638 People Charged In Capitol Insurrection So Far

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

Only to stop Trumpers in Texas. Not nationally.

As for strategy; their strategy is stonewall, admit nothing, deny everything and make false counter-accusations. So, yes, they have no effective strategy for Election 2022 except pray for a miracle and cheat in all the elections.

You appear to have plenty of work to do. Here's a fellow Texan working against you. And he doesn't limit his efforts to Texas:

Violent right wing pro-Trump extremist InfoWars host is among those charged with Capitol Violence:

"Jonathon Owen Shroyer

Age: 32
Arrested or charged on: Aug. 23, 2021
Home state: Texas

Charges

Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

What happened

This is the second time in less than two years that Shroyer has been charged with disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, and he is the second person working with Infowars, a right-wing website, to be charged in the Capitol riot cases. In December 2019, he was arrested for shouting during an impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee and charged with disorderly and disruptive conduct on Capitol grounds and obstructing and impeding passage on Capitol grounds. In charging documents, the FBI stated that as of Jan. 6, Shroyer had not completed the 32 hours of community service required by a deferred prosecution agreement he had signed in the previous case. Documents state he had also agreed in that case not to engage in any disorderly or disruptive conduct on Capitol grounds and not to utter any loud, threatening or abusive language or to disrupt any session of Congress.

On Jan. 6, he led a crowd chanting "1776" as they marched toward the Capitol, then was seen in videos standing next to the inauguration stage and at the top of the stairs on the Capitol's east side, the FBI reported in the documents. Shroyer was a speaker at a rally the day before, on Jan. 5, stating: "Americans are ready to fight. We’re not exactly sure what that’s going to look like perhaps in a couple of weeks if we can’t stop this certification of the fraudulent election . . . we are the new revolution! We are going to restore and we are going to save the republic"

 

[PoliTalker]

Convicted Riot Inciter charged with assaulting D.C. officer in connection with Jan. 6 attack at U.S. Capitol

"HASLETT – A machine operator and former star high school football player from Haslett has been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Logan James Barnhart, 40, of Lansing, was indicted on charges that include assaulting or impeding a police officer, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted area and engaging in physical violence in a restricted area.

He was arrested Tuesday and made his first court appearance in federal court in Grand Rapids, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. Also arrested Tuesday was Ronald Colton McAbee, of Unionville, Tennessee.

The two men were added to a case that already included five other people indicted in connection with the breach that took place at the Capitol while Congress was counting electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election. The second superseding Indictment also adds charges for three of the five men previously indicted.

Barnhart and three other defendants are charged with forcibly assaulting a D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officer with a baton, flag pole and crutch.

Barnhart also is charged with entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted area and engaging in physical violence in a restricted place, according to the indictment.

Barnhart was captured in an image showing a man in a hooded "CAT" sweatshirt holding onto a Metropolitan Police officer while the officer was being dragged down stairs outside a tunnel on the western side of the U.S. Capitol, the Huffington Post reported."

...

"Barnhart was a star running back at Haslett High School during the late 1990s and led the school's varsity football squad to the state finals in 1999.

Early that year, he was charged with inciting a riot in connection with a melee in East Lansing that caused about $145,000 in damages to the city and the Michigan State University campus, according to State Journal archives. Police said he helped tip over a car.

Barnhart pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly, a maximum five-year felony, and was sentenced to 45 days in jail, 2 years' probation and 100 hours of community service. He also was ordered to pay $5,500 in restitution and fees.

Barnhart was a target for the "Sedition Hunters" community, which nicknamed him "CatSweat" because he was wearing a sweatshirt bearing the name of construction equipment maker Caterpillar, HuffPost said."

 

[PoliTalker]

From the link above...

"Barnhart is charged with six counts, including disruptive conduct and engaging in physical violence.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office identified Barnhart as #128 and McAbee as #134 in its "seeking information" photos, the U.S. Attorney's Office said."

 

[PoliTalker]

These guys are in deep do-do.

 

[Flash]

I guess if one feels the cause is lost on trying to blame it on BLM or antifa the fall back position is to argue about whether it is legal to call it an insurrection.

Well, we know it's legal. 1st Amendment.

But does it meet the definition?

insurrection

n.
The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

n.
A rising up; uprising.

n.
The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.

[h=1]18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection[/h]Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

[Nordberg]

[h=1]18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection[/h]Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

that code covers Trump.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

[h=1]18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection[/h]Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

It's hard to fathom why Trump has not been charged with this when defendant after defendant in the January 6th insurrection has cited him as the reason they participated.

 

[Flash]

that code covers Trump.

Almost impossible to prove he "incited" the riot. Anything he said in the weeks before Jan 6 does not apply. Telling them to "fight" on Jan 6 cannot be proven he wants violence. It is difficult to prove he intended to cause it.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

It's hard to fathom why Trump has not been charged with this when defendant after defendant in the January 6th insurrection has cited him as the reason they participated.

Their motivation may be based on his accusations about the election and attempts to overturn it. That is a different issue than inciting their attack. It has to be immediately as a result of his words--not something that happened over time. I'm not sure they would have acted any differently than if he had not been present that day. Some of the rioters obviously planned certain activities in advance which means he was not the cause of their attack (although he may have "inspired" it).

If I attack wealthy people because I was inspired by PoliTalker's posts about the evil rich and inequality, that does not make you guilty of inciting violence even if you said "somebody should take all those people out."

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Their motivation may be based on his accusations about the election and attempts to overturn it. That is a different issue than inciting their attack. It has to be immediately as a result of his words--not something that happened over time. I'm not sure they would have acted any differently than if he had not been present that day. Some of the rioters obviously planned certain activities in advance which means he was not the cause of their attack (although he may have "inspired" it).

If I attack wealthy people because I was inspired by PoliTalker's posts about the evil rich and inequality, that does not make you guilty of inciting violence even if you said "somebody should take all those people out."

I don't see why it has to be immediate and not over time. If he caused it he caused it. Where in the law does it say anything about the cause and effect needing to be immediate?

They would not have even been in DC if Trump didn't call them to come to his rally. He planned it on the day of the counting of the electoral votes. He spoke to the crowd, he whipped them up into a frenzy, and then he pointed them and their anger at the capitol.

And why does it have to be either or?

Couldn't it be a combination of lies told over time, culminating in a day of heightened perceived political desperation?

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

I don't see why it has to be immediate and not over time. If he caused it he caused it. Where in the law does it say anything about the cause and effect needing to be immediate?

They would not have even been in DC if Trump didn't call them to come to his rally. He planned it on the day of the counting of the electoral votes. He spoke to the crowd, he whipped them up into a frenzy, and then he pointed them and their anger at the capitol.

And why does it have to be either or?

Couldn't it be a combination of lies told over time, culminating in a day of heightened perceived political desperation?

Because that is the way the law has always been interpreted. One's words must cause an emotional response that leads to imminent violence. If I tell you today I want you to attack the Capitol and you do it next week, my words did not whip you into an immediate frenzy that caused the attack.

Some of the riots following Vietnam War protests led to convictions for inciting a riot and most(?) were overturned because they could not prove the speaker intended violence to occur or that his words were the cause of the violence.

" In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court applied Brandenburg and said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to “imminent disorder.”

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Because that is the way the law has always been interpreted. One's words must cause an emotional response that leads to imminent violence. If I tell you today I want you to attack the Capitol and you do it next week, my words did not whip you into an immediate frenzy that caused the attack.

Some of the riots following Vietnam War protests led to convictions for inciting a riot and most(?) were overturned because they could not prove the speaker intended violence to occur or that his words were the cause of the violence.

" In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court applied Brandenburg and said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to “imminent disorder.”

Incitement of riot and incitement of insurrection are different laws.

Trump built the mindset over time. Then he raised it to the level of immediate needed action on the day.

Almost all of the defendants have cited Trump as the reason for their actions on that day.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

And still not a single one charged with insurrection...

Yeah, but now there are conspiracy charges...

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

And still not a single one charged with insurrection...

Yeah, but now there are conspiracy charges...

It's only been 10 months. The FBI, DCPD and all state LEOs are still looking for hundreds of the Insurrectionists and still investigating the thousands of crimes committed on before, during and after 1/6.

Clearly it was planned as seen by the equipment brought and the information some Insurrectionists had in finding their way around the Capitol.

Charges are filed based on the evidence. Look at Brian Laundrie. According to TA, he's innocent of murder because the only charge against him is debit card fraud. I disagree and think he'll eventually be charged with murder. TA will disagree...but probably only if Brian is a Trump voter. LOL

https://www.foxnews.com/us/brian-laundrie-update-parents-charges-gabby-petito-homicide
So far, Laundrie has been described as a person of interest in the Petito case but charged only with debit card fraud for allegedly using someone else’s bank card without permission and withdrawing more than $1,000.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

It's only been 10 months. The FBI, DCPD and all state LEOs are still looking for hundreds of the Insurrectionists and still investigating the thousands of crimes committed on before, during and after 1/6.

Clearly it was planned as seen by the equipment brought and the information some Insurrectionists had in finding their way around the Capitol.

Charges are filed based on the evidence. Look at Brian Laundrie. According to TA, he's innocent of murder because the only charge against him is debit card fraud. I disagree and think he'll eventually be charged with murder. TA will disagree...but probably only if Brian is a Trump voter. LOL

https://www.foxnews.com/us/brian-laundrie-update-parents-charges-gabby-petito-homicide
So far, Laundrie has been described as a person of interest in the Petito case but charged only with debit card fraud for allegedly using someone else’s bank card without permission and withdrawing more than $1,000.

I have not been following that sensational case because it really has no bearing on national politics.

Gimme a bit to bone up on it so I can render an opinion...

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

It's only been 10 months. The FBI, DCPD and all state LEOs are still looking for hundreds of the Insurrectionists and still investigating the thousands of crimes committed on before, during and after 1/6.

Clearly it was planned as seen by the equipment brought and the information some Insurrectionists had in finding their way around the Capitol.

Charges are filed based on the evidence. Look at Brian Laundrie. According to TA, he's innocent of murder because the only charge against him is debit card fraud. I disagree and think he'll eventually be charged with murder. TA will disagree...but probably only if Brian is a Trump voter. LOL

https://www.foxnews.com/us/brian-laundrie-update-parents-charges-gabby-petito-homicide
So far, Laundrie has been described as a person of interest in the Petito case but charged only with debit card fraud for allegedly using someone else’s bank card without permission and withdrawing more than $1,000.

There is not yet enough information to determine guilt, so speculation is just that at this point.

Yes, it sure looks like he did it. If I had to guess on what is currently known, then yeah, I would agree. But we don't have to reach any conclusions now.

I would be pretty surprised if we don't learn more in time.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,



I have not been following that sensational case because it really has no bearing on national politics.

Gimme a bit to bone up on it so I can render an opinion...

Nevertheless, the situation is similar: people judging a case still under investigation based solely on present charges being filed.

The Trump Dick Suckers have been screaming for months that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection because no insurrection charges have been filed. That logic is highly flawed as pointed out in the Laundrie case.

Also, by Trumper logic, OJ Simpson is innocent and the real killers are still out there.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It's only been 10 months. The FBI, DCPD and all state LEOs are still looking for hundreds of the Insurrectionists and still investigating the thousands of crimes committed on before, during and after 1/6.

Clearly it was planned as seen by the equipment brought and the information some Insurrectionists had in finding their way around the Capitol.

Charges are filed based on the evidence. Look at Brian Laundrie. According to TA, he's innocent of murder because the only charge against him is debit card fraud. I disagree and think he'll eventually be charged with murder. TA will disagree...but probably only if Brian is a Trump voter. LOL

https://www.foxnews.com/us/brian-laundrie-update-parents-charges-gabby-petito-homicide
So far, Laundrie has been described as a person of interest in the Petito case but charged only with debit card fraud for allegedly using someone else’s bank card without permission and withdrawing more than $1,000.

Apples to watermelons. The facts surrounding Jan 6 are well known. There's thousands of hours of video, a gazillion witnesses, and the persecution is hiding as much of it as they can--for a reason. It makes even the charges they've brought to date harder to justify in many cases.

As for conspiracy, that one is possibly the most insidious and onerous law on the books. If there is a danger to yours, mine, and everyone else's freedom in law its conspiracy law. It's enough to charge someone with that for just holding a casual conversation with someone else.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Apples to watermelons. The facts surrounding Jan 6 are well known. There's thousands of hours of video, a gazillion witnesses, and the persecution is hiding as much of it as they can--for a reason. It makes even the charges they've brought to date harder to justify in many cases.

As for conspiracy, that one is possibly the most insidious and onerous law on the books. If there is a danger to yours, mine, and everyone else's freedom in law its conspiracy law. It's enough to charge someone with that for just holding a casual conversation with someone else.

Sounds overly broad and unsupported.

Can you cite a case where that has happened?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Apples to watermelons.

Disagreed. Both cases are currently under investigation. Only a liar or an idiot would prejudge them.