what exactly? Misdemeanor trespassing? Even after all that intent was displayed?

That intent would have been a great weapon against him if he'd actually entered the Capitol and done one of those things that has garnered an obstruction charge (like entering the Senate chamber). That sort of pre-stated intent definitely has been used against defendants. (And frankly it would make it hard for him to get out of his trespass misdemeanors at trial either.)

Exactly what crime do you think he probably committed?

He's also the only person that left wing media has repeatedly insisted was not involved with anything serious on January 6th....despite being a former high ranking Oath Keepers member.

Here I must assume "left-wing media" is just a shorthand for "media that are not trying to make excuses for or downplay the Jan 6th event".

There is no evidence that Epps had any contacts prior to Jan 6th with his former colleagues in the OKers.

Which itself is odd...as those same outlets celebrated the convictions of even extremely minor actors. Yet they all went to bat for Ray Epps...

By "went to bat for" do you mean countering the ridiculous "Ray Epps is a Fed/mastermind" narratives, then sure.

I'm not saying there aren't perfectly justifiable reasons for protecting him.

The only "protection" he has gotten is against outrageous claims.

Perhaps he gave inside information on more dangerous suspects who were there....people cut deals all the time.

There is no reason to think that he has. He doesn't seem to even know anyone else who was there. I don't recall an reference to "cooperation" in his plea deal (though the courtlistener site is not working well with searches anymore, so I can't find his case docket).

I don't know why that would inspire the media to insist upon his innocence though....as he was involved in much of the bad behavior there.

What innocence was that? Of being there among the crowd, or driving the event? You seem to be misconstruing deconstructions of ridiculous conspiracy theories about this fool for some sort of defense of his 'innocence'. His not that innocent (morally). He went to the Capitol to express his anger that his candidate lost and joined the crowd as it moved forward, but despite his bluster the night before, everytime there was a confrontation that could have advanced that "goal", he "chickened out" and tried to de-escalate. (Once before the initial breach when he failed to talk down a hot head, and later where he tried to keep the crowd from crossing the gap separating the cops from the mob.)

And skipped over the deliberate attempt to convince the crowd to break the law?

The night before (the first time he came to our attention), as I just stated, he tried twice before the building breach to stop or mitigate the conflict.

What charges do *you* think he should have faced?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Regarding Mr. Epps (who was never in the Capitol):

You mean never in the building itself?

He is not. No 18 USC 1361 charge.

I'll drop it...assume you're correct...

Not that either. So No 18 USC 111 charge either.

Like I said, he is seen very briefly touching a large object being used (poorly) as a battering ram.

Ok...a former Oath Keeper member was adjacent to a person using a large object as a battering ram.

If you want to charge him with incitement, you'd need to demonstrate that in court by finding people that he incited. Good luck with that.

Nope. You're wrong here.

Inciting to Riot, Violence, or Insurrection

Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker's words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)

That's important. And now...

"First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs)."

Check. Note it does not matter if the subject persuades anyone.



"Careless conduct or "emotionally charged rhetoric" does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn't qualify as imminent lawless action."

Check. Nothing vague about the statements made. He clearly yells to the crowd that tomorrow they should go into the Capitol.



"Finally, the defendant's words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn't enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)"

I don't think you're going argue that those present weren't likely to commit violence should they follow Mr. Epps words.

This is a crime he can get 10 years for in the most egregious cases.

Since it's locked up pretty tight for an incitement charge....a reasonable person wonders why no charge ever came.

Exactly what crime do you think he probably committed?

See above. I can play the video if you aren't familiar.

Here I must assume "left-wing media" is just a shorthand for "media that are not trying to make excuses for or downplay the Jan 6th event".

No it's shorthand for media with an obvious if not deliberate left wing bias.

There is no evidence that Epps had any contacts prior to Jan 6th with his former colleagues in the OKers.

Really?

By "went to bat for" do you mean countering the ridiculous "Ray Epps is a Fed/mastermind" narratives, then sure.

I don't know what "fed/mastermind" narratives you're talking about. I'm not saying they don't exist...perhaps some right wing outlets said something to that effect. I don't know of any though.

The only "protection" he has gotten is against outrageous claims.

Let's see one of these outrageous claims.

There is no reason to think that he has. He doesn't seem to even know anyone else who was there. I don't recall an reference to "cooperation" in his plea deal (though the courtlistener site is not working well with searches anymore, so I can't find his case docket).

I'm just speculating on why the guy was so heavily sought by the FBI and let go. It's clear he could have easily been charged with a much more serious crime.

What innocence was that? Of being there among the crowd, or driving the event?

I'm speaking relative to the characterization of other protesters by the same left wing outlets.

I can provide examples if you like.

The night before (the first time he came to our attention), as I just stated, he tried twice before the building breach to stop or mitigate the conflict.

What charges do *you* think he should have faced?

I'm pretty clear about that above. I can understand why someone might believe that unless incitement occurs, incitement can't be charged. That's not the case though. Like a threat of violence, it's a crime whether or not said violence actually happens.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You mean never in the building itself?

Where else would "the Capitol" be?

I'll drop it...assume you're correct...


Ok...a former Oath Keeper member was adjacent to a person using a large object as a battering ram.

Neither of those things are crimes.

Nope. You're wrong here.

Inciting to Riot, Violence, or Insurrection

Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker's words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)

I am aware of the Brandenberg test. We'll see if both criteria are met.

That's important. And now...

"First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs)."

Check. Note it does not matter if the subject persuades anyone.

Thought it does require proof of intent to incite. That's probably met, but the evidence has not been entered here.

"Careless conduct or "emotionally charged rhetoric" does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn't qualify as imminent lawless action."

Check. Nothing vague about the statements made. He clearly yells to the crowd that tomorrow they should go into the Capitol.

Imminent would seem to be met by the specificity of the location (the Capitol) and time (tomorrow [inferred - the EV count session].

This roadmap is perhaps a bit weak, does it provide anything like a plan. Is it vague about how to get into the Capitol? Might the speaker or the listeners think no law breaking was needed to enter the Capitol (when the speach was made on the street)? Now if the rhetoric included method like "push past the police and break down the door. wear protection." it would be a lot more compelling.

"Finally, the defendant's words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn't enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)"

I don't think you're going argue that those present weren't likely to commit violence should they follow Mr. Epps words.

You say "should they follow" his words. Does he have any credibility with those who hear him or is just a large, old man, in camo outside bow season ranting about the EV count and the Capitol? If he lacks credibility they how is he like to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd?
Now if they had a group of people he met on the street and say they breached the next day because of him that would seem to meet the criteria, but I've seen no evidence of such persons.

Suppose they did take him to trial on such a charge. When the defense presents there case they would almost certainly talk about what happened on the day. Twice Epps was in a crowd that was building toward a conflict with police protecting the Capitol. The first just before the first breach. Did he urge a push forward past the cops? No, he tried to convince a hot head not to attack. (The hot head did anyway.) The second was at a line on the plaza below the Capitol steps. Does Epps rally the crowd forward to the Capitol? Nope, he tries to get rioters who are moving out in to the gap between the two groups to move back. Not exactly incitement on the day.

This is a crime he can get 10 years for in the most egregious cases.

Since it's locked up pretty tight for an incitement charge....a reasonable person wonders why no charge ever came.

Perhaps the reasonable person might ask how many *others* have been charged with incitement of any kind. (The answer is ZERO.)

I see plenty of weakness in this particular case even if all of the tests are technically passed. Is that really the first incitement case you think they want to prosecute?

See above. I can play the video if you aren't familiar.

I've seen the video, but given the importance to your argument, I was surprised you didn't already include it.

OK, now let's go to Epps and the media...

I don't know what "fed/mastermind" narratives you're talking about. I'm not saying they don't exist...perhaps some right wing outlets said something to that effect. I don't know of any though.

I'm kind of shocked that you really don't know about any such narratives. Nearly all of the stories about this guy are relaying some version of the Epps as leader/mastermind/instigator who is part of some organized effort (usually "feds") to entrap some "MAGA morons" doing crimes. (Frankly if you are making Ray Epps your excuse for committing your special crimes, you rather deserve the moniker.) Or the stories are about the conspiracies or harassment Epps has received due to those rumors. (including a few interviews)

I find it rather odd that you would specifically mention Epps unprompted and not have a clue about what the Jan6ers/MAGA rioters have been saying about him.

Let's see one of these outrageous claims.

See above.

I'm just speculating on why the guy was so heavily sought by the FBI and let go.

He wasn't "let go" as the didn't "capture him". As for "heavily sought", he was an early entry to the Capitol violence page where their numbers were just the order they were added and NOT a priority level.

He was part of the first batch put on the "information wanted" list because, as we've just discussed, he looks kind of suspicious. They found out who he was, got his electronic comms, and realized they weren't that into him. So they took him of the list the first time the removed persons from the list. (One of the other early removals was dead, as I recall, and several had been arrested months before.) It's really not that complicated.

It's clear he could have easily been charged with a much more serious crime.

Maybe. I don't think it's quite as cut and dried as you make it out to be.