Jan 6th Memo
Two South Carolina men were charged June 29 on allegations they participated in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol building.
George Amos Tenney III and Darrell Alan Youngers are accused of entering the U.S. Capitol building together after a violent mob overpowered Capitol police Jan. 6 and stormed the building, according to a federal criminal complaint.
However, surveillance footage showed the two men scuffling with Capitol police officers while attempting to open doors to the building’s east foyer during the riot, the complaint alleges.
Authorities say Tenney shoved one of the doors open before an officer pushed him aside. Tenney then grabbed the officer and had a “heated conversation,” during which Tenney allegedly said “You’re not going to stop us.”
As rioters began to stream through the rotunda, Tenney allegedly shouted: “Come on, Americans!”
Norwood, 37, was charged in March in connection to the riot.
Authorities say they have video of Tenney, Norwood and Youngers being interviewed by an acquaintance after the riot. All three men wore masks to hide their identity, but the person who filmed the interview was able to identify the men for law enforcement officers.
Tenney is also charged with interfering with a law enforcement officer during civil disorder and obstruction of justice.
Court records indicate Tenney was arrested June 29 and released on a $25,000 unsecured bond. He was also appointed a public defender.
Richard Barnett, the retired Arkansas fire fighter seen round the world in a Jan. 6 news photo with his foot on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s desk, could not have known a few days later when he surrendered to federal authorities that it would be nearly four long months before he would again see the outside world.
Given federal pre-trial detention law and precedent, as well as his explanation of his involvement in that day when hundreds of demonstrators angry about the outcome of the November 2020 presidential election entered the U.S. Capitol, Barnett could reasonably have expected, at worst, to be restricted to his home while awaiting trial.
And that was initially what Barnett received from federal Magistrate Judge Erin Weidemann of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas following his voluntary surrender on Jan. 8 to FBI agents.
But in an unusual move, U.S. attorneys successfully petitioned Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell to reverse Weidemann and jail Barnett in the District of Columbia, pending trial on seven charges that if convicted could result in fines against him of nearly $400,000 and put him in prison for more than a decade.
As a result, Barnett was kept locked up in a District of Columbia jail until late April. He is one of the more than 500 individuals arrested by federal authorities in connection with Jan. 6, many of whom remain in detention.
Barnett’s attorney, Joseph McBride, a veteran public defender from New York, finally succeeded in gaining his client’s release back to his Arkansas home in April. Barnett’s trial has not yet been scheduled to begin.
Among McBride’s multiple arguments in a 46-page April 5 motion for releasing Barnett back to his home, three stand out. First, even given the government’s charges, characterized by McBride as fallacious, Barnett’s case failed to satisfy the 1984 Bail Reform Act’s rigorous conditions under which a federal defendant could be kept in jail pending trial.
“The law is clear: Only in a very limited set of circumstances is pretrial detention acceptable. The courts, therefore, must act swiftly and decisively to overturn pretrial detention orders granted in circumstances, such as here, where the government has objectively failed to overcome the Bail Reform Act’s presumption against pretrial detention as a matter of law,” McBride told the court.
At first glance, Barnett is charged with what sound like serious felonies. The government describes him as a “Tier One domestic terrorist” and “a ticking time bomb.”
But on closer examination, McBride points out that the charges don’t match what Barnett actually did. The “dangerous weapon” he is accused of bringing into the U.S. Capitol, for example, was an inoperative stun gun/walking stick.
The federal property he is accused of stealing was a single, unopened envelope he took from Pelosi’s desk. It’s not clear if it was his blood or that of somebody else on the envelope, but he left a quarter on Pelosi desk for reimbursement and turned the unopened envelope over to the FBI.
He is charged with illegally entering the Capitol and Pelosi’s office, but Barnett claims he was swept into the building by the crowd and only entered the Speaker’s quarters in search of a bathroom. He says he was enticed into posing for the desk photo by a news photographer.
McBride’s second argument is that the government’s severe treatment of Barnett makes no sense when compared with other individuals charged with far more serious crimes such Elizabeth Duke, one of the participants in the 1983 bombing of a reception room adjoining the U.S. Senate by a radical communist terrorist outfit linked to at least 20 violent actions in the decade prior.
Fortunately, owing to the late hour, the 1983 explosion killed no one, but damage was extensive. Had the bomb been detonated just two hours earlier, dozens attending a reception would have been injured or killed.
“Despite being charged with multiple crimes related to domestic terrorism, including the possession of stolen explosives, possession of instruments of forgery, and falsified identification documents – Elizabeth Duke was released on bail,” McBride pointed out in the April motion.
The lenient terms of her bail, however, did not stop Duke from disappearing and she remains a fugitive from the law to this day. Curiously, then-Attorney General Eric Holder asked a federal magistrate in 2009 to quash Duke’s outstanding arrest warrant.
McBride’s third argument focuses on what he claims were numerous violations of his client’s constitutional rights.
By maintaining that Barnett’s turning off his cell phone’s location service while returning to Arkansas from Washington, D.C. indicated his intent to evade detection, for example, McBride argues that the government violated the Fourth Amendment’s bar against warrantless searches and thereby set a dangerous precedent.
“The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, amongst other things, secures the people’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against warrantless searches and seizures,” McBride tells the court.
“In the context of the Internet Age, the Fourth Amendment’s ambit, without question, encompasses a reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless tracking by the government or its agents. A person’s reasonable expectation of privacy is normally at its highest point when they are inside their home with the doors locked …
“A private cellular phone is analogous to the threshold of a home with a locked front door and the locked trunk of a car, in that the Fourth Amendment provides a reasonable expectation against warrantless searches of the phone itself and the movement of the person carrying it.”
With its damaging interpretation of Barnett’s action, McBride argues, “in essence, the government has created a rule where a negative inference can be inferred from a private citizen’s refusal to be tracked by the government or its agents.
“This rule is unconstitutional as it shifts the government’s burden of needing to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause, on to the citizen who must successfully rebut a negative inference or face pretrial detention.
“This is a dangerous leap on to a slope so slippery that if action is not taken, here now, our Fourth Amendment will be irreparably damaged to the extent where it is no longer recognizable.”
The Department of Justice did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment on these issues. In its response to McBride’s April motion for Barnett’s release back to his home, the government insists a motion filed with the court that he remains a dangerous threat to the community who should be kept locked up.
“The overwhelming weight of the evidence against the defendant likewise favors detention. The defendant is featured in high-quality photographs, surveillance footage, and body-worn camera footage in and around the Capitol, expressing his intent to obstruct the constitutional proceedings occurring there and his glee that he ‘took’ Nancy Pelosi’s office.
“The stun gun device is visible in multiple photos and videos spanning the defendant’s time in and around the U.S. Capitol, as well as in the surveillance video where he discharged it at his hotel bar the night before.
“Indeed, the fact that he purchased the device on December 31, 2020, indicates that he bought it precisely for his criminal activity in the District on January 6, 2021.”
Contact Congressional correspondent Mark Tapscott at firstname.lastname@example.org
The Stasi FBI tracked down, staked out and arrested a 69-year-old woman and Los Angeles County employee on Monday morning for walking into the US Capitol 5 months ago.
Lois Lynn McNicoll was charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.”
None of that is true. Lois McNicoll was neither “disorderly” nor “violent” during her walk around the US Capitol on January 6th with hundreds of other American patriots.
And as far as having the “lawful authority” to enter the US Capitol — The FBI slipped up and posted a photo of Lois walking through the door with a US Capitol police officer holding the door for her.
If she was so unwanted inside the US Capitol why were the police holding the doors for her and others?
And it doesn’t matter if this is inside or outside the Capitol Building.
Americans continue to be gaslighted by corrupt leaders.
Politico’s Ryan Reilly reported on the arrest without a hint of disgust.
The left condones this.
A Los Angeles County employee was arrested Monday in the city of Industry on federal charges alleging she was among the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
Lois Lynn McNicoll, 69, of San Clemente, a Department of Public Social Services employee, made her initial appearance in Los Angeles federal court following her arrest and was released on a $10,000 bond, according to FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller.
McNicoll is charged in federal court in the District of Columbia with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, according to a federal criminal complaint made public Monday.
Joe Biden calls it the worst attack since the Civil War. Attorney General Merrick Garland compares it to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The FBI is breaking down the doors of Iraq War veterans and small business owners who have no criminal records, and some are hauled off to rot in solitary confinement in a fetid D.C. jail, for their involvement in the alleged travesty.
The event, of course, is the roughly four-hour-long disturbance at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. As mostly nonviolent Americans dared to protest Congress’ certification of a clearly fraudulent presidential election in a place that once was considered “The People’s House,” lawmakers scurried for cover as reporters and photographers captured part of the ruckus on video and still shots to wield as political ammunition against Donald Trump and his supporters.
But have we seen a full and fair depiction of exactly what happened that day? The answer, as evidenced by an ongoing coverup by the U.S. Capitol Police and the Justice Department, clearly is no.
Almost all the January 6 video seen by the public isn’t from official government sources but by social media users and journalists on the scene. For example, the widely viewed footage of protestors occupying the Senate chamber was recorded by a New Yorker journalist.
But thousands of hours of real-time footage is in the hands of the Capitol Police—and that agency, along with government lawyers and federal judges, is using every legal trick possible to keep the trove hidden from the public even as clips are presented in court as evidence against hundreds of January 6 defendants.
According to an affidavit filed in March by Thomas DiBiase, the Capitol Police department’s general counsel, the building is monitored 24/7 by an “extensive system of cameras” positioned both inside and outside the building as well as near other congressional offices on the grounds.
The system captured more than 14,000 hours of footage between noon and 8 p.m. on January 6; the archive was made available to two Democratic-controlled congressional committees, the FBI, and the D.C. Metropolitan Police department. (After a request by Congress, the agency reportedly handed over footage from the entire 24-hour period.)
But Capitol Police argue that making all the tapes available to defense attorneys —let alone to the American public—could provoke future violence. “The Department has significant concerns with the release of any of its footage to defendants in the Capitol attack cases unless there are safeguards in place to prevent its copying and dissemination,” DiBiase wrote March 17. “Our concern is that providing unfettered access to hours of extremely sensitive information to defendants who already have shown a desire to interfere with the democratic process will . . . [be] passed on to those who might wish to attack the Capitol again.”
The Justice Department, in numerous cases, is seeking protective orders to rigorously limit how surveillance video is handled by defense attorneys. Recordings have been deemed “highly sensitive” government material subject to onerous rules; the accused only have access to the evidence in a supervised setting. Clips cannot be copied, downloaded, shared, or reproduced in any fashion.
“Defense counsel may not provide a copy of Highly Sensitive materials to Defendant or permit Defendant to view such materials unsupervised by defense counsel or an attorney, investigator, paralegal, or support staff person employed by defense counsel,” Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a protective order related to the conspiracy case against members of the Oath Keepers. “The parties agree that defense counsel or an attorney, investigator, paralegal, or support staff person employed by defense counsel, may supervise Defendant by allowing access to Highly Sensitive materials through a cloud-based delivery system that permits Defendant to view the materials but does not permit Defendant the ability to download.”
Fighting Back Against the Blackout
But defense attorneys and the media now are fighting the video blackout. During a detention hearing last month for the two men accused of spraying officer Brian Sicknick—both have been behind bars and denied bail since their arrests in March—defense lawyers objected to the government’s use of “cherry-picked” video they couldn’t see in its full context which, if examined, might contain exculpatory evidence.
Under pressure from a group of media outlets, the government finally released what it claims is the incriminating video showing the chemical spray “attack” against Sicknick. (It didn’t.) The choppy video included recordings from several surveillance cameras, a few D.C. police officers, and a bystander.
Journalists continue to be frustrated by the Justice Department’s suppression tactics. In a plea last week to Beryl Howell, chief judge of the D.C. District Court handling all the January 6 cases, 14 news organizations asked for better access to video evidence presented in court. (Virtual court proceedings further help prosecutors keep the clips under wraps.)
“[T]he press and public have not been able to access these videos on the Court’s electronic dockets,” lawyers representing CNN, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal and others wrote in a May 3 letter. “Delayed access to these historic records shuts the public out of an important part of the administration of justice.” The government, the lawyers told Howell, refuses to give a “substantive answer” as to why the video evidence isn’t publicly available and listed several cases where surveillance footage was played in court but not otherwise accessible.
The secret video archive of January 6 isn’t the only recording under scrutiny. It’s also unclear whether Capitol Police kept the footage from January 5. DiBiase said surveillance video is routinely deleted after 30 days; only a “very limited” number of clips from January 5 were given to the U.S. Attorney in D.C., the office handling the massive investigation.
It would be very convenient for the Capitol Police—no objective party in this saga since it launched the lie about Sicknick’s death—to purge footage from January 5 so defense attorneys and the public cannot see what sort of activity took place the day before the “insurrection.”
Even if legal loopholes allow for such an exemption, the greater public interest should supersede any technicalities. Major parts of the original narrative already have fallen apart, including the story that officer Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters and the myth it was an “armed insurrection”; the full account of what prompted the killing of Ashli Babbitt by an unidentified Capitol cop is still unknown.
Further, the Biden regime is weaponizing January 6 to hunt down and destroy the lives of people—many of whom committed no violent crimes—anywhere near the building that day. The Justice Department is promising to build sedition cases; Biden’s intelligence chiefs are operating outside their authorization in their effort to portray regular Americans as domestic terrorists.
A president was impeached for his alleged role. Republican lawmakers continue to face threats for objecting to the election results in swing states. And millions of Trump voters, by extension, are considered conspiracy theorists and wannabe “insurrectionists.”
There’s only one reason why the Justice Department wants to keep the footage under seal: it contradicts most if not all of the claims advanced by Democrats and the media over the past four months.
Julie Kelly is a political commentator and senior contributor to American Greatness. She is the author of Disloyal Opposition: How the NeverTrump Right Tried―And Failed―To Take Down the President. Her past work can be found at The Federalist and National Review. She also has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and Genetic Literacy Project. She is the co-host of ‘Happy Hour podcast with Julie and Liz.’ She is a graduate of Eastern Illinois University and lives in suburban Chicago with her husband and two daughters.
WATCH: Minute-by-minute: How Capitol chaos unfolded on Jan. 6
Copyright © 2021 KTRK-TV. All Rights Reserved.
Houston man is area’s 8th arrest tied to U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6
Jan 6 Arrest Database...
Apologies for the limited window view. At this time, this is the best we can do with this DOJ database. Tip: If you find a name of interest, click on the name and the entire record will be available for review.