SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Franklin, Andrews, Kramer & Edelstein -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: scion who wrote (12582)2/16/2021 5:02:46 AM
From: scion  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 12881
 
Dozens charged in Capitol riots spewed extremist rhetoric

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and AMANDA SEITZ
today
apnews.com

COLLEGE PARK, Md. (AP) — In a text message, a radicalized Trump supporter suggested getting a boat to ferry “heavy weapons” across the Potomac River into the waiting arms of their members in time for Jan. 6, court papers say.

It wasn’t just idle talk, authorities say. Investigators found invoices for more than $750 worth of live ammunition and for a firearm designed to look like a cellphone at the Virginia home of Thomas Caldwell, who’s charged with conspiring with members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group in one of the most sinister plots in the U.S. Capitol siege.

Right-wing extremists, blessed by Donald Trump, were unleashed last month, and their menacing presence has reignited the debate over domestic extremism and how law enforcement should be handling these groups.

Their talk of civil war, traitors and revolution mirrored fighting words echoed by right-wing social media personalities and websites for months as Trump spread bogus claims about a rigged presidential election.

In nearly half of the more than 200 federal cases stemming from the attack on the Capitol, authorities have cited evidence that an insurrectionist appeared to be inspired by conspiracy theories or extremist ideologies, according to an Associated Press review of court records.

The FBI has linked at least 40 defendants to extremist groups or movements, including at least 16 members or associates of the neo-fascist Proud Boys and at least five connected to the anti-government Oath Keepers. FBI agents also explicitly tied at least 10 defendants to QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy theory that has grown beyond its fringe origins to penetrate mainstream Republican politics.

In at least 59 other cases, authorities link defendants to violent or extremist rhetoric, conspiracy theories or other far-right connections on social media and other forums before, during or after the Jan. 6 siege, a deeper review by the AP found.

The AP’s review found that in many of those cases the defendants repeated false claims, made by Trump for months of his presidency, that the U.S. election was rigged. Some broadcast death threats at Democrats on their social media accounts or in messages. Others were deeply entwined in a world of far-right conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic. And dozens of the alleged rioters echoed words used by QAnon supporters, who push a baseless belief that Trump is a secret warrior fighting to expose a cabal of Satan-worshipping bureaucrats and celebrities who traffic children.


On Saturday, the Senate acquitted Trump in his second impeachment trial. A leading liberal advocacy group is urging its supporters to call on attorney general nominee Merrick Garland to “investigate and prosecute Trump and his entire criminal network for law breaking.”

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington has assigned a special task force of prosecutors examining whether to bring sedition charges against some of the rioters, as prosecutors and federal agents across the country develop more cases against extremists who plotted to attack the Capitol. Prosecutors have another task force examining attacks targeting journalists.

President Joe Biden, in office not yet a month, has already ordered law enforcement and intelligence officials to investigate domestic terrorism. But increased enforcement is not so simple. Much of the inflammatory rhetoric is protected by the First Amendment.

And some civil rights groups have expressed hesitation over any expansion by law enforcement, because Black and Latino communities have born the brunt of security scrutiny and they fear new tools to target extremism will end up tracking them.

Meanwhile, conspiracy theories proliferate. Conservative social media app Parler doubled its userbase, adding 8.7 million users, after the election when Facebook and Twitter cracked down on accounts spreading misinformation about the election.

Calls on the conservative platform for users to revolt or launch a war over the election results also grew, according to the AP’s analysis of an archived Parler dataset of 183 million posts and 13 million user profiles.

The archive, which was captured between August 2018 and Jan. 10, when Parler was taken offline, was provided in advance of publication to the AP by researcher Max Aliapoulios at New York University.

Parler posts containing the word “revolution” grew by five times as much as the overall rate of message traffic after the election, the analysis found.

About 84% of posts referring to the hashtag ”#1776? occurred on or after Election Day, according to AP’s analysis. Post-election references to “treason” and the QAnon slogan “trust the plan” both increased by about 10 times the overall rate, the data showed.

From Jan. 6 through Jan. 8 the terms “civil war,” “trust the plan” and “hold the line” were mentioned more than 250,000 times across online media, including Twitter, Redditt and Instagram, according to an analysis by media intelligence firm Zignal Labs.

As well, Trump supporters who flooded the Capitol were quick to co-opt lingo from the American Revolution and the nation’s founding documents to paint themselves as patriots instead of extremists. In the federal cases, the FBI quotes at least 11 defendants referring to “we the people,” at least 10 referring to “1776,” at least nine using “revolution” and at least eight using some variation of “traitor” or “treason.”

“Everybody in there is a treasonous traitor,” defendant Peter Stager, a resident of Arkansas, said of the Capitol, on a video posted on Twitter. “Death is the only remedy for what’s in that building.” A lawyer for Stager did not respond to a request for comment.

A Georgia lawyer’s Parler posts became increasingly paranoid and angry after the presidential election began to shift to Biden’s favor. William Calhoun of Americus, Georgia, posted about storming the Capitol on the eve of the insurrection, warned of an impending “civil war” and threatened to “slaughter” Democrats.

“For my part, I’ll be slinging enough hot lead to stack you commies up like cordwood,” he wrote.

Calhoun returned home after the siege and resumed representing clients at court hearings. Federal agents say he had at least two rifles, four shotguns, a pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in his possession when they arrested him. A magistrate judge ordered Calhoun detained in custody. His lawyer had no comment.

The Oath Keepers prepared in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 as if they were going to war, investigators say. One advised another extremist to be “fighting fit” by the inauguration and discussed holding “2 days of wargames” as part of a larger “combat” training for “urban warfare, riot control, and rescue operations,” according to court papers.

A judge late last week ruled against releasing Caldwell, who authorities say conspired with members of the Oath Keepers to undo Biden’s victory. In urging the judge to keep Caldwell locked up, the prosecutor said authorities found a “death list” at his Virginia home with the name of an election official in another state who gained notoriety around the presidential election.

Caldwell’s lawyer said prosecutors have no evidence that his client, who denies being a member of the Oath Keepers, ever entered the Capitol. He called the indictment “imaginative.”

“These things were taken out of context!” Caldwell interjected at the hearing.

___

Seitz reported from Chicago. Associated Press data journalist Larry Fenn in New York and AP writers Alanna Durkin Richer in Boston and Garance Burke in San Francisco contributed to this report.

apnews.com



To: scion who wrote (12582)2/16/2021 6:30:14 AM
From: scion  Respond to of 12881
 
Acquittal Vindicated the Constitution, Not Trump

Impeachment isn’t a moral tribunal. It is a specific tool with a narrow purpose: restraining government officers

By Mitch McConnell
Feb. 15, 2021 6:03 pm ET
OPINION COMMENTARY

Jan. 6 was a shameful day. A mob bloodied law enforcement and besieged the first branch of government. American citizens tried to use terrorism to stop a democratic proceeding they disliked.

There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone. His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended.

I was as outraged as any member of Congress. But senators take our own oaths. Our job wasn’t to find some way, any way, to inflict a punishment. The Senate’s first and foundational duty was to protect the Constitution.


Some brilliant scholars believe the Senate can try and convict former officers. Others don’t. The text is unclear, and I don’t begrudge my colleagues their own conclusions. But after intense study, I concluded that Article II, Section 4 limits impeachment and conviction to current officers.

Everyone agrees that “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” exhaust the valid grounds for conviction. It follows that the list of persons in that sentence—“the president, vice president, and all civil officers”—likewise exhausts its valid subjects.

If that list of current officers is not exhaustive, there is no textual limit. The House’s “sole power of impeachment” and the Senate’s “sole power to try all impeachments” would constitute an unlimited circular logic with no stopping point at former officers. Any private citizen could be disqualified. This is why one House manager had to argue the Senate possesses “absolute, unqualified” jurisdiction. But nobody really accepts that.

I side with the early constitutional scholar Justice Joseph Story. He observed that while disqualification is optional, removal is mandatory on conviction. The Constitution presupposes that anyone convicted by the Senate must have an office from which to be removed. This doesn’t mean leaving office provides immunity from accountability. Former officials are “still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.” Criminal law and civil litigation ensure there is no so-called January exemption.

There is a modern reflex to demand total satisfaction from every news cycle. But impeachment is not some final moral tribunal. It is a specific tool with a narrow purpose: restraining government officers. The instant Donald Trump ceased being the president, he exited the Senate’s jurisdiction.

I respect senators who reached the opposite answer. What deserve no respect are claims that constitutional concerns are trivialities that courageous senators would have ignored.

One House manager who lauded the Constitution when the trial began now derides it as “a technicality.” Another called this pivotal question “a loophole.” Talking heads fumed that senators had let legal niceties constrain us. I even heard that only senators who voted for conviction had any right to abhor the violence. That’s antithetical to any notion of American justice. Liberals said they condemned the former president’s rules-be-damned recklessness. But many apparently cannot resist that same temptation.

Consider the claim that I could have steered around the jurisdictional issue by recalling the Senate between Jan. 14 and Jan. 20, while Mr. Trump was still in office.

The salient date is not the trial’s start but the end, when the penalty of removal from office must be possible. No remotely fair or regular Senate process could have started and finished in less than one week. Even the brisk impeachment process we just concluded took 19 days. The pretrial briefing period alone—especially vital after such a rushed and minimal House process—consumed more than a week.


President Biden, who knows the Senate, stated as early as Jan. 8 that his swearing-in was the “quickest” possible path to changing the occupant of the White House. Especially since the House didn’t vote until Jan. 13, any legitimate Senate process was certain to end after Inauguration Day.

Here’s what the scheduling critics are really saying: Senate Republicans should have followed a rushed House process with a light-speed Senate sham. They think we should have shredded due process and ignited a constitutional crisis in a footrace to outrun our loss of jurisdiction.

This selective disregard for rules and norms is a civic disease that is spreading through the political left. Senate Democrats relished the legislative filibuster and used it frequently when they were the minority party. Now only two of them pledge to respect it. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has threatened Supreme Court justices by name, and other Democrats submitted a brief demanding the court rule their way or be “restructured.” As recently as September, fewer than half of Democrats professed confidence that elections are free and fair. In November, that number shot up to more than 90%—because they liked the result.

The nation needs real constitutional champions, not fair-weather institutionalists. The Senate’s duty last week was clear. It wasn’t to guarantee a specific punishment at any cost. Our job was to defend the Constitution and respect its limits. That is what our acquittal delivered.

Mr. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, is U.S. Senate minority leader.

Appeared in the February 16, 2021, print edition.

wsj.com