Tag: Capitol

Anger at police, and hints of a plan, as Proud Boys marched toward Capitol

[ad_1]

Prosecutors spent the day walking jurors through footage of the group’s approach to the Capitol — which they noted began hours before then-President Donald Trump began speaking to a crowd of supporters near the White House. Nordean is charged alongside Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio and leaders Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola with conspiring to derail the transfer of power from Trump to Joe Biden.
Tarrio was sidelined because of his Jan. 4 arrest for actions at a previous pro-Trump march in Washington, and prosecutors have described the group’s subsequent scramble to keep members organized for Jan. 6. Ultimately, Nordean took charge, assembling hundreds of Proud Boys who had descended on the city near the monument early in the day. Biggs and Rehl also appeared to play leading roles.
What emerged was a picture of an organized advance, with hundreds of Proud Boys marching down Constitution Avenue, a spectacle that forced at least one road closure and alarmed law enforcement, which monitored their movements. Prosecutors have contended that the group intended to forcibly prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 election on Jan. 6 to help Trump remain in power, which the group viewed as key to their own future.
The Justice Department argued that the group had become increasingly disillusioned with police after several members were stabbed at a December 2020 pro-Trump march in Washington — a simmering fury that boiled over after Tarrio’s arrest. Jeremy Bertino, one of those stabbing victims, has pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and testified that he believed the Proud Boys leaders hungered for an “all-out revolution” by the time Jan. 6 arrived.
Defense attorneys for the group’s leaders say the Proud Boys are little more than a glorified drinking club that had no overarching plan on Jan. 6. They’ve argued that no evidence shows that the group explicitly planning to disrupt the Jan. 6 proceedings and that there was no organized effort or goal.
The evidence prosecutors displayed on Tuesday offered cryptic references to a plan. At one point, just after 11 a.m., Nordean brought the large group to a stop and said he intended to “link up with Alex Jones,” the far-right radio host who traffics in conspiracy theories. Shortly before 11:30 a.m., after the Proud Boys had marched past the thinly defended West Front of the Capitol, Nordean was recorded saying, “We have a plan and they can adjust.”
When one person recording the group mentioned that they should “go check out the Capitol,” a member who moments earlier was walking alongside Nordean turned around and asked her to leave. And when Proud Boy Daniel “Milkshake” Scott shouted, “Let’s take the fucking Capitol,” another person replied, “Let’s not fucking yell that, all right?”
The exchange prompted Nordean to reply, “It was Milkshake, man, ya know — idiot.” Another unidentified person near the group added, “Don’t yell it, do it.” Scott pleaded guilty last month to obstructing Congress’ Jan. 6 proceeding and helping facilitate a breach of police lines.

When the Proud Boys arrived at the Capitol, the relatively staid crowd grew restive, prosecutors indicated. Then, after rioters began breaching the barricades, dozens of Proud Boys and their marching companions were among the first to cross the collapsed police line and drive up pressure on the outnumbered forces trying to keep the mob out of the Capitol.
Throughout the march, Nordean, Biggs and others repeatedly stoked the group’s anger at police to rally the other men.
“Enrique shows up and gets detained before he gets to D.C. and he’s charged with two felonies, multiple felonies for what?” Nordean said during a brief stop on the march. “We put ourselves on the line every goddamn time we come out here. We put our lives and our safety and everything on the line, and these people put us in jail. Well, I’m tired of it. It’s time to just say no.”
Later, Biggs would tell the same group: “We’re gonna let the motherfucking world know that we fucking exist and we’re not going any goddamn where. So let’s fucking march through this fucking city that’s our goddamn city and be loud and motherfucking Proud Boy proud, and let’s go fucking kick some goddamn ass. Metaphorically speaking, but you know what I mean.”
Shortly after 11 a.m., as the Proud Boys approached the Capitol, they passed a group of law enforcement officers putting on gear. Some members of the group began berating them.
“Honor your oath. Pick a side. Don’t make us go against you,” shouted Christopher Worrell, a Proud Boy who was later seen in video footage deploying a canister of chemical spray in the direction of police officers at the Capitol.
Nordean rallied the group a second time by slamming police for arresting Tarrio and failing to charge anyone in the stabbing of a Proud Boy during a December 2020 pro-Trump march.
“You took our boy in and you let the stabber go. You guys gotta prove your shit to us now. … We’ll do your goddamn job for you,” he said. “And don’t forget, we don’t owe you anything. We don’t owe you anything. Your job is to protect and serve the people. Not property or bureaucrats.”
Prosecutors also showed jurors how many members of the group that marched with Nordean, Biggs and Rehl to the Capitol would later help facilitate key breaches of police lines. Pezzola would ignite the breach of the building itself by using a stolen police riot shield to smash a Senate-wing window, which he reached after the first wave of the mob — lined with participants in the Proud Boys’ march — overran police lines.
Defense attorneys have described the Proud Boys’ march as largely consisting of protected First Amendment activity, and have said that efforts by the government to tag the five Proud Boys leaders with the actions of other group members amounts to “guilt by association.”
[ad_2]
#Anger #police #hints #plan #Proud #Boys #marched #Capitol
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 8, 2023
Fed’s Powell faces Wall Street firing line on Capitol Hill

[ad_1]

It’s clear the push is already getting traction. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), joined by nine other Republicans who will be in a position to grill Powell this week, told the Fed chair in a letter Friday that there’s no reason to hike capital requirements for the banks.
“Nobody is going to miss the point of this letter, which is hammering Jay Powell to testify the way Wall Street’s biggest banks want him to testify, with the suggestion that there will be political consequences if he doesn’t do that,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of the watchdog group Better Markets.
In a financial policy space where crypto has become the bright, shiny object for Congress, the hearings are poised to reveal how much juice the big bank lobby still has in Washington. For Powell, it’s a test of whether he wants to take on Wall Street in addition to the battle he’s waging on inflation. The banks have framed the potential increase in regulation as a threat to the economy because they say it would force them to retrench in the services they provide — a familiar lobbyist talking point that may have new political salience as the U.S. stares at a potential recession.
“In response to higher capital requirements, banks have two choices,” JPMorgan Chase CFO Jeremy Barnum said last week, summing up the banks’ case at a Washington symposium hosted by the Bank Policy Institute trade association. “We can charge higher prices or we can do less lending. Both of those choices are ultimately bad for consumers and businesses.”
Barnum’s appearance in Washington was part of a broad lobbying effort by the industry to grab the attention of policymakers. The Bank Policy Institute, the Financial Services Forum and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association have been flooding email inboxes for weeks with arguments against raising capital requirements, in addition to closed-door meetings with lawmakers and their staffs. It’s the industry’s top issue in Washington this year.
The calibration of bank capital requirements has major ramifications for the economy. It requires regulators to strike a balance between preventing a financial crisis — which could be triggered by an unforeseen event, like a pandemic — while not limiting banks so much that it crimps economic growth.
“Every decision a bank makes first factors capital costs or benefits,” Federal Financial Analytics managing partner Karen Petrou, who advises lenders on policy, wrote last month.
The largest banks in the U.S. were subject to higher capital requirements after the 2008 global financial crisis, as regulators around the world sought to protect taxpayers from having to bail out the industry again during a future meltdown. Banks survived the depths of Covid-19, armed with bigger capital buffers and buoyed by a flood of government rescue money across the economy.

The issue is returning to the top of banks’ agenda again because U.S. regulators are in the process of finalizing the last piece of the post-2008 capital rules, with a proposal expected by the summer.
But the Fed in the last couple of months has upped the ante.
Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr, a Biden-appointed official who is the central bank’s point man on regulation, triggered the banking lobby late last year when he announced plans for a “holistic” review of bank capital. He also signaled that he already had a view that the current rules aren’t strong enough.
“History shows the deep costs to society when bank capital is inadequate, and thus how urgent it is for the Federal Reserve to get capital regulation right,” Barr said in December. “In doing so, we need to be humble about our ability, or that of bank managers or the market, to fully anticipate the risks that our financial system might face in the future.”
The lenders are complaining that Barr should be more transparent about the process, though he has taken time to speak with bank executives. Barr said in December that any rule changes would be subject to public notice and comment.
“It is an internal process,” said Kevin Fromer, who represents executives of the largest U.S. banks as CEO of the Financial Services Forum. “We, as well as the rest of the public, are outside looking in.”
Barr isn’t the only threat. Banks expect the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which is also led by a Biden appointee, is going to push for stricter rules as well. Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who leads Congress’s Fed oversight, has long argued for higher capital requirements and may provide political cover.
Now the big banks and their allies in Congress want to know whether Powell plans to defer to his colleagues or will intervene.
Scott, who is seen as a likely 2024 GOP presidential candidate, told Powell with fellow Republicans Friday that it was “incumbent on you” to oversee the capital review launched by Barr. They warned Powell against violating a 2018 law that eased bank regulations. And they echoed points made by the banking industry about the potential impact on borrowing costs, investment and the competitiveness of U.S. markets.
“We have received the letter and plan to respond,” a Fed spokesperson said.
It’s unclear where Powell will come down on the issue. But during the Trump administration, he responded to calls by big banks to lower their capital requirements by saying that the levels were “about right,” and he dismissed suggestions that strict regulations were hurting their ability to compete with foreign banks. He supported moves to loosen rules around the edges.
The Republican-led House has made the issue a priority as it ramps up scrutiny of the Biden administration. Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), who leads the subcommittee overseeing the Fed, said in a statement that he is planning “vigorous oversight” of the capital review. He will be one of the lawmakers grilling Powell this week.
“I am particularly focused on preventing regulators from imposing excessive requirements that would sideline capital as we continue to battle forty-year high inflation,” Barr said.
Kelleher’s group Better Markets is pushing back, arguing that capital standards should be raised to protect the economy from bank failures and taxpayer-funded bailouts.
“Congress’s job is to ask questions,” he said. “But their job isn’t to try and basically work the refs by trying to bully them into an outcome that is not actually data-driven or risk-driven.”
[ad_2]
#Feds #Powell #faces #Wall #Street #firing #line #Capitol #Hill
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 7, 2023
Judge denies Jan. 6 defendant’s bid for time to review McCarthy’s Capitol security footage

[ad_1]

Boasberg’s ruling is the latest ripple caused by McCarthy’s decision to widen access to 44,000 hours of Capitol security footage from Jan. 6. The Capitol Police had previously turned over about 14,000 hours of the day’s footage that leaders said encompassed crucial time periods of the riot, as well as the relevant camera angles.
It’s unclear whether the additional footage includes evidence that will influence any of the 950-plus Jan. 6 criminal cases. But several defendants have said they intend to access the materials, which House Republicans have agreed to facilitate. The Justice Department has yet to indicate whether it, too, will attempt to obtain and review the footage.
At Friday’s hearing, prosecutors opposed Carpenter’s request, saying they had pieced together the “overwhelming” amount of her movements using CCTV footage, leaving only “a matter of seconds” unaccounted for. Carpenter already has access to a “massive” trove of CCTV footage, they noted, and defendants have the ability to request specific camera angles they would like to focus on if they believe they need additional material.
Prosecutors also suggested that they remain largely in the dark about what the cache of footage newly unearthed by McCarthy might include.
“We don’t have what the speaker has,” said assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Cook, adding, “In any case, there’s always the possibility some information may be out there.”
Prosecutors are required to disclose to defendants any potentially exculpatory evidence they possess — a particularly thorny challenge in Jan. 6 cases as a result of the massive amounts of video evidence captured by Capitol security cameras, policy bodycams, journalists and rioters themselves, who recorded hundreds of hours worth of footage.
But that requirement isn’t limitless, particularly when it comes to evidence that is in the possession of another agency — like the Capitol Police, an arm of Congress — and if courts determine the government has made good-faith efforts to provide as much material as possible to defendants.
Carpenter’s attorneys argued in court Friday that McCarthy’s batch might help fill “gaps” in the footage that would provide context to the actions Carpenter took inside the Capitol. They contended that it might help contextualize some of the actions she took that resulted in the felony charges DOJ lodged, including for obstructing Congress’ proceedings and for participating in a civil disorder. She sought a 60-day delay in her trial, which is set to begin Monday, in order to determine whether any of the new footage might be relevant.

Boasberg agreed that the request was legitimate. Any attorney would want to see a new batch of potentially exculpatory evidence, he said.
“It’s certainly not a frivolous request by any means,” he said.
But Boasberg agreed that the gaps Carpenter’s attorneys described were “minimal” and that the defense lawyers didn’t explain specifically why any additional footage might help Carpenter’s case.
Prosecutors trying the seditious conspiracy case of several leaders of the Proud Boys also recently confronted the issue, when a defense attorney asked the Justice Department whether it would help organize access to the additional footage. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason McCullough called it a “serious question” and a “serious issue,” but said it was too soon to say how DOJ would be handling the matter.
[ad_2]
#Judge #denies #Jan #defendants #bid #time #review #McCarthys #Capitol #security #footage
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 4, 2023
House GOP moving to let Jan. 6 defendants access Capitol security footage

[ad_1]
Loudermilk will be leading the effort given his senior Administration panel post, according to a senior Republican congressional aide who addressed the evolving decision on condition of anonymity. The GOP aide added that the new House majority is working on a system that eventually will allow members of the media and the public to access some Jan. 6 records as well.
The footage access plan, described by three people familiar with the discussions, follows McCarthy’s move to grant exclusive access to the 41,000 hours of internal Capitol film from the day of the riot to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. McCarthy and his allies are also making clear that there will be limits on the extent of material permitted to leave the tightly controlled confines of the Capitol, where Carlson’s team has been reviewing the footage for days.
“What gets released is obviously going to be scrutinized to make sure you’re not exposing any sensitive information that hasn’t already been exposed,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.).
McCarthy told reporters Tuesday that he ultimately envisions releasing nearly all of the Jan. 6 surveillance footage publicly, with exceptions for sensitive security information.
“I think putting it out all to the American public, you can see the truth, see exactly what transpired that day and everybody can have the exact same” access, McCarthy said. “My intention is to release it to everyone.”
McCarthy dismissed questions about his decision to share the footage with Carlson, who has downplayed the Jan. 6 attack, describing it as a typical media exclusive. He noted that he did not consult with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell about his decision.
Similar measures would be taken with any footage opened up to Jan. 6 defendants and their lawyers, two of the people familiar said, though details of those steps remain unclear for now. Among the big logistical questions Republicans are still discussing: whether any footage they open up to defendants can be used in court proceedings, which would effectively make it public.
McCarthy’s decision to let Carlson view the footage from the violent riot by former President Donald Trump’s supporters has already been raised in two ongoing Jan. 6 criminal cases. In one instance, a lawyer for one of the Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy has asked prosecutors to determine whether they will access and share the footage; then on Tuesday morning, Joseph McBride, an attorney for Jan. 6 defendant Ryan Nichols, claimed he had already been given permission to review the footage.

It’s unclear if the Justice Department has requested similar access. A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The footage release marks the latest twist in McCarthy’s complicated history with Jan. 6. He led more than 130 House Republicans in objecting to the 2020 election results, even after rioters tore through the Capitol, then condemned the riot in the immediate aftermath and said Trump bore responsibility for it.
Colleagues said McCarthy pleaded with Trump amid the chaos to call off his supporters as they ransacked the building and pummeled police. But after meeting with Trump weeks after the siege, McCarthy strongly opposed Democratic efforts to investigate the breach, particularly after then Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked two of his members from serving on the panel. He ended up spurning a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.
Though many House Republicans have indicated they hope to move on from regularly discussing the attack, McCarthy’s decision to allow access to the footage — following pressure from a faction of conservative detractors who worked initially to deny him the speakership — has forced Jan. 6 back onto the agenda.
Speaking to his conference for the first time since permitting Carlson to review the copious amounts of internal Capitol security footage, McCarthy sought to quell any internal concerns among members, according to three House Republicans in the room who spoke on condition of anonymity.
During Tuesday’s closed-door conference meeting, McCarthy pointed to footage that Democrats played during select committee hearings last year which showed various locations during the assault, according to one of those Republicans — and described the criticism he’s received for granting Carlson access as “hypocrisy.”
Scalise also argued during a press conference Tuesday morning that the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee had already released similar types of information, as had former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s daughter in a documentary film.
People familiar with the Jan. 6 select committee investigation have emphasized that the footage the panel aired followed intensive negotiations with the Capitol Police, which often pushed back to restrict the length of clips or number of angles the committee could show. Some footage aired by the panel had also been previously made public in ongoing criminal cases stemming from the riot.
It’s unclear what similar steps McCarthy is taking, and as a result his access for Carlson has sparked staunch pushback from Democrats, who say any wide release of unvetted footage could jeopardize Capitol security. The Capitol Police have warned repeatedly in court that any widespread access to security footage could provide a roadmap for potential perpetrators of any future assault on the Capitol.
But dozens of hours of security footage have also been publicly released in the hundreds of criminal cases that have been brought forward since Jan. 6.
Loudermilk is intimately familiar with the Jan. 6 select committee’s handling of security footage. The panel released film of a group of tourists he led through Capitol office buildings on Jan. 5, 2021 — one of whom approached the Capitol grounds the following day while recording menacing statements about Democratic leaders.
Some Republicans across the ideological spectrum praised McCarthy for his move to release the footage.
“Best if all Americans have access,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who hails from a competitive battleground district. “I don’t hear much about this at home.”
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the pro-Trump House Freedom Caucus, praised McCarthy for the move and shrugged off those voicing security concerns: “This place is so convoluted. That’s why they don’t have a map on it … I just got lost trying to get to the tunnel.”
The Jan. 6 footage decision is getting a lot of attention during what Republicans say is an otherwise calm week — so far. In Tuesday morning’s conference meeting, Republicans discussed upcoming bills they will vote on this week, while Scalise also previewed plans for elements of their upcoming agenda, such as a parents’ bill of rights and an energy package set to hit the floor the spring, according to two GOP sources.

[ad_2]
#House #GOP #moving #Jan #defendants #access #Capitol #security #footage
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 28, 2023
DeSantis administration requires events at the Capitol ‘align’ with its mission

[ad_1]

The management services agency has started sending letters to organizations that have long-requested space inside the Capitol for events during the annual legislative session informing them of the changes. The Capitol overall is a common location for demonstrations, especially during the state’s two-month legislative session that begins in March, and the rules will affect events inside the entire building.
This year’s session is expected to be packed with Gov. Ron DeSantis-championed bills that will stoke controversy and outrage ahead of his likely presidential bid.
A DMS spokesperson did not answer specific questions about the new rule, saying in a statement that they are “plainly written and straightforward.”
The new rules specify that organizations must make their requests through DeSantis administration agency heads, the House speaker or any member of the Senate. The chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court can also ask on their behalf.
The DMS letters caught by surprise several groups that have for years requested space in the Capitol to host education events for their particular mission. There are dozens of annual events during the legislative session that include state universities having advocacy days, or specific advocacy groups holding informational and educational days in the Capitol during session to increase awareness of their issues of concern. Most events are uncontroversial and not tied to protesting specific issues being considered, or any specific piece of legislation.
“It seems counterintuitive to our rights that you have to ask an agency to ask on your behalf to use space at the Capitol to simply educate the Legislature,” said a lobbyist who for years has planned Capitol events for clients. “And only if your mission lines up with the agencies’ mission is having space for displays on DMS property potentially allowed.”
“Does this rule really protect the constitutional right to assembly, and the right to petition the governor for a redress of grievances,” added the person, who was granted anonymity because they were concerned about retribution for speaking against the new DeSantis administration policy.
The changes have created concern that any event deemed not in line with a DeSantis administration “mission” could be denied space, a situation that some fear would affect demonstrators who protest controversial pieces of legislation, a common hallmark of Florida’s legislative process.

Each year, protesters have filled the Capitol rotunda, generally in opposition to Republican legislative priorities because that party is in the majority, though recently anti-abortion protesters filled the Capitol to urge the GOP-dominated Legislature to pass legislation that would lessen the period of time a woman can have an abortion from the recently passed 15-week ban.
“It is absolutely absurd and against our First Amendment right,” said state Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-Orlando). “It does not surprise that as GOP bans abortions, attacks LGBTQ+ rights, bans books and passes corporate tax breaks that they want to suppress freedom of speech and First Amendment rights.”
The rule changes also define “demonstration activity,” which covers things like “demonstrating, parading, picketing, speech making, holding of vigils, sit-ins, or other similar activities conducted for the purpose of demonstrating approval or disapproval of government policies … expressing a view on public issues, or bringing into public notice any issue or other matter.”
Those activities would be less regulated and still allowed outside the Capitol complex. But the new rules include language that allows DMS to request organizers “reduce in size and scope” their event.
[ad_2]
#DeSantis #administration #requires #events #Capitol #align #mission
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 23, 2023
Kevin McCarthy’s apparent deal with Tucker Carlson to share Jan. 6 footage surprised some top Capitol security officials.

[ad_1]

On Monday, the Fox News host described his producers’ access as “unfettered.”

[ad_2]
#Kevin #McCarthys #apparent #deal #Tucker #Carlson #share #Jan #footage #surprised #top #Capitol #security #officials
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 21, 2023
US officer fed details to far-right leader before Capitol attack, messages show

[ad_1]
A police officer frequently provided Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio with internal information about law enforcement operations in the weeks before other members of the far-right group stormed the US Capitol, according to messages shown at the trial of Tarrio and four associates.
In court in Washington DC on Wednesday, a federal prosecutor showed jurors a string of messages that Shane Lamond, a Metropolitan police lieutenant, exchanged with Tarrio in the run-up to the attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021. Lamond, an intelligence officer, was responsible for monitoring groups like the Proud Boys.
On 6 January, supporters of Donald Trump stormed Congress in an attempt to block certification of Joe Biden’s election win. Nine deaths have been linked to the riot, including suicides among law enforcement
Less than three weeks before the riot, Lamond warned Tarrio that the FBI and Secret Service were “all spun up” over talk on an Infowars internet show that the Proud Boys planned to dress as Biden supporters on inauguration day.
A justice department prosecutor, Conor Mulroe, asked a government witness, the FBI special agent Peter Dubrowski, how common it was for law enforcement to disclose internal information in that fashion.
“I’ve never heard of it,” Dubrowski said.
Tarrio was arrested in Washington two days before the Capitol attack and charged with burning a Black Lives Matter banner taken from a historic Black church in December 2020. He was released and was not in Washington on 6 January.
In a message to Tarrio on 25 December 2020, Lamond said Metropolitan police investigators had asked him to identify Tarrio from a photograph. He warned Tarrio that police might be seeking a warrant for his arrest.

On the day of his arrest, Tarrio posted a message to other Proud Boys leaders that said: “The warrant was just signed.”
Before trial, Tarrio’s attorneys said Lamond’s testimony would be crucial, supporting Tarrio’s claims he was looking to avoid violence.
In court, Mulroe said Lamond asserted his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Tarrio’s attorneys have accused prosecutors of bullying Lamond into keeping quiet by warning the officer he could be charged with obstructing the investigation into Tarrio, a Miami resident who was the national chairman of the Proud Boys. Prosecutors deny that claim.
Tarrio’s attorney Sabino Jauregui said other messages showed that Tarrio cooperated with police and provided useful information. Jauregui said prosecutors “dragged [Lamond’s] name through the mud” and falsely insinuated he is a “dirty cop” who had an inappropriate relationship with Tarrio.
“That was their theme over and over again,” Jauregui told the presiding US district judge, Timothy Kelly.
Lamond was placed on administrative leave in February 2022, according to Mark Schamel, an attorney who said Lamond aided in Tarrio’s arrest for burning the banner. On Wednesday, Schamel said Lamond’s job required him to communicate with protesting groups and his conduct “was appropriate and always focused on the protection of the citizens of Washington DC”.
“At no time did Lt Lamond ever assist or support the hateful and divisive agenda of any of the various groups that came to DC to protest,” Schamel said. “More importantly, Lt Lamond is a decorated official who does not condone the hateful rhetoric or the illegal conduct on January 6 and was only communicating with these individuals because the mission required it.”
Tarrio and four lieutenants are charged with seditious conspiracy for what prosecutors say was a plot to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
Proud Boys members describe the group as a politically incorrect men’s club for “western chauvinists”. They often brawl with antifascist activists.
In a message to Tarrio on 18 December 2020, Lamond said other investigators had asked if the Proud Boys were racist. The officer said he told them the group had Black and Latino members, “so [it was] not a racist thing”.
“It’s not being investigated by the FBI, though. Just us,” Lamond added.
“Awesome,” Tarrio replied.
In another exchange, Lamond asked Tarrio if he called in a tip claiming responsibility for the banner burning.
“I did more than that,” Tarrio said. “It’s on my social media.”
In a message to Tarrio on 11 December 2020, Lamond told him about the whereabouts of antifascist activists. The officer asked Tarrio if he should share that information with uniformed officers or keep it to himself.
Two days later, Tarrio asked Lamond what the police department’s “general consensus” was about the Proud Boys.
“That’s too complicated for a text answer,” Lamond replied. “That’s an in-person conversation over a beer.”
[ad_2]
#officer #fed #details #farright #leader #Capitol #attack #messages #show
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

February 16, 2023
D.C. police lieutenant delivered pre-Jan. 6 tips from Tarrio to Capitol Police, Proud Boy’s lawyer says

[ad_1]
The messages were the latest twist in the trial on charges that Tarrio and four other Proud Boys leaders conspired to violently prevent the transfer of power from then-President Donald Trump to Joe Biden, who won the 2020 election. Tarrio, because of his arrest, was not in Washington during the riot, but he remained in contact with other leaders, who marched on the Capitol and were present at some of the most significant breaches as the mob approached the building.
Prosecutors say the Proud Boys played a leading role in pushing the crowd toward weak points in the Capitol’s defenses and that their own “hand-selected” allies were responsible for breaching police lines — and ultimately the building itself — at multiple points.
The details of Tarrio’s relationship with Lamond had largely remained shrouded in mystery until Wednesday, when prosecutors unveiled dozens of messages between the two.
Over several months, including the crucial weeks before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Lamond appeared to provide Tarrio with inside tips about investigations pertaining to the far-right group.
Lamond, who defense attorneys have lamented is unable to testify in Tarrio’s defense because of the threat of potential prosecution he faces, repeatedly sent messages on encrypted platforms to Tarrio in the weeks before Jan. 6, even tipping off Tarrio to his impending arrest for burning a Black Lives Matter flag at a pro-Trump rally in Washington in December 2020.
Prosecutors emphasized that this wasn’t a typical relationship between an investigator and an informant or cooperating source. Typically, it was Lamond who appeared to volunteer sensitive information about investigations connected to Tarrio, even when Lamond had learned that information from other agencies, like the FBI or Secret Service.
And Tarrio, in turn, shared that information with Proud Boys allies, informing the group on Jan. 4, 2021, that the warrant for his arrest “was just signed.” He would be arrested the next day when he arrived in Washington ahead of Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally, which would later morph into a riot that led to the storming of the U.S. Capitol.
“That info stays here,” Tarrio told allies in one private chat.

The relationship between Tarrio and Lamond has been an enigma. Defense attorneys have pointed to it as proof of Tarrio’s close relationship with law enforcement and his willingness to give police departments a heads-up about Proud Boys activities.
During his own testimony to the Jan. 6 select committee, Tarrio alluded to his contacts with the police, indicating that he coordinated his group’s movements in December 2020, during a large pro-Trump rally.
“I coordinated with Metropolitan Police Department to keep my guys away — on these marches, to keep them away from counter-protesters completely,” Tarrio said. “I would say, ‘Hey, I want to march to the monument,’ and they’d tell me, ‘Hey, there’s counter-protesters between where you are and the monument is.’ And I’d be like, ‘Okay, I’m not going to march 4 over there. We’ll march in the opposite direction.’”
But he didn’t specifically identify Lamond. In their own Jan. 6 committee interviews, Donohue and his deputy, Julie Farnam, described coordinating with Lamond — a top intelligence official with the D.C. police — about potential threats. Neither Donohue nor Farnam, referenced getting Proud Boys-related tips or any information derived from Tarrio.
Robert Glover, commander of the Metropolitan Police Department on Jan. 6, told the House select committee that the Proud Boys had had interactions with the department throughout 2020 and “always want to make it look like they’re law enforcement’s friends.” Robert Contee III, chief of the D.C. police, told the committee that Tarrio had been on the department leaders’ radar ahead of Jan. 6, including in a security briefing with Mayor Muriel Bowser a week before the riot.
“I forget the date that the warrant was actually signed for his arrest,” Contee told the committee, describing a Dec. 30, 2020, briefing with the mayor. “But that was kind of lingering out there, MPD world, something that we were following up on.”
The Jan. 6 select committee also indicated that Lamond forwarded other intelligence to the Capitol Police, including a tip from a “civilian” who lives near Washington who warned of stumbling upon a pro-Trump website that featured “detailed plans to storm Federal buildings, dress incognito, and commit crimes against public officials.”
Prosecutors repeatedly suggested Lamond’s contacts with Tarrio appeared to be a one-way street, with Lamond repeatedly providing sensitive nonpublic information to Tarrio, which he’d characterize as a “heads up.” For example, Lamond appeared to give Tarrio advance notice that an arrest warrant for Tarrio was imminent.
The department’s criminal division “had me ID you from a photo you posted on Parler,” Lamond indicated on Dec. 25, 2020. “They may be submitting an arrest warrant to U.S. attorney’s office.”
To emphasize that point, prosecutors elicited testimony from FBI Agent Peter Dubrowski, one of the agents handling the post-Jan. 6 investigation of Proud Boys leaders, describing how unusual it is for law enforcement officials to share investigative information with someone who may be the subject or target of a probe.
“I see no benefit [to law enforcement],” Dubrowski said on the witness stand in response to questions from Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe.
With the jury out of the room, Tarrio’s attorney, Sabino Jauregui, indicated that many of Lamond’s private communications would also show that he made use of information Tarrio provided him to inform superiors — and even other police agencies like the Capitol Police — about the group’s plans and activities.
“We have example after example,” Jauregui said, noting that Lamond would often tell superiors that “my contact” — Tarrio — had informed him about the timing and locations of Proud Boys activities. He said Tarrio even told Lamond about when he would be arriving in D.C. to help facilitate his planned arrest. Some of Tarrio’s information was directed from Lamond to Donohue in the weeks before Jan. 6, Jauregui said.
The trial featured some of the first discussion, with jurors present, of confidential human sources that the FBI relied on to investigate the Proud Boys. Prosecutors suggested that defense counsel had confused the matter by equating those sources — members of the public who voluntarily share information with law enforcement — with undercover FBI agents.
Dubrowski said there were no undercover FBI agents monitoring the chats of the Proud Boys. However, prosecutors emphasized that there were sources within the group who grew alarmed and provided information to law enforcement.
[ad_2]
#D.C #police #lieutenant #delivered #preJan #tips #Tarrio #Capitol #Police #Proud #Boys #lawyer
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 16, 2023
‘Who is behind them?’: UFO fever grips Capitol Hill

[ad_1]

“The most troublesome aspect is: What’s going on? Where are they coming from? Who is behind them?,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asked on Monday. “We get weather balloons, we understand weather balloons. But if it’s not weather balloons, what are they? Who is sending them? That bothers me.”
While the 118th Congress is off to a slow start, Capitol Hill is swirling with intrigue about the military’s downing of four objects that hovered over U.S. and Canadian airspace in recent days. In the absence of complete information, Senate Republicans on Monday criticized the Biden administration for what they called a lack of transparency about where the objects are coming from and what they are. Even some Democrats indicated that the Biden administration could be doing more to alleviate concerns.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) said Monday night that he’s “not satisfied yet” with the administration’s response but will wait until the Tuesday briefing before making a final judgment. Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that it’s possible for Biden officials to be more transparent without compromising national security.
The full Senate’s slated briefing Tuesday on the unidentified objects comes days after another classified briefing about the Chinese spy balloon. And that’s on top of another previously classified briefing scheduled for Wednesday that will touch broadly on China.
None of the three objects shot down over the weekend have been recovered. Murkowski said brutally cold conditions in Alaska were hindering the search, while Peters said the lake is deep enough to make finding anything extremely complex. The Biden administration already ruled out aliens on Monday, but that didn’t slow down the pace of lawmakers’ questions.
Summing up what’s on almost everyone’s minds, Peters remarked: “Why do we have these objects now? Is it because we just haven’t been looking for them? Or something else?”
Senate Republicans, who previously castigated the Biden administration for waiting too long to respond to the Chinese spy balloon, are going into Tuesday’s briefing with low expectations. But they argued that any information, at this point, would be helpful to prevent imaginations from running wild.
“It’s just crazy what’s happened the last few days,” observed Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “I don’t know if they don’t know what’s going on. And maybe either way, whether they do or don’t, at least tell us what they do know — and try and reassure people of the things that they’ve ruled out.”

Over the past four days, the U.S. military shot down three unidentified objects: the first on Friday near Deadhorse, Alaska, the second over Yukon, Canada on Saturday and the latest on Sunday over Lake Huron, Mich. That came just days after the military brought down a Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina.
“I don’t think anybody really understands,” said Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). “We all knew what the first one was … [The Biden administration] took so much heat after the first one, they weren’t going to make the same mistake,” he added, and let the objects fly untouched.
While it’s not clear whether the unidentified objects are all from China, the latest developments will almost certainly spur calls for the U.S. to get tougher on Beijing. Following Thursday’s briefing on the spy balloon, GOP and Democratic lawmakers emerged requesting additional information.
The speakers for Tuesday’s briefing include Melissa G. Dalton, an assistant secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs, Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, according to a list obtained by POLITICO.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who held a defense spending subpanel hearing Thursday on the Chinese spy balloon, described the latest unidentified objects as “concerning.” But he added that his level of concern will depend “on where they came from.” His subcommittee is expected to hold follow up hearings as the Senate kicks off its annual spending process.
John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, told reporters Monday that enhanced radar capabilities “may at least partly explain the increase in the objects that have been detected.”
In the absence of more information, though, Republicans are having a field day with the incidents.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the floor Monday that the administration has still “not been able to divulge any meaningful information about what was shot down” and asked: “are they benign science projects or something more nefarious that we have been missing all this time?” Meanwhile, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the administration is “creating a bigger problem for themselves by the lack of transparency.”
Yet despite bipartisan concern about China’s role in the incursions, some senators suggested Monday that the response to Biden’s handling of the unidentified objects may fall along party lines.
“I came to the conclusion the administration handled the first one properly,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine.), a member of the Intelligence Committee. “There are some people that if Biden walked out, woke up in the morning and walked across the Potomac River, they’d say, ‘Biden can’t swim.’”
[ad_2]
#UFO #fever #grips #Capitol #Hill
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 14, 2023
Biden dismisses scandal-plagued Capitol manager

[ad_1]

A GOP aide familiar with the situation told POLITICO Blanton was not on the Capitol campus today. The Architect of the Capitol oversees a massive portfolio from preservation and upkeep of more than 17.4 million square feet of both historic and modern facilities and 580 acres of grounds on the Capitol campus to managing more than 2,000 employees.
There was bipartisan praise for Blanton’s firing, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), chair of the Senate Rules Committee that has oversight of the Architect of the Capitol office, calling it “the right thing to do.”
GOP aides told POLITICO that top lawmakers and relevant committee heads were alerted beforehand to the White House’s move, which came shortly after Speaker Kevin McCarthy called for Blanton’s removal on Twitter. A White House official noted the decision to fire Blanton had already been made before the California Republican’s tweet.
“The Architect of the Capitol, Brett Blanton, no longer has my confidence to continue in his job. He should resign or President Biden should remove him immediately,” McCarthy tweeted midday Monday.
Filling the Architect of the Capitol role is a long and arduous process that could take months or years. A bicameral and bipartisan congressional commission must be assembled to recommend candidates to the president, and then the president chooses from that list.
The group is made up of 14 lawmakers, including the speaker, the president pro tempore and the majority and minority leaders of both chambers. It also includes the chairs and ranking members of the House Administration and Senate Rules Committees, plus the Appropriations panels in both chambers.
In the meantime, a vacant deputy role is complicating a temporary replacement for Blanton. Without a deputy architect in place, the agency’s chief of operations would be next in line to be acting architect upon Blanton’s exit. Joseph DiPietro assumed that role on Monday, with Mark Reed ending his tenure as acting chief of operations on Friday.
Blanton was a member of the three-person Capitol Police Board, which makes crucial security decisions for the complex. His exit paves the way for lawmakers to take up an examination of how the board is structured and best operating procedures.

Blanton was the last remaining member of the Capitol Police board who was in their role on Jan. 6, 2021 when Capitol defenses broke down and insurrectionists lay siege to the building. He prompted fury from lawmakers at the hearing last week when he said he had stayed away from the Hill the day of the attack, as it had not seemed “prudent” to come in.
“We will be reviewing the structure of the Capitol Police Board going forward. I will leave that there as a nugget that we will ultimately come back to in this committee,” House Administration Chair Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) said following last week’s contentious hearing with Blanton.
Jordain Carney contributed to this report.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified who is in line to assume operations of the Architect of the Capitol upon Brett Blanton’s exit. It is Joseph DiPietro, who took over the chief of operations role on Monday.
[ad_2]
#Biden #dismisses #scandalplagued #Capitol #manager
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 14, 2023