Anti-Trump Republicans Threaten to Form a Third Party
The Mehdi Hasan Show
May 13, 2021
Alarmed by the GOP’s current path after the ouster of Liz Cheney for daring to speak out against Trump, more than 100 Republicans threatened to create a 3rd party in a push against GOP extremism. Former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele says GOP leadership needs to forget about Donald Trump and focus on unifying the party’s platform. Founder and executive director of Republican Women for Progress Meghan Milloy says this potential new party could provide an opportunity for people who feel like they’ve been forgotten by both Democrats and Republicans.
Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri May 14, 2021 6:07 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sat May 15, 2021 11:17 am
2 Trump Stories: Tells Sec Def "Protect My Supporters"; Will DeSantis Block Trump's NY Extradition?
by Glenn Kirschner
May 13, 2021
In two newly reported stories involving former President Donald Trump there are shades of future criminal charges. First, Trump's short-lived acting Secretary of Defense testifies to Congress that Trump told him to have the troops protect his supporters on January 6, rather than protect the people in the US Capitol. In a second story, Florida officials are planning for the eventuality that Donald Trump may be indicted by New York State District Attorney Cy Vance while Trump is in Florida, raising the prospect of Trump being extradited (removed) from Florida to face charges in New York. An unusual Florida law give staunch Trump supporter Governor Ron DeSantis some leeway to intervene in the extradition matter.
This video discusses what this all means.
****************************
Trump wanted troops to protect his supporters at Jan. 6 rally
Jan Wolfe
Reuters
May 12, 2021
5:19 PM PDT
President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.
Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president's fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.
According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.
Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."
Miller made the remarks during a contentious hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating security failures in the days leading to and during the riot.
Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Democrat who chairs the committee, demanded answers from Miller on why National Guard troops did not arrive until hours after the building was overrun.
Miller testified that the U.S. military was deliberately restrained that day when Trump's rally turned into an assault by hundreds of his followers that left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer.
Miller testified that he was concerned in the days before Jan. 6 that sending National Guard troops to Washington would fan fears of a military coup or that Trump advisers were advocating martial law.
by Glenn Kirschner
May 13, 2021
In two newly reported stories involving former President Donald Trump there are shades of future criminal charges. First, Trump's short-lived acting Secretary of Defense testifies to Congress that Trump told him to have the troops protect his supporters on January 6, rather than protect the people in the US Capitol. In a second story, Florida officials are planning for the eventuality that Donald Trump may be indicted by New York State District Attorney Cy Vance while Trump is in Florida, raising the prospect of Trump being extradited (removed) from Florida to face charges in New York. An unusual Florida law give staunch Trump supporter Governor Ron DeSantis some leeway to intervene in the extradition matter.
This video discusses what this all means.
****************************
Trump wanted troops to protect his supporters at Jan. 6 rally
Jan Wolfe
Reuters
May 12, 2021
5:19 PM PDT
President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.
Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president's fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.
According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.
Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."
Miller made the remarks during a contentious hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating security failures in the days leading to and during the riot.
Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Democrat who chairs the committee, demanded answers from Miller on why National Guard troops did not arrive until hours after the building was overrun.
Miller testified that the U.S. military was deliberately restrained that day when Trump's rally turned into an assault by hundreds of his followers that left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer.
Miller testified that he was concerned in the days before Jan. 6 that sending National Guard troops to Washington would fan fears of a military coup or that Trump advisers were advocating martial law.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Jun 01, 2021 3:21 am
New Oath Keepers Conspiracy Indictment Proves Republicans Wrong that there was "No Insurrection"
by Glenn Kirschner
May 31, 2021
The American people were taken aback when Representative Andrew Clyde boldly announced that "anyone calling what happened at the US Capitol on January 6 is "a bold-faced liar." He also told us that the folks in the Capital that day were behaving "in an orderly fashion" and acting like normal "tourists."
In a new conspiracy indictment the prosecutors reveal that the defendants who planed and executed the attack on the Capitol themselves called it "an insurrections. Rep. Clyde would issue a retraction to the American people, as it appears he is the one who offered bad-faced lies.
***********************
Republican loyal to Trump claims Capitol riot looked more like 'normal tourist visit'
The comments by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., during a House Oversight Committee marked the latest attempt by some Republicans to revise the narrative around the deadly Capitol riot.
by Adam Edelman and Garrett Haake
NBC News
May 12, 2021, 1:56 PM PDT
Police clash with supporters of President Donald Trump who breached security and entered the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.Mostafa Bassim / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images file
Multiple Republican members of Congress on Wednesday offered a false retelling of the devastating events that occurred during the Capitol riot, with one calling the entire event a “bold faced lie” that more closely resembled a “normal tourist visit” than a deadly attack.
During a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Jan. 6 riot, Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., said the House floor was not breached and that the supporters of former President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol behaved “in an orderly fashion.”
The comments by Clyde and others on Wednesday marked the latest attempt by some Republicans to revise the narrative of what occurred and came just hours after House GOP members voted to strip Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., of her leadership position after she repeatedly criticized Trump over his lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
“As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol, and on the House floor, who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 p.m. from the mob who tried to enter, I can tell you the House floor was never breached and it was not an insurrection. This is the truth,” Clyde claimed.
Police with guns drawn watch as protesters try to break into the House Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021.J. Scott Applewhite / AP file
Protesters enter the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021.Win McNamee / Getty Images file
While pro-Trump rioters came close to breaching the House floor they never did so. But they did make it onto the Senate floor.
“There was an undisciplined mob. There were some rioters, and some who committed acts of vandalism. But let me be clear, there was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection in my opinion, is a bold faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol, and walk through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures, you know,” he continued.
“If you didn't know that TV footage was a video from January the sixth, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit,” Clyde said.
Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., walks down the House steps after the last vote of the week in the Capitol on April 16, 2021.Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images file
Clyde’s account gravely contradicts the events of the day, which were captured on television and on smartphone videos from inside the Capitol.
More than 440 people have been charged so far with participating in the attack. Many have ties to right-wing extremist groups, the FBI has said. Five people died in events related to the attack.
Prosecutors have said some of the hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were prepared for battle, wearing helmets and tactical gear. Several were seen on video or in photos carrying baseball bats and other weapons. The riot left the halls of Congress with broken windows, vandalized walls and ransacked offices.
Meanwhile, other Republicans during the hearing Wednesday falsely painted the riot as an event that saw Trump supporters needlessly harassed by law enforcement authorities.
Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Brent Stirton / Getty Images file
Supporters of President Donald Trump protest inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Roberto Schmidt / AFP - Getty Images file
“It was Trump supporters who lost their lives that day, not Trump supporters who were taking the lives of others,” Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., said.
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., claimed that law enforcement officials were “harassing peaceful patriots.”
Democrats frequently hit back against those false claims.
“I find it hard to believe the revisionist history that’s being offered by my colleagues on the other side,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.
At another point during the hearing, former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller clashed with Democrats on the committee, who accused him of being “AWOL” during the riots.
“You were AWOL, Mr. Secretary,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said, prompting Miller to reply, “That’s completely inaccurate.”
Miller backtracked from comments he'd made earlier in the year — and that he'd included in the prepared text of his opening statement — concluding that Trump's remarks on Jan. 6 had encouraged the protesters to storm the Capitol.
In his prepared opening statement, Miller wrote “I personally believe his comments encouraged the protestors that day.“ Miller, however, ended up omitting that line when he spoke.
When Lynch asked Miller about the omission, Miller said he’d “reassessed” his earlier conclusion that Trump had encouraged the protesters.
“I think now I would say that is not the unitary factor at all," he added. “It seems clear there was an organized assault element in place that was going to assault regardless of what the president said."
Lynch accused Miller of changing his story, prompting Miller to say, “That’s ridiculous.”
“You’re ridiculous,” Lynch replied.
by Glenn Kirschner
May 31, 2021
The American people were taken aback when Representative Andrew Clyde boldly announced that "anyone calling what happened at the US Capitol on January 6 is "a bold-faced liar." He also told us that the folks in the Capital that day were behaving "in an orderly fashion" and acting like normal "tourists."
In a new conspiracy indictment the prosecutors reveal that the defendants who planed and executed the attack on the Capitol themselves called it "an insurrections. Rep. Clyde would issue a retraction to the American people, as it appears he is the one who offered bad-faced lies.
***********************
Republican loyal to Trump claims Capitol riot looked more like 'normal tourist visit'
The comments by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., during a House Oversight Committee marked the latest attempt by some Republicans to revise the narrative around the deadly Capitol riot.
by Adam Edelman and Garrett Haake
NBC News
May 12, 2021, 1:56 PM PDT
Police clash with supporters of President Donald Trump who breached security and entered the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.Mostafa Bassim / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images file
Multiple Republican members of Congress on Wednesday offered a false retelling of the devastating events that occurred during the Capitol riot, with one calling the entire event a “bold faced lie” that more closely resembled a “normal tourist visit” than a deadly attack.
During a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Jan. 6 riot, Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., said the House floor was not breached and that the supporters of former President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol behaved “in an orderly fashion.”
The comments by Clyde and others on Wednesday marked the latest attempt by some Republicans to revise the narrative of what occurred and came just hours after House GOP members voted to strip Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., of her leadership position after she repeatedly criticized Trump over his lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
“As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol, and on the House floor, who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 p.m. from the mob who tried to enter, I can tell you the House floor was never breached and it was not an insurrection. This is the truth,” Clyde claimed.
Police with guns drawn watch as protesters try to break into the House Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021.J. Scott Applewhite / AP file
Protesters enter the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021.Win McNamee / Getty Images file
While pro-Trump rioters came close to breaching the House floor they never did so. But they did make it onto the Senate floor.
“There was an undisciplined mob. There were some rioters, and some who committed acts of vandalism. But let me be clear, there was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection in my opinion, is a bold faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol, and walk through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures, you know,” he continued.
“If you didn't know that TV footage was a video from January the sixth, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit,” Clyde said.
Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., walks down the House steps after the last vote of the week in the Capitol on April 16, 2021.Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images file
Clyde’s account gravely contradicts the events of the day, which were captured on television and on smartphone videos from inside the Capitol.
More than 440 people have been charged so far with participating in the attack. Many have ties to right-wing extremist groups, the FBI has said. Five people died in events related to the attack.
Prosecutors have said some of the hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were prepared for battle, wearing helmets and tactical gear. Several were seen on video or in photos carrying baseball bats and other weapons. The riot left the halls of Congress with broken windows, vandalized walls and ransacked offices.
Meanwhile, other Republicans during the hearing Wednesday falsely painted the riot as an event that saw Trump supporters needlessly harassed by law enforcement authorities.
Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Brent Stirton / Getty Images file
Supporters of President Donald Trump protest inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Roberto Schmidt / AFP - Getty Images file
“It was Trump supporters who lost their lives that day, not Trump supporters who were taking the lives of others,” Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., said.
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., claimed that law enforcement officials were “harassing peaceful patriots.”
Democrats frequently hit back against those false claims.
“I find it hard to believe the revisionist history that’s being offered by my colleagues on the other side,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.
At another point during the hearing, former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller clashed with Democrats on the committee, who accused him of being “AWOL” during the riots.
“You were AWOL, Mr. Secretary,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said, prompting Miller to reply, “That’s completely inaccurate.”
Miller backtracked from comments he'd made earlier in the year — and that he'd included in the prepared text of his opening statement — concluding that Trump's remarks on Jan. 6 had encouraged the protesters to storm the Capitol.
In his prepared opening statement, Miller wrote “I personally believe his comments encouraged the protestors that day.“ Miller, however, ended up omitting that line when he spoke.
When Lynch asked Miller about the omission, Miller said he’d “reassessed” his earlier conclusion that Trump had encouraged the protesters.
“I think now I would say that is not the unitary factor at all," he added. “It seems clear there was an organized assault element in place that was going to assault regardless of what the president said."
105. At 1:25 p.m., PERSON ONE messaged the Leadership Signal Chat, "Pence is doing nothing. As I predicted." About 15 minutes later, he sent another message, stating, "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They've had enough."
-- Fourth Superseding Indictment: U.S.A. v. Thomas Caldwell, et al., Case No. 21-cr-28-APM, by Channing D. Phillips, Acting Attorney for the U.S. in and For the District of Columbia
Lynch accused Miller of changing his story, prompting Miller to say, “That’s ridiculous.”
“You’re ridiculous,” Lynch replied.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:39 am
Part 1 of 2
Fourth Superseding Indictment: U.S.A. v. Thomas Caldwell, et al.
Case No. 21-cr-28-APM
by Channing D. Phillips, Acting Attorney for the U.S. in and For the District of Columbia
May 30, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury Sworn in on January 8, 2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
THOMAS CALDWELL, (Counts 1,2,4,9)
DONOVAN CROWL, (Counts 1,2,3,4,6)
JESSICA WATKINS, (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
SANDRA PARKER, (Counts 1,2,3,4,6)
BENNIE PARKER, (Counts I, 2, 4)
GRAYDON YOUNG, (Counts 1,2,3,4,6, 10)
LAURA STEELE, (Counts 1,2,3,4)
KELLY MEGGS, (Counts 1,2,3,4, II)
CONNIE MEGGS, (Counts I, 2, 3, 4)
KENNETH HARRELSON, (Counts 1,2,3,4,12)
ROBERTO MINUTA, (Counts 1, 2,4)
JOSHUA JAMES, (Counts 1,2,4,7,8,13)
JOSEPH HACKETT, (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4)
JASON DOLAN, and (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4)
WILLIAM ISAACS, (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Defendants.
CRIMINAL NO. 21-cr-28-APM
VIOLATIONS:
18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy)
18 U.S.C. §§ ISI2(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting)
18 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2 (Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting)
18 U.S.C. § I752(a)(1) (Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds)
18 U.S.C. §§ 231 (a)(3), 2 (Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting)
19 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), 2 (Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers and Aiding and Abetting)
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) (Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
FOURTH SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges that, at all times material to this Indictment, on or about the dates and times stated below:
Introduction
The 2020 United States Presidential Election and the Official Proceeding on January 6, 2021
1. The 2020 United States Presidential Election occurred on November 3, 2020.
2. The United States Electoral College ("Electoral College") is a group required by the Constitution to form every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president, with each state appointing its own electors in a number equal to the size of that state's Congressional delegation.
3. On December 14, 2020, the presidential electors of the Electoral College met in the state capital of each state and in the District of Columbia and formalized the result of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election: Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Kamala D. Harris were declared to have won sufficient votes to be elected the next president and vice president of the United States.
4. On January 6, 2021, a Joint Session of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate (“the Joint Session”) convened in the United States Capitol (“the Capitol”) building. The purpose of the Joint Session was to open, count, and resolve any objections to the Electoral College vote of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, and to certify the results of the Electoral College vote (“Certification of the Electoral College vote”) as set out in the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 3 U.S.C. §§ 15-18.
The Attack at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021
5. The Capitol is secured 24 hours a day by United States Capitol Police (“Capitol Police”). The Capitol Police maintain permanent and temporary barriers to restrict access to the Capitol exterior, and only authorized individuals with appropriate identification are allowed inside the Capitol building.
6. On January 6, 2021, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the Joint Session convened in the Capitol building for the Certification of the Electoral College vote. Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his constitutional duty as President of the Senate, presided over the Joint Session.
7. A large crowd began to gather outside the Capitol perimeter as the Joint Session got underway. Crowd members eventually forced their way through, up, and over Capitol Police barricades and advanced to the building’s exterior façade. Capitol Police officers attempted to maintain order and stop the crowd from entering the Capitol building, to which the doors and windows were locked or otherwise secured. Nonetheless, shortly after 2:00 p.m., crowd members forced entry into the Capitol building by breaking windows, ramming open doors, and assaulting Capitol Police officers. Other crowd members encouraged and otherwise assisted the forced entry. The crowd was not lawfully authorized to enter or remain inside the Capitol, and no crowd member submitted to security screenings or weapons checks by Capitol Police or other security officials.
8. Shortly thereafter, at approximately 2:20 p.m., members of the House and Senate (including Vice President Pence)—who had withdrawn to separate chambers to resolve an objection—were evacuated from their respective chambers. The Joint Session was halted while Capitol Police and other law-enforcement officers worked to restore order and clear the Capitol of the unlawful occupants.
9. Later that night, law enforcement regained control of the Capitol. At approximately 8:00 p.m., the Joint Session reconvened, presided over by Vice President Pence, who had remained hidden within the Capitol building throughout these events.
10. In the course of these events, over 100 members of law enforcement were assaulted. The Capitol suffered millions of dollars in damage—including broken windows and doors, graffiti, and residue from pepper spray, tear gas, and fire extinguishers deployed both by crowd members who stormed the Capitol and by Capitol Police officers trying to restore order. Additionally, many media members were assaulted and had cameras and other news-gathering equipment destroyed.
The Oath Keepers Militia
11. Members and affiliates of an organization known as the Oath Keepers were among the individuals and groups who forcibly entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Oath Keepers are a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias. Some members of the Oath Keepers believe that the federal government has been coopted by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights. Though the Oath Keepers will accept anyone as members, they explicitly focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement, and first-responder personnel. The organization’s name alludes to the oath sworn by members of the military and police to defend the Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The Oath Keepers are led by PERSON ONE.
12. On January 4, 2021, PERSON ONE posted an article to the Oath Keepers website encouraging Oath Keeper members and affiliates to go to Washington, D.C., for the events of January 5-6, 2021, stating: “It is CRITICAL that all patriots who can be in DC get to DC to stand tall in support of President Trump’s fight to defeat the enemies foreign and domestic who are attempting a coup, through the massive vote fraud and related attacks on our Republic. We Oath Keepers are both honor-bound and eager to be there in strength to do our part.”
13. In his January 4 post, PERSON ONE also observed: “As we have done on all recent DC Ops, we will also have well armed and equipped QRF1 [quick reaction force] teams on standby, outside DC, in the event of a worst case scenario, where the President calls us up as part of the militia to to assist him inside DC. We don’t expect a need for him to call on us for that at this time, but we stand ready if he does (and we also stand ready to answer the call to serve as militia anytime in the future, and anywhere in our nation, if he does invoke the Insurrection Act).”
14. PERSON ONE named PERSON TEN to be the leader of his group’s operations in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021.
Conspirators
15. THOMAS CALDWELL was a 65-year-old resident of Berryville, Virginia.2 CALDWELL used the monikers “CAG,” “Spy,” and “CAG Spy.”
16. DONOVAN CROWL was a 50-year-old resident of Woodstock, Ohio.
17. JESSICA WATKINS was a 38-year-old resident of Woodstock, Ohio.
18. SANDRA PARKER was a 60-year-old resident of Morrow, Ohio, and the wife of BENNIE PARKER.
19. BENNIE PARKER was a 70-year-old resident of Morrow, Ohio, and the husband of SANDRA PARKER.
20. GRAYDON YOUNG was a 54-year-old resident of Englewood, Florida, and the brother of LAURA STEELE. YOUNG used the moniker “GenXPatriot.”
21. LAURA STEELE was a 52-year-old resident of Thomasville, North Carolina, and the sister of YOUNG.
22. KELLY MEGGS was a 52-year-old resident of Dunnellon, Florida, and the husband of CONNIE MEGGS. KELLY MEGGS used the moniker “Gator 1” or “OK Gator 1.”
23. CONNIE MEGGS was a 59-year-old resident of Dunnellon, Florida, and the wife of KELLY MEGGS.
24. KENNETH HARRELSON was a 40-year-old resident of Titusville, Florida. HARRELSON used the moniker “Gator 6.”
25. ROBERTO MINUTA was a 36-year-old resident of Prosper, Texas.
26. JOSHUA JAMES was a 33-year-old resident of Arab, Alabama. JAMES used the moniker “Hydro.”
27. [DELETE]
28. JOSEPH HACKETT was a 50-year-old resident of Sarasota, Florida. HACKETT used the moniker “Ahab.”
29. JASON DOLAN was a 44-year-old resident of Wellington, Florida. DOLAN used the moniker “Turmoil.”
30. WILLIAM ISAACS was a 21-year-old resident of Kissimmee, Florida.
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy—18 U.S.C. § 371)
31. The introductory allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though set forth herein.
The Conspiracy
32. From at least as early as November 3, 2020, through January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
THOMAS CALDWELL,
DONOVAN CROWL,
JESSICA WATKINS,
SANDRA PARKER,
BENNIE PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
LAURA STEELE,
KELLY MEGGS,
CONNIE MEGGS,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
ROBERTO MINUTA,
JOSHUA JAMES,
[DELETE]
JOSEPH HACKETT,
JASON DOLAN, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and others known and unknown, to commit an offense against the United States, namely, to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, the Certification of the Electoral College vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2).
Purpose of the Conspiracy
33. The purpose of the conspiracy was to stop, delay, and hinder the Certification of the Electoral College vote.
Manner and Means
34. CALDWELL, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, MINUTA, JAMES, [DELETE], HACKETT, DOLAN, and ISAACS, with others known and unknown, carried out the conspiracy through the following manner and means, among others, by:
a. Agreeing to participate in and planning an operation to interfere with the Certification of the Electoral College vote on January 6, 2021 (the “January 6 operation”);
b. Attending or scheduling trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics in advance of the January 6 operation;
c. Using websites, social media, text messaging, and messaging applications to recruit other individuals to travel to Washington, D.C., to support the January 6 operation;
d. Coordinating in advance with others, including members of the Oath Keepers from other regions, and joining forces with these individuals and groups to further the January 6 operation;
e. Traveling to Washington, D.C., for the January 6 operation;
f. Bringing and contributing paramilitary gear and supplies—including firearms, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment—for the January 6 operation;
g. Donning clothes with the Oath Keepers insignia for the January 6 operation;
h. Changing into paramilitary gear—including helmets—before participating in the January 6 operation;
i. Moving together in a military “stack” formation while utilizing hand signals to maintain communication and coordination while advancing toward the Capitol as part of the January 6 operation;
j. Forcibly storming past exterior barricades, Capitol Police, and other law enforcement officers, and entering the Capitol in executing the January 6 operation; and
k. Using secure and encrypted communications applications like Signal3 and Zello4 to develop plans and later communicate during the January 6 operation.
Overt Acts
Planning for January 6, 2021
35. At a GoToMeeting5 held on November 9, 2020, PERSON ONE told those attending the meeting, “We’re going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country. Because if you don’t guys, you’re going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war, and a bloody – you can call it an insurrection or you can call it a war or fight.” PERSON ONE called upon his followers to go to Washington, D.C., to let the President know “that the people are behind him.” PERSON ONE told his followers they needed to be prepared to fight Antifa, which he characterized as a group of individuals with whom “if the fight comes, let the fight come. Let Antifa – if they go kinetic on us, then we’ll go kinetic back on them. I’m willing to sacrifice myself for that. Let the fight start there. That will give President Trump what he needs, frankly. If things go kinetic, good. If they throw bombs at us and shoot us, great, because that brings the president his reason and rationale for dropping the Insurrection Act.” PERSON ONE continued, “I do want some Oath Keepers to stay on the outside, and to stay fully armed and prepared to go in armed, if they have to . . . . So our posture’s gonna be that we’re posted outside of DC, um, awaiting the President’s orders. . . . We hope he will give us the orders. We want him to declare an insurrection, and to call us up as the militia.” WATKINS, KELLY MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, PERSON THREE, PERSON TEN, and others known and unknown attended this GoToMeeting. After PERSON ONE finished speaking, WATKINS and KELLY MEGGS asked questions and made comments about what types of weapons were legal in the District of Columbia.
36. On November 9, 2020, WATKINS, the self-described “C.O. [Commanding Officer] of the Ohio State Regular Militia,” sent text messages to recruit a number of individuals who had expressed interest in joining the Ohio State Regular Militia. In these messages, WATKINS mentioned, among other things, that the militia had a week-long “Basic Training class coming up in the beginning of January,” and told one recruit, “I need you fighting fit by innaugeration.” In describing the program to PERSON TEN, WATKINS said, “It’s a military style basic, here in Ohio, with a Marine Drill Sergeant running it. An hour north of Columbus Ohio[.]”
37. On November 9, 2020, WATKINS asked a recruit if he could “download an App called Zello” and stated, “We all use Zello though for operations.”
38. On November 17, 2020, when a recruit asked WATKINS for her predictions for 2021, WATKINS replied, among other statements:
and:
39. On November 23, 2020, CALDWELL sent a text message to WATKINS stating:
40. On December 3, 2020, YOUNG emailed the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers a membership application and wrote, “looking to get involved in helping….”
41. On December 19, 2020, HACKETT sent an email to YOUNG with a subject line “test.” The body of the email stated: “I believe we only need to do this when important info is at hand like locations, identities, Ops planning.” The email had a photo attached; the photo showed cursive handwriting on a lined notepad that stated: “Secure Comms Test. Good talk tonight guys! Rally Point in Northern Port Charlotte at Grays if transportation is possible. All proton mails.7 May consider an RP8 that won’t burn anyone. Comms – work in progress. Messages in cursive to eliminate digital reads. Plans for recruitment and meetings.”
42. On December 19, 2020, YOUNG wrote to a Facebook group: “Please check out Oath Keepers as a means to get more involved. Recruiting is under way. DM me if you want more info.”
43. On December 22, 2020, YOUNG made plans to fly from Florida to North Carolina on January 4, 2021, with a return trip on January 8, 2021.
44. On December 22, 2020, KELLY MEGGS wrote a series of messages on Facebook to another individual that read in part:
a. “Trump said It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that’s what he’s saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your shit!!”
b. “Nice, we will have at least 50-100 OK9 there.”
45. On December 25, 2020, KELLY MEGGS wrote a message on Facebook that said in relevant part: “I was named State lead of Florida today.”
46. On December 25, 2020, KELLY MEGGS wrote a message on Facebook that said in relevant part: “We are all staying in DC near the Capitol we are at the Hilton garden inn but I think it’s full. Dc is no guns. So mace and gas masks, some batons. If you have armor that’s good.”
47. On December 26, 2020, YOUNG wrote an email to a Florida company that conducts training on firearms and combat. YOUNG wrote, in part, “I trained with you not long ago. Since then I have joined Oath Keepers. I recommended your training to the team. To that effect, four of us would like to train with you, specifically in your UTM10 rifle class.”
48. On December 26 and 27, 2020, WATKINS and BENNIE PARKER exchanged text messages relating to preparations for the trip to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021. BENNIE PARKER also texted WATKINS, “I may have to see what it takes to join your militia, ours is about gone.”
49. On December 29, 2020, WATKINS sent text messages to CROWL sharing her plans to go to Washington, D.C., for the events of January 6, 2021.
50. On December 29 and 30, 2020, WATKINS and BENNIE PARKER exchanged text messages in which they discussed Oath Keeper membership and meeting in advance to prepare for the trip to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021.
51. On December 30, 2020, CALDWELL wrote in a Facebook post: “THIS IS OUR CALL TO ACTION, FREINDS! SEE YOU ON THE 6TH IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ALONG WITH 2 MILLION OTHER LIKE-MINDED PATRIOTS.”
52. On December 30, 2020, WATKINS and CALDWELL exchanged the following text messages:
53. On December 31, 2020, CALDWELL replied to a Facebook comment, writing, “It begins for real Jan 5 and 6 on Washington D.C. when we mobilize in the streets. Let them try to certify some crud on capitol hill with a million or more patriots in the streets. This kettle is set to boil…”
54. On December 31, 2020, when invited to a “leadership only” conference call on Signal for the “DC op,” WATKINS said she would try to make it if her work obligations permitted.
55. At least as early as December 31, 2020, WATKINS, KELLY MEGGS, JAMES, MINUTA, PERSON ONE, PERSON THREE, PERSON TEN, and others known and unknown joined an invitation-only encrypted Signal group message titled “DC OP: Jan 6 21” (hereinafter the “Leadership Signal Chat”).
56. On December 31, 2020, KELLY MEGGS wrote a series of messages to another person on Facebook that said, “You guys Gonna carry?” and “Ok we aren’t either, we have a heavy QRF 10 Min out though.”
57. On December 31, 2020, another individual contacted JAMES via Signal and stated: “i have friends not far from DC with a lot of weapons and ammo if you get un trouble i ca. Coordinate help.” JAMES responded, “That might be helpful, but we have a shitload of QRF on standby with an arsenal.”
58. On December 31, 2020, KELLY MEGGS and JAMES attended a 4-participant GoToMeeting titled “SE leaders dc 1/6/21 op call.” KELLY MEGGS was the organizer of the meeting.
59. On December 31, 2020, KELLY MEGGS and HARRELSON attended a GoToMeeting titled “florida dc op planning chat.” HARRELSON was the organizer of the meeting, which had about 15 participants.
60. On December 31, 2020, JAMES messaged PERSON NINETEEN and asked, “Do we have a farm location for weapons?” PERSON NINETEEN responded, “Not that I am aware of yet. If nothing else, my hotel is in VA and has secured underground parking. About 15-20 minutes outside DC, less if you really don’t care about speed limits… would be great if we had someone with an enclosed truck type vehicle and had a quick response unit just outside the city.” JAMES replied, “I agree.”
61. On January 1, 2021, PERSON FOURTEEN messaged JAMES on Signal and asked, “Hey we told to bring guns and maybe stage them in VA?? But you are showing hotels in DC for Alabama. Are we bring guns or no if so how will that work?” JAMES responded, “Were working on a Farm location Some are bringing long rifles some sidearms… I’m bringing sidearm.”
62. On January 1, 2021, CALDWELL replied to a Facebook comment, writing, “I accept that assignment! I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I did the former, I have done the latter peacefully but they have morphed into pure evil even blatantly rigging an election and paying off the political caste. We must smite them now and drive them down.”
63. On January 1, 2021, CROWL sent CALDWELL a Facebook message stating, “Happy New year, to you Sir!! Guess I’ll be seeing you soon. Will probably call you tomorrow…mainly because…I like to know wtf plan is. You are the man Commander.”
64. On January 1, 2021, CALDWELL wrote to CROWL, “Check with Cap. I recommended the following hotel to her which STILL has rooms (unbelieveble).” CALDWELL then sent a link to the Comfort Inn Ballston, the same hotel that he recommended to others on January 1. CALDWELL continued, “[PERSON TWO] and I are setting up shop there. [PERSON THREE] has a room and is bringing someone. He will be the quick reaction force. Its going to be cold. We need a place to spend the night before minimum. [PERSON ONE] never contacted me so [PERSON TWO] and I are going our way. I will probably do pre-strike on the 5th though there are things going on that day. Maybe can do some night hunting. Oathkeeper friends from North Carolina are taking commercial buses up early in the morning on the 6th and back same night. [PERSON THREE] will have the goodies in case things go bad and we need to get heavy.”
65. On January 1, 2021, CROWL and WATKINS made plans to travel by car to Washington, D.C., to attend the events of January 5-6, 2021.
66. Beginning on January 1, and continuing into January 2, 2021, CALDWELL and CROWL exchanged messages about the hotel where they planned to stay in Arlington, Virginia, and CALDWELL told CROWL: “This is a good location and would allow us to hunt at night if we wanted to. I don’t know if [PERSON ONE] has even gotten out his call to arms but its a little friggin late. This is one we are doing on our own. We will link up with the north carolina crew.”
67. On January 2, 2021, PERSON FIFTEEN messaged JAMES on Signal and asked, “So, I guess I am taking full gear less weapons? Just reading through all the posts. Would rather have it and not need it.” JAMES responded, “Yeah full gear... QRF will have weapons Just leave em home.”
68. On the evening of January 2, 2021, at about 5:43 p.m., KELLY MEGGS posted a map of Washington, D.C., in the Leadership Signal Chat, along with the message, “1 if by land[,] North side of Lincoln Memorial[,] 2 if by sea[,] Corner of west basin and Ohio is a water transport landing !!” KELLY MEGGS continued, “QRF rally points[.] Water of the bridges get closed.”
69. On January 3, 2021, STEELE emailed the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers a membership application and wrote, “My brother, Graydon Young told me to submit my application this route to expedite the process.” Later in the day, STEELE emailed KELLY MEGGS and wrote, “My brother, Graydon Young told me to send the application to you so I can be verified for the Events this coming Tuesday and Wednesday.” The following day, STEELE sent an email to an Oath Keepers address, copying both YOUNG and KELLY MEGGS, attaching her Florida Oath Keepers membership application and vetting form, and writing, “I was just requested to send my documents to this email.”
Fourth Superseding Indictment: U.S.A. v. Thomas Caldwell, et al.
Case No. 21-cr-28-APM
by Channing D. Phillips, Acting Attorney for the U.S. in and For the District of Columbia
May 30, 2021
-- ‘A Total Failure’: The Proud Boys Now Mock Trump: Members of the far-right group, who were among Donald Trump’s staunchest fans, are calling him “weak” as more of them were charged for storming the U.S. Capitol, by Sheera Frenkel and Alan Feuer
-- Facebook's fight club: how the Proud Boys use the social media platform to vet their fighters: Want to join the far-right group the Proud Boys? Simply apply to your nearest regional vetting page on the world’s largest social network, Facebook, by Southern Poverty Law Center
-- Fight Club at 20: A vision of Trump’s United States: David Fincher’s film, starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, was eerily prescient, by Scott Tobias
-- New "Fight Club" Ready for Street Violence: A new fight club “fraternity” of young white, pro-Trump men is being formed, its organizers claim, to defend free-speech rights by “Alt-Right” leaders and engage in street fighting, by Bill Morlin
-- Proud Boys Call For Disguises, Violence At Biden Inauguration, by Michael Stone
-- Proud Boys leader ordered to stay away from D.C. after arrest, by Clare Hymes, Caroline Linton
-- Proud Boys Leader Secretly Cooperated With F.B.I. and Police: Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the far-right nationalist group, which is under increasing scrutiny for its role in the Capitol riot, helped to convict more than a dozen people, by Alan Feuer
-- This "Oath Keeper" Says She Met with Secret Service BEFORE The Capitol Riot, by Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury Sworn in on January 8, 2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
THOMAS CALDWELL, (Counts 1,2,4,9)
DONOVAN CROWL, (Counts 1,2,3,4,6)
JESSICA WATKINS, (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
SANDRA PARKER, (Counts 1,2,3,4,6)
BENNIE PARKER, (Counts I, 2, 4)
GRAYDON YOUNG, (Counts 1,2,3,4,6, 10)
LAURA STEELE, (Counts 1,2,3,4)
KELLY MEGGS, (Counts 1,2,3,4, II)
CONNIE MEGGS, (Counts I, 2, 3, 4)
KENNETH HARRELSON, (Counts 1,2,3,4,12)
ROBERTO MINUTA, (Counts 1, 2,4)
JOSHUA JAMES, (Counts 1,2,4,7,8,13)
JOSEPH HACKETT, (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4)
JASON DOLAN, and (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4)
WILLIAM ISAACS, (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Defendants.
CRIMINAL NO. 21-cr-28-APM
VIOLATIONS:
18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy)
18 U.S.C. §§ ISI2(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting)
18 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2 (Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting)
18 U.S.C. § I752(a)(1) (Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds)
18 U.S.C. §§ 231 (a)(3), 2 (Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting)
19 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), 2 (Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers and Aiding and Abetting)
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) (Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
FOURTH SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges that, at all times material to this Indictment, on or about the dates and times stated below:
Introduction
The 2020 United States Presidential Election and the Official Proceeding on January 6, 2021
1. The 2020 United States Presidential Election occurred on November 3, 2020.
2. The United States Electoral College ("Electoral College") is a group required by the Constitution to form every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president, with each state appointing its own electors in a number equal to the size of that state's Congressional delegation.
3. On December 14, 2020, the presidential electors of the Electoral College met in the state capital of each state and in the District of Columbia and formalized the result of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election: Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Kamala D. Harris were declared to have won sufficient votes to be elected the next president and vice president of the United States.
4. On January 6, 2021, a Joint Session of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate (“the Joint Session”) convened in the United States Capitol (“the Capitol”) building. The purpose of the Joint Session was to open, count, and resolve any objections to the Electoral College vote of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, and to certify the results of the Electoral College vote (“Certification of the Electoral College vote”) as set out in the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 3 U.S.C. §§ 15-18.
The Attack at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021
5. The Capitol is secured 24 hours a day by United States Capitol Police (“Capitol Police”). The Capitol Police maintain permanent and temporary barriers to restrict access to the Capitol exterior, and only authorized individuals with appropriate identification are allowed inside the Capitol building.
6. On January 6, 2021, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the Joint Session convened in the Capitol building for the Certification of the Electoral College vote. Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his constitutional duty as President of the Senate, presided over the Joint Session.
7. A large crowd began to gather outside the Capitol perimeter as the Joint Session got underway. Crowd members eventually forced their way through, up, and over Capitol Police barricades and advanced to the building’s exterior façade. Capitol Police officers attempted to maintain order and stop the crowd from entering the Capitol building, to which the doors and windows were locked or otherwise secured. Nonetheless, shortly after 2:00 p.m., crowd members forced entry into the Capitol building by breaking windows, ramming open doors, and assaulting Capitol Police officers. Other crowd members encouraged and otherwise assisted the forced entry. The crowd was not lawfully authorized to enter or remain inside the Capitol, and no crowd member submitted to security screenings or weapons checks by Capitol Police or other security officials.
8. Shortly thereafter, at approximately 2:20 p.m., members of the House and Senate (including Vice President Pence)—who had withdrawn to separate chambers to resolve an objection—were evacuated from their respective chambers. The Joint Session was halted while Capitol Police and other law-enforcement officers worked to restore order and clear the Capitol of the unlawful occupants.
9. Later that night, law enforcement regained control of the Capitol. At approximately 8:00 p.m., the Joint Session reconvened, presided over by Vice President Pence, who had remained hidden within the Capitol building throughout these events.
10. In the course of these events, over 100 members of law enforcement were assaulted. The Capitol suffered millions of dollars in damage—including broken windows and doors, graffiti, and residue from pepper spray, tear gas, and fire extinguishers deployed both by crowd members who stormed the Capitol and by Capitol Police officers trying to restore order. Additionally, many media members were assaulted and had cameras and other news-gathering equipment destroyed.
The Oath Keepers Militia
11. Members and affiliates of an organization known as the Oath Keepers were among the individuals and groups who forcibly entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Oath Keepers are a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias. Some members of the Oath Keepers believe that the federal government has been coopted by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights. Though the Oath Keepers will accept anyone as members, they explicitly focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement, and first-responder personnel. The organization’s name alludes to the oath sworn by members of the military and police to defend the Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The Oath Keepers are led by PERSON ONE.
12. On January 4, 2021, PERSON ONE posted an article to the Oath Keepers website encouraging Oath Keeper members and affiliates to go to Washington, D.C., for the events of January 5-6, 2021, stating: “It is CRITICAL that all patriots who can be in DC get to DC to stand tall in support of President Trump’s fight to defeat the enemies foreign and domestic who are attempting a coup, through the massive vote fraud and related attacks on our Republic. We Oath Keepers are both honor-bound and eager to be there in strength to do our part.”
13. In his January 4 post, PERSON ONE also observed: “As we have done on all recent DC Ops, we will also have well armed and equipped QRF1 [quick reaction force] teams on standby, outside DC, in the event of a worst case scenario, where the President calls us up as part of the militia to to assist him inside DC. We don’t expect a need for him to call on us for that at this time, but we stand ready if he does (and we also stand ready to answer the call to serve as militia anytime in the future, and anywhere in our nation, if he does invoke the Insurrection Act).”
An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.
APPROVED, March 3, 1807.
14. PERSON ONE named PERSON TEN to be the leader of his group’s operations in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021.
Conspirators
15. THOMAS CALDWELL was a 65-year-old resident of Berryville, Virginia.2 CALDWELL used the monikers “CAG,” “Spy,” and “CAG Spy.”
16. DONOVAN CROWL was a 50-year-old resident of Woodstock, Ohio.
17. JESSICA WATKINS was a 38-year-old resident of Woodstock, Ohio.
18. SANDRA PARKER was a 60-year-old resident of Morrow, Ohio, and the wife of BENNIE PARKER.
19. BENNIE PARKER was a 70-year-old resident of Morrow, Ohio, and the husband of SANDRA PARKER.
20. GRAYDON YOUNG was a 54-year-old resident of Englewood, Florida, and the brother of LAURA STEELE. YOUNG used the moniker “GenXPatriot.”
21. LAURA STEELE was a 52-year-old resident of Thomasville, North Carolina, and the sister of YOUNG.
22. KELLY MEGGS was a 52-year-old resident of Dunnellon, Florida, and the husband of CONNIE MEGGS. KELLY MEGGS used the moniker “Gator 1” or “OK Gator 1.”
23. CONNIE MEGGS was a 59-year-old resident of Dunnellon, Florida, and the wife of KELLY MEGGS.
24. KENNETH HARRELSON was a 40-year-old resident of Titusville, Florida. HARRELSON used the moniker “Gator 6.”
25. ROBERTO MINUTA was a 36-year-old resident of Prosper, Texas.
26. JOSHUA JAMES was a 33-year-old resident of Arab, Alabama. JAMES used the moniker “Hydro.”
27. [DELETE]
28. JOSEPH HACKETT was a 50-year-old resident of Sarasota, Florida. HACKETT used the moniker “Ahab.”
29. JASON DOLAN was a 44-year-old resident of Wellington, Florida. DOLAN used the moniker “Turmoil.”
30. WILLIAM ISAACS was a 21-year-old resident of Kissimmee, Florida.
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy—18 U.S.C. § 371)
31. The introductory allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though set forth herein.
The Conspiracy
32. From at least as early as November 3, 2020, through January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
THOMAS CALDWELL,
DONOVAN CROWL,
JESSICA WATKINS,
SANDRA PARKER,
BENNIE PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
LAURA STEELE,
KELLY MEGGS,
CONNIE MEGGS,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
ROBERTO MINUTA,
JOSHUA JAMES,
[DELETE]
JOSEPH HACKETT,
JASON DOLAN, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and others known and unknown, to commit an offense against the United States, namely, to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, the Certification of the Electoral College vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2).
Purpose of the Conspiracy
33. The purpose of the conspiracy was to stop, delay, and hinder the Certification of the Electoral College vote.
Manner and Means
34. CALDWELL, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, MINUTA, JAMES, [DELETE], HACKETT, DOLAN, and ISAACS, with others known and unknown, carried out the conspiracy through the following manner and means, among others, by:
a. Agreeing to participate in and planning an operation to interfere with the Certification of the Electoral College vote on January 6, 2021 (the “January 6 operation”);
b. Attending or scheduling trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics in advance of the January 6 operation;
c. Using websites, social media, text messaging, and messaging applications to recruit other individuals to travel to Washington, D.C., to support the January 6 operation;
d. Coordinating in advance with others, including members of the Oath Keepers from other regions, and joining forces with these individuals and groups to further the January 6 operation;
e. Traveling to Washington, D.C., for the January 6 operation;
f. Bringing and contributing paramilitary gear and supplies—including firearms, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment—for the January 6 operation;
g. Donning clothes with the Oath Keepers insignia for the January 6 operation;
h. Changing into paramilitary gear—including helmets—before participating in the January 6 operation;
i. Moving together in a military “stack” formation while utilizing hand signals to maintain communication and coordination while advancing toward the Capitol as part of the January 6 operation;
j. Forcibly storming past exterior barricades, Capitol Police, and other law enforcement officers, and entering the Capitol in executing the January 6 operation; and
k. Using secure and encrypted communications applications like Signal3 and Zello4 to develop plans and later communicate during the January 6 operation.
Overt Acts
Planning for January 6, 2021
35. At a GoToMeeting5 held on November 9, 2020, PERSON ONE told those attending the meeting, “We’re going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country. Because if you don’t guys, you’re going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war, and a bloody – you can call it an insurrection or you can call it a war or fight.” PERSON ONE called upon his followers to go to Washington, D.C., to let the President know “that the people are behind him.” PERSON ONE told his followers they needed to be prepared to fight Antifa, which he characterized as a group of individuals with whom “if the fight comes, let the fight come. Let Antifa – if they go kinetic on us, then we’ll go kinetic back on them. I’m willing to sacrifice myself for that. Let the fight start there. That will give President Trump what he needs, frankly. If things go kinetic, good. If they throw bombs at us and shoot us, great, because that brings the president his reason and rationale for dropping the Insurrection Act.” PERSON ONE continued, “I do want some Oath Keepers to stay on the outside, and to stay fully armed and prepared to go in armed, if they have to . . . . So our posture’s gonna be that we’re posted outside of DC, um, awaiting the President’s orders. . . . We hope he will give us the orders. We want him to declare an insurrection, and to call us up as the militia.” WATKINS, KELLY MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, PERSON THREE, PERSON TEN, and others known and unknown attended this GoToMeeting. After PERSON ONE finished speaking, WATKINS and KELLY MEGGS asked questions and made comments about what types of weapons were legal in the District of Columbia.
36. On November 9, 2020, WATKINS, the self-described “C.O. [Commanding Officer] of the Ohio State Regular Militia,” sent text messages to recruit a number of individuals who had expressed interest in joining the Ohio State Regular Militia. In these messages, WATKINS mentioned, among other things, that the militia had a week-long “Basic Training class coming up in the beginning of January,” and told one recruit, “I need you fighting fit by innaugeration.” In describing the program to PERSON TEN, WATKINS said, “It’s a military style basic, here in Ohio, with a Marine Drill Sergeant running it. An hour north of Columbus Ohio[.]”
37. On November 9, 2020, WATKINS asked a recruit if he could “download an App called Zello” and stated, “We all use Zello though for operations.”
38. On November 17, 2020, when a recruit asked WATKINS for her predictions for 2021, WATKINS replied, among other statements:
I can’t predict. I don’t underestimate the resolve of the Deep State. Biden may still yet be our President. If he is, our way of life as we know it is over. Our Republic would be over. Then it is our duty as Americans to fight, kill and die for our rights.
and:
[I]f Biden get the steal, none of us have a chance in my mind. We already have our neck in the noose. They just haven’t kicked the chair yet.
39. On November 23, 2020, CALDWELL sent a text message to WATKINS stating:
Hi, CAP! Wanted to tell you it was great to have you here in Virginia. Don’t know what [PERSON ONE] is cooking up but I am hearing rumblings of another Maga March 12 December.6 I don’t know what will happen but like you I am very worried about the future of our country. Once lawyers get involved all of us normal people get screwed. I believe we will have to get violent to stop this, especially the antifa maggots who are sure to come out en masse even if we get the Prez for 4 more years. Stay sharp and we will meet again. You are my kinda person and we may have to fight next time. I have my own gear, I like to be ON TIME and go where the enemy is, especially after dark. Keep the faith! Spy.
40. On December 3, 2020, YOUNG emailed the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers a membership application and wrote, “looking to get involved in helping….”
41. On December 19, 2020, HACKETT sent an email to YOUNG with a subject line “test.” The body of the email stated: “I believe we only need to do this when important info is at hand like locations, identities, Ops planning.” The email had a photo attached; the photo showed cursive handwriting on a lined notepad that stated: “Secure Comms Test. Good talk tonight guys! Rally Point in Northern Port Charlotte at Grays if transportation is possible. All proton mails.7 May consider an RP8 that won’t burn anyone. Comms – work in progress. Messages in cursive to eliminate digital reads. Plans for recruitment and meetings.”
42. On December 19, 2020, YOUNG wrote to a Facebook group: “Please check out Oath Keepers as a means to get more involved. Recruiting is under way. DM me if you want more info.”
43. On December 22, 2020, YOUNG made plans to fly from Florida to North Carolina on January 4, 2021, with a return trip on January 8, 2021.
44. On December 22, 2020, KELLY MEGGS wrote a series of messages on Facebook to another individual that read in part:
a. “Trump said It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that’s what he’s saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your shit!!”
b. “Nice, we will have at least 50-100 OK9 there.”
45. On December 25, 2020, KELLY MEGGS wrote a message on Facebook that said in relevant part: “I was named State lead of Florida today.”
46. On December 25, 2020, KELLY MEGGS wrote a message on Facebook that said in relevant part: “We are all staying in DC near the Capitol we are at the Hilton garden inn but I think it’s full. Dc is no guns. So mace and gas masks, some batons. If you have armor that’s good.”
47. On December 26, 2020, YOUNG wrote an email to a Florida company that conducts training on firearms and combat. YOUNG wrote, in part, “I trained with you not long ago. Since then I have joined Oath Keepers. I recommended your training to the team. To that effect, four of us would like to train with you, specifically in your UTM10 rifle class.”
48. On December 26 and 27, 2020, WATKINS and BENNIE PARKER exchanged text messages relating to preparations for the trip to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021. BENNIE PARKER also texted WATKINS, “I may have to see what it takes to join your militia, ours is about gone.”
49. On December 29, 2020, WATKINS sent text messages to CROWL sharing her plans to go to Washington, D.C., for the events of January 6, 2021.
50. On December 29 and 30, 2020, WATKINS and BENNIE PARKER exchanged text messages in which they discussed Oath Keeper membership and meeting in advance to prepare for the trip to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021.
51. On December 30, 2020, CALDWELL wrote in a Facebook post: “THIS IS OUR CALL TO ACTION, FREINDS! SEE YOU ON THE 6TH IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ALONG WITH 2 MILLION OTHER LIKE-MINDED PATRIOTS.”
52. On December 30, 2020, WATKINS and CALDWELL exchanged the following text messages:
WATKINS: Looks like we are greenlight to come to DC on the 6th. The Rally Point still at your place?
CALDWELL: Not that I am aware. Have been contacted by NO ONE. Typical [PERSON ONE]. Here’s the rub: [PERSON TWO] and I will be in a hotel within striking distance of the city starting on the 4th so we won’t even BE here. There will be some stuff going on during the 5th and we want to be a part of that whenever it shakes out. Also we want to be in D.C. very early on the 6th, hence closer/virtually no commute time.
WATKINS: We planned on arriving on the 5th. We want to be in DC by 9am on the 6th. I will reach out to [PERSON THREE], and see if NC boys are coming. If [PERSON ONE] isn’t making plans, I’ll take charge myself, and get the ball rolling. I think the Metro is smarter than convoy/parking issues. Do you want us to stage ourselves vehicles elsewhere, seeing how you’re going to be gone? We can go to a KOA Campground or something...
CALDWELL (about two hours later): Talked to [PERSON THREE]. At least one full bus 40+ people coming from N.C. Another group (unclear if Mississippi guys) also a bus. Busses have their own lane on the 14th street bridge so they will be able to get in and out. [PERSON THREE] is driving plus 1 and arriving nite before. As we speak he is trying to book a room at Comfort Inn Ballston/Arlington because of its close-in location and easy access to downtown because he feels 1) he’s too broken down to be on the ground all day and 2) he is committed to being the quick reaction force anf bringing the tools if something goes to hell. That way the boys don’t have to try to schlep weps on the bus. He’ll bring them in his truck day before. Just got a text from him he WAS able to book a room in that hotel I recommended which is on Glebe Road in Arlington. However it goes it will be great to see you again! I sure hope your arm is getting better!
53. On December 31, 2020, CALDWELL replied to a Facebook comment, writing, “It begins for real Jan 5 and 6 on Washington D.C. when we mobilize in the streets. Let them try to certify some crud on capitol hill with a million or more patriots in the streets. This kettle is set to boil…”
54. On December 31, 2020, when invited to a “leadership only” conference call on Signal for the “DC op,” WATKINS said she would try to make it if her work obligations permitted.
55. At least as early as December 31, 2020, WATKINS, KELLY MEGGS, JAMES, MINUTA, PERSON ONE, PERSON THREE, PERSON TEN, and others known and unknown joined an invitation-only encrypted Signal group message titled “DC OP: Jan 6 21” (hereinafter the “Leadership Signal Chat”).
56. On December 31, 2020, KELLY MEGGS wrote a series of messages to another person on Facebook that said, “You guys Gonna carry?” and “Ok we aren’t either, we have a heavy QRF 10 Min out though.”
57. On December 31, 2020, another individual contacted JAMES via Signal and stated: “i have friends not far from DC with a lot of weapons and ammo if you get un trouble i ca. Coordinate help.” JAMES responded, “That might be helpful, but we have a shitload of QRF on standby with an arsenal.”
58. On December 31, 2020, KELLY MEGGS and JAMES attended a 4-participant GoToMeeting titled “SE leaders dc 1/6/21 op call.” KELLY MEGGS was the organizer of the meeting.
59. On December 31, 2020, KELLY MEGGS and HARRELSON attended a GoToMeeting titled “florida dc op planning chat.” HARRELSON was the organizer of the meeting, which had about 15 participants.
60. On December 31, 2020, JAMES messaged PERSON NINETEEN and asked, “Do we have a farm location for weapons?” PERSON NINETEEN responded, “Not that I am aware of yet. If nothing else, my hotel is in VA and has secured underground parking. About 15-20 minutes outside DC, less if you really don’t care about speed limits… would be great if we had someone with an enclosed truck type vehicle and had a quick response unit just outside the city.” JAMES replied, “I agree.”
61. On January 1, 2021, PERSON FOURTEEN messaged JAMES on Signal and asked, “Hey we told to bring guns and maybe stage them in VA?? But you are showing hotels in DC for Alabama. Are we bring guns or no if so how will that work?” JAMES responded, “Were working on a Farm location Some are bringing long rifles some sidearms… I’m bringing sidearm.”
62. On January 1, 2021, CALDWELL replied to a Facebook comment, writing, “I accept that assignment! I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I did the former, I have done the latter peacefully but they have morphed into pure evil even blatantly rigging an election and paying off the political caste. We must smite them now and drive them down.”
63. On January 1, 2021, CROWL sent CALDWELL a Facebook message stating, “Happy New year, to you Sir!! Guess I’ll be seeing you soon. Will probably call you tomorrow…mainly because…I like to know wtf plan is. You are the man Commander.”
64. On January 1, 2021, CALDWELL wrote to CROWL, “Check with Cap. I recommended the following hotel to her which STILL has rooms (unbelieveble).” CALDWELL then sent a link to the Comfort Inn Ballston, the same hotel that he recommended to others on January 1. CALDWELL continued, “[PERSON TWO] and I are setting up shop there. [PERSON THREE] has a room and is bringing someone. He will be the quick reaction force. Its going to be cold. We need a place to spend the night before minimum. [PERSON ONE] never contacted me so [PERSON TWO] and I are going our way. I will probably do pre-strike on the 5th though there are things going on that day. Maybe can do some night hunting. Oathkeeper friends from North Carolina are taking commercial buses up early in the morning on the 6th and back same night. [PERSON THREE] will have the goodies in case things go bad and we need to get heavy.”
65. On January 1, 2021, CROWL and WATKINS made plans to travel by car to Washington, D.C., to attend the events of January 5-6, 2021.
66. Beginning on January 1, and continuing into January 2, 2021, CALDWELL and CROWL exchanged messages about the hotel where they planned to stay in Arlington, Virginia, and CALDWELL told CROWL: “This is a good location and would allow us to hunt at night if we wanted to. I don’t know if [PERSON ONE] has even gotten out his call to arms but its a little friggin late. This is one we are doing on our own. We will link up with the north carolina crew.”
67. On January 2, 2021, PERSON FIFTEEN messaged JAMES on Signal and asked, “So, I guess I am taking full gear less weapons? Just reading through all the posts. Would rather have it and not need it.” JAMES responded, “Yeah full gear... QRF will have weapons Just leave em home.”
68. On the evening of January 2, 2021, at about 5:43 p.m., KELLY MEGGS posted a map of Washington, D.C., in the Leadership Signal Chat, along with the message, “1 if by land[,] North side of Lincoln Memorial[,] 2 if by sea[,] Corner of west basin and Ohio is a water transport landing !!” KELLY MEGGS continued, “QRF rally points[.] Water of the bridges get closed.”
69. On January 3, 2021, STEELE emailed the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers a membership application and wrote, “My brother, Graydon Young told me to submit my application this route to expedite the process.” Later in the day, STEELE emailed KELLY MEGGS and wrote, “My brother, Graydon Young told me to send the application to you so I can be verified for the Events this coming Tuesday and Wednesday.” The following day, STEELE sent an email to an Oath Keepers address, copying both YOUNG and KELLY MEGGS, attaching her Florida Oath Keepers membership application and vetting form, and writing, “I was just requested to send my documents to this email.”
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:06 am
Part 2 of 2
70. On January 3, 2021, WATKINS sent CROWL a Facebook message stating, “Running a bit behind. I’ll txt when I’m back at the bar. Getting supplies for DC.”
71. On January 3, 2021, WATKINS and BENNIE PARKER discussed the uniforms, gear, and weapons they would wear and bring on January 6, 2021:
72. On January 3, 2021, KELLY MEGGS and HARRELSON served as two of the three “organizers” of an 18-participant GoToMeeting titled “dc planning call.”
73. At least as early as January 3, 2021, WATKINS, KELLY MEGGS, YOUNG, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, ISAACS, and others known and unknown joined an invitation-only encrypted Signal group message titled “OK FL DC OP Jan 6” (hereinafter the “Florida Signal Chat”).
74. On January 3, 2021, KELLY MEGGS added HARRELSON to the Leadership Signal Chat, and wrote that HARRELSON would serve as the “Ground Team lead in Florida.”
75. On January 4, 2021, CALDWELL emailed PERSON THREE several maps along with the message, “These maps walk you from the hotel into D.C. and east toward the target area on multiple roads running west to east including M street and P street, two of my favorites . . . .”
76. [DELETE (6 LINES)]
77. [DELETE (3 LINES)]
Travel to Washington, D.C., for the January 6 Operation
78. On January 4, 2021, KELLY MEGGS wrote in the Florida Signal Chat, “Rally 3 pm if possible and need location DM but only those who will caravan.”
79. On January 4, 2021, HARRELSON and DOLAN departed Florida together in a vehicle rented by DOLAN and traveled to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
80. On January 4, 2021, YOUNG took a flight from Sarasota, Florida, to Greensboro, North Carolina.
81. On January 4, 2021, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, and BENNIE PARKER departed Ohio together and traveled to Northern Virginia, where they spent the night.
82. On January 4, 2021, PERSON TEN checked into the Hilton Garden Inn in Vienna, Virginia. The room was reserved and paid for using a credit card in PERSON ONE’s name.
83. On January 4, 2021, WATKINS wrote in the Florida Signal Chat, “Where can we drop off weapons to the QRF team? I’d like to have the weapons secured prior to the Op tomorrow.”
84. On the morning of January 5, 2021, HARRELSON asked in the Florida Signal Chat for the location of the “QRF hotel,” and KELLY MEGGS responded by asking for a direct message.
85. On January 5, 2021, PERSON ONE and MINUTA separately traveled to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and checked into the Hilton Garden Inn in Vienna, Virginia.
86. On January 5, 2021, YOUNG and STEELE departed North Carolina with others known and unknown and traveled to the Washington D.C., metropolitan area and checked into the Holiday Inn in Springfield, Virginia.
87. CALDWELL paid for a room for two people at the Comfort Inn Ballston from January 5-7, 2021.
88. WATKINS paid for a room for two people at the Comfort Inn Ballston—the hotel recommended by CALDWELL—from January 5-7, 2021, and reserved it under the name “Jessica Wagkins.”
89. SANDRA PARKER paid for a room for two people at the Comfort Inn Ballston from January 5-7, 2021.
90. KELLY MEGGS paid for two rooms, each for two people, at the Comfort Inn Ballston from January 5-6, 2021. The rooms were reserved under the name of PERSON THREE.
91. KELLY MEGGS also booked two rooms at the Hilton Garden Inn in Washington, D.C., from January 5-7, 2021. KELLY MEGGS paid for both of the rooms, using two different credit cards.
92. YOUNG paid for a room for two people at the Holiday Inn in Springfield, Virginia, from January 5-6, 2021.
93. HACKETT paid for a room at the Hilton Garden Inn in Washington, D.C., from January 5-7, 2021. The room was booked in the name of PERSON SIXTEEN.
94. DOLAN booked and paid for a room at the Hilton Garden Inn in Washington, D.C., from January 5-7, 2021.
95. MINUTA, using his personal email address and his personal home address, reserved three rooms at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., under the names of MINUTA, JAMES, and PERSON TWENTY. A debit card associated with PERSON FIFTEEN was used to pay for the room reserved under MINUTA’s name. A credit card associated with JAMES was used to pay for the room reserved under JAMES’s name.
96. [DELETE (1-1/2 LINES)]
The January 6 Operation
97. On the morning of January 6, 2021, YOUNG and STEELE traveled together from Springfield, Virginia, to Washington, D.C.
98. On the morning of January 6, 2021, CROWL, WATKINS, CALDWELL, SANDRA PARKER, and BENNIE PARKER, traveled from Arlington, Virginia, to Washington, D.C.
99. [DELETE (4 LINES)]
100. At 11:21 a.m., PERSON ONE placed a phone call to KELLY MEGGS, which lasted 51 seconds.
101. At or around this time, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, and HACKETT prepared themselves for battle before heading to the Capitol by equipping themselves with communication devices and donning reinforced vests, helmets, and goggles.
102. [DELETE (5 LINES)
103. At 12:58 p.m., MINUTA placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 11 seconds.
104. At 1:02 p.m., PERSON ONE placed a phone call to MINUTA, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 48 seconds.
105. At 1:25 p.m., PERSON ONE messaged the Leadership Signal Chat, "Pence is doing nothing. As I predicted." About 15 minutes later, he sent another message, stating, "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They've had enough."
106. At 1:48 p.m., PERSON ONE sent a message to the Leadership Signal Chat informing the group that he was on his way to the Capitol.
107. At 1:50 p.m., WATKINS transmitted a communication over Zello12 stating, "We have a good group. We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking together and sticking to the plan."
108. At 1:52 p.m., HARRELSON and DOLAN unlawfully entered the restricted Capitol grounds.
109. At 1:59 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to JAMES, which lasted approximately 30 seconds.
110. At 2:00 p.m., JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 12 seconds.
111. At 2:00 p.m., WATKINS stated on the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello channel, “Y’all, we’re one block away from the Capitol right now. I’m probably gonna go silent when we get there, because I’m gonna be a little busy.”
112. At 2:01 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 41 seconds.
113. At 2:03 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to JAMES, which lasted approximately 39 seconds. About 1 minute later, JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 3 minutes and 36 seconds.
114. At 2:03 p.m., the administrator of the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello channel directed the group, “You are executing citizen’s arrest. Arrest this assembly, we have probable cause for acts of treason, election fraud . . . .”
115. At 2:06 p.m., PERSON ONE sent another message to the Leadership Signal Chat asking for PERSON TEN’s location before stating, “I’m trying to get to you.”
116. At 2:06 p.m., CALDWELL sent WATKINS a text message stating: “Where are you? Pence has punked out. We are screwed. Teargassing peaceful protesters at capital steps. Getting rowdy here... I am here at the dry fountain to the left of the Capitol[.]”
117. At 2:07 p.m., JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 30 seconds, followed by an approximately 55-second phone call at 2:10 p.m.
118. At 2:13 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to JAMES, which lasted approximately 43 seconds.
119. At 2:14 p.m., PERSON TEN wrote to the Leadership Signal Chat, “The have taken ground at the capital[.] We need to regroup any members who are not on mission.”
120. At 2:15 p.m., PERSON ONE placed a phone call to KELLY MEGGS, which lasted approximately 15 seconds.
121. At 2:16 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to JAMES, which lasted approximately 42 seconds.
122. At 2:21 p.m., HARRELSON and DOLAN joined the crowd on the central east steps of the Capitol.
123. At 2:24 p.m., KELLY MEGGS placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 2 seconds.
124. At 2:25 p.m., PERSON ONE forwarded PERSON TEN’s message (“The have taken ground at the capital[.] We need to regroup any members who are not on mission.”) to the Leadership Signal Chat and instructed: “Come to South Side of Capitol on steps” and then sent a photograph showing the southeast side of the Capitol.
125. At 2:28 p.m., CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HACKETT, and ISAACS unlawfully entered the restricted Capitol grounds.
126. At 2:31 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 5 minutes and 25 seconds.
127. At 2:32 p.m., KELLY MEGGS placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 37 seconds.
128. [DELETE (6 LINES)]
129. [DELETE (3 LINES)]
130. At 2:33 p.m., JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 49 seconds.
131. [DELETE (3 LINES)]
132. At 2:35 p.m., CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HACKETT, and ISAACS joined together with others known and unknown to form a column or stack of individuals wearing Oath Keepers clothing, patches, insignia, and battle gear (the “Stack”). Together, the Stack maneuvered in an organized fashion up the steps on the east side of the Capitol—each member keeping at least one hand on the shoulder of the other in front of them.
133. Towards the top of the steps, HARRELSON and DOLAN joined with the Stack.
134. At the top of the steps, the Stack joined and then pushed forward alongside a mob that aggressively advanced towards the Columbus Doors at the central east entrance to the Capitol, assaulted the officers guarding the doors, threw objects and sprayed chemicals towards the officers and the doors, and pulled violently on the doors.
135. At 2:39 p.m., ISAACS joined the crowd in forcibly pushing against one of the Columbus Doors and the law enforcement officers guarding that door. Shortly thereafter, the Capitol doors were breached by the mob, and ISAACS entered the building.
136. Shortly after the mob breached the doors, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, and the others in the Stack forcibly entered the Capitol.
137. As they entered the Capitol, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, and the others in the Stack joined the larger mob in pushing past at least one law enforcement officer who was trying to stop them from breaching the Capitol building.
138. After they penetrated the Capitol building, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, ISAACS, and the others in the Stack collectively moved into an area inside the building known as the Capitol Rotunda.
139. As they navigated through the Capitol Rotunda, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, ISAACS, and the others in the Stack continued to communicate with one another by keeping their hands on each other’s backs.
140. At 2:44 p.m., WATKINS stated on the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello channel, “We are in the mezzanine. We are in the main dome right now. We are rocking it. They are throwing grenades, they are fricking shooting people with paint balls. But we are in here.”
141. An individual who had participated in at least one prior Oath Keeper operation with WATKINS responded, “Get it, Jess. Do your fucking thing. This is what we fucking [unintelligible] up for. Everything we fucking trained for.”
142. Shortly thereafter, WATKINS, CROWL, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, and ISAACS exited the Rotunda through the northbound hallway and attempted to enter the Senate wing of Congress.
143. ISAACS yelled “the fight’s not over” and waved rioters down the hallways towards the Senate.
144. At 2:45 p.m. and afterward, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, and ISAACS joined the mob in pushing against a line of riot police officers guarding the hallway connecting the Rotunda to the Senate, as WATKINS commanded those around her to “push, push, push,” and to, “get in there, get in there,” while noting, “they [the officers] can’t hold us.”
145. When officers responded by deploying a chemical spray, the mob—including CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, and ISAACS—retreated.
146. CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, and ISAACS regrouped in the Rotunda.
147. At 2:45 p.m., KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, and DOLAN walked southbound out of the Rotunda and towards the House of Representatives.
148. Meanwhile, CALDWELL, who was positioned on the west side of the Capitol, joined with PERSON TWO and others known and unknown in storming past barricades and climbing stairs up to a balcony on the west side of the Capitol building.
149. At 2:48 p.m., CALDWELL sent a message on Facebook, writing, “We are surging forward. Doors breached[.]”
150. At 2:54 p.m., HACKETT exited the Capitol.
151. At 2:57 p.m., HARRELSON and DOLAN exited the Capitol.
152. At 2:59 p.m., KELLY MEGGS and CONNIE MEGGS exited the Capitol.
153. At 3:05 p.m., CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, and STEELE helped ISAACS out of the Capitol.
154. [DELETE (4 LINES)]
155. While entering the Capitol building, MINUTA and JAMES pushed past Capitol Police officers who placed their hands on MINUTA and JAMES in an unsuccessful attempt to stop them from advancing toward the Capitol Rotunda.
156. At 3:17 p.m., when MINUTA and JAMES reached the entrance to the Capitol Rotunda, they joined with others in the crowd in a confrontation with a line of law enforcement officers that had formed a barrier between the lobby and the Capitol Rotunda. JAMES yanked and pushed several of the riot officers out of the way. While engaging in this conduct, JAMES repeatedly yelled, “Get out of my Capitol!” and “This is my fucking building! This is not yours! This is my Capitol!”
157. As he stood behind JAMES while recording the events with a camera, MINUTA yelled, “This is what’s bound to happen, just get out! Get out! Get these cops out! It’s our fucking building! Get ‘em out, get out!”
158. JAMES briefly breached the Rotunda but was expelled by at least one officer who aimed chemical spray directly at JAMES, and multiple officers who pushed him out from behind.
159. At 3:19 p.m., while exiting the Capitol building through the same east side Rotunda door from which he entered, MINUTA held up two fingers and yelled at a law enforcement officer, among other things, “All that’s left is the Second Amendment!”
160. At 3:22 p.m., JAMES exited the Capitol through the east side Rotunda door from which he entered.
161. [DELETE (2 LINES)]
162. At 3:40 p.m., JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 3 minutes and 4 seconds.
163. At 4:04 p.m., MINUTA placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 42 seconds.
164. At 4:05 p.m., PERSON ONE placed a phone call to MINUTA, which lasted approximately 2 minutes and 56 seconds.
165. Shortly after 4:00 p.m., individuals who breached the Capitol, to include YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, MINUTA, JAMES, [DELETE], HACKETT, DOLAN, and ISAACS, among others, gathered together with PERSON ONE and PERSON TEN approximately 100 feet from the Capitol, near the northeast corner of the building. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)
COUNT TWO
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2—Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting)
166. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein. As set forth in paragraphs 35 through 165, on or about January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
THOMAS CALDWELL,
DONOVAN CROWL,
JESSICA WATKINS,
SANDRA PARKER,
BENNIE PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
LAURA STEELE,
KELLY MEGGS,
CONNIE MEGGS,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
ROBERTO MINUTA,
JOSHUA JAMES,
[DELETE],
JOSEPH HACKETT,
JASON DOLAN, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, the Certification of the Electoral College vote, and did aid and abet others known and unknown to do the same.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2), 2)
COUNT THREE
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2—Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting)
167. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
168. As set forth in paragraphs 134 through 137 and paragraphs 142 through 145, on January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
DONOVAN CROWL,
JESSICA WATKINS,
SANDRA PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
LAURA STEELE,
KELLY MEGGS,
CONNIE MEGGS,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
JOSEPH HACKETT,
JASON DOLAN, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
attempted to, and did, willfully injure and commit depredation against property of the United States, that is, the United States Capitol building, thereby causing or attempting to cause damage that exceeded $1,000, and did aid and abet others known and unknown to do so.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1361, 2)
COUNT FOUR
(18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)—Restricted Building or Grounds)
169. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
170. As set forth in paragraphs 125, 136 to 137, 148 to 149, and 154 to 155, on or about January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
THOMAS CALDWELL,
DONOVAN CROWL,
JESSICA WATKINS,
SANDRA PARKER,
BENNIE PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
LAURA STEELE,
KELLY MEGGS,
CONNIE MEGGS,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
ROBERTO MINUTA,
JOSHUA JAMES,
[DELETE],
JOSEPH HACKETT,
JASON DOLAN, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
did knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, where the Vice President and Vice President-elect were temporarily visiting, without lawful authority to do so.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1752(a)(1))
COUNT FIVE
(18 U.S.C. §§ 231(a)(3), 2—Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting)
171. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
172. As set forth in paragraph 135, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, the defendant,
WILLIAM ISAACS,
committed and attempted to commit an act to obstruct, impede, and interfere with a law enforcement officer, that is, U.S. Capitol Police Officer M.C., while Officer M.C. was lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder, and the civil disorder obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the conduct and performance of a federally protected function.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 231(a)(3), 2)
COUNT SIX
(18 U.S.C. §§ 231(a)(3), 2—Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting)
173. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
174. As set forth in paragraphs 142 through 145, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, the defendants,
JESSICA WATKINS,
DONOVAN CROWL,
SANDRA PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
committed and attempted to commit an act to obstruct, impede, and interfere with a law enforcement officer, that is, law enforcement officers guarding the hallway between the Capitol Rotunda and Senate chamber, while those officers were lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder, and the civil disorder obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the conduct and performance of a federally protected function.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 231(a)(3), 2)
COUNT SEVEN
(18 U.S.C. §§ 231(a)(3), 2—Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting)
175. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
176. As set forth in paragraphs 156 and 158, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, the defendant,
JOSHUA JAMES,
committed and attempted to commit an act to obstruct, impede, and interfere with a law enforcement officer, that is, law enforcement officers in the Capitol Rotunda, while those officers were lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder, and the civil disorder obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the conduct and performance of a federally protected function.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 231(a)(3), 2)
COUNT EIGHT
(18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)—Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers)
177. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
178. As set forth in paragraphs 156 and 158, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, the defendant,
JOSHUA JAMES,
did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and interfere with an officer with the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department who was assisting officers and employees of the United States while such persons were engaged in and on account of the performance of official duties, and where the acts in violation of this section involved physical contact with the victim and the intent to commit another felony, namely, Count Two, charging Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2), 2.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1))
COUNT NINE
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
179. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
180. On January 6, 2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) opened an investigation into the attack on the Capitol, and a grand jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia subsequently opened an investigation.
181. On January 8, 2021, in response to a request from CROWL for a video, CALDWELL sent the video, and subsequently unsent the message containing the video.
182. Between January 6, 2021, and January 19, 2021, CALDWELL deleted photographs from his Facebook account that documented his participation in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
183. Between January 6, 2021, and January 19, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
THOMAS CALDWELL,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
COUNT TEN
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
184. Paragraphs 1 through 30, paragraphs 35 through 165, and paragraph 180 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
185. On January 8, 2021, YOUNG deleted his Facebook account.
186. On January 8, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
COUNT ELEVEN
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
187. Paragraphs 1 through 30, paragraphs 35 through 165, and paragraph 180 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
188. Sometime after January 7, 2021, KELLY MEGGS deleted from his cellular telephone certain media, files, and communications that showed his involvement in the offenses alleged herein.
189. On or around January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
KELLY MEGGS,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
COUNT TWELVE
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
190. Paragraphs 1 through 30, paragraphs 35 through 165, and paragraph 180 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
191. Sometime after January 7, 2021, HARRELSON deleted from his cellular telephone certain media, files, and communications that showed his involvement in the offenses alleged herein.
192. On or around January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
COUNT THIRTEEN
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
193. Paragraphs 1 through 30, paragraphs 35 through 165, and paragraph 180 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
194. Sometime after January 7, 2021, JAMES deleted from his cellular telephone the Leadership Signal Chat.
195. On January 8, 2021, JAMES instructed PERSON FIFTEEN to “make sure that all signal comms about the op has been deleted and burned,” and PERSON FIFTEEN confirmed PERSON FIFTEEN did in fact do so.
196. On or around January 7-8, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
JOSHUA JAMES,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
A TRUE BILL
FOREPERSON
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
ACTING ATTORNEY FOR THE UNITED STATES
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_______________
Notes:
1 Based on the investigation, “QRF” appears to refer to “quick reaction force.”
2 The ages and residences listed herein are as of January 6, 2021.
3 Signal is an encrypted messaging service.
4 Zello is an application that emulates push-to-talk walkie-talkies over cellular telephone networks. Zello can be used on electronic communication devices, like cellular telephones and two-way radios.
5 GoToMeeting is an online meeting site that allows users to host conference calls and video conferences via the Internet in real time.
6 An event colloquially referred to as the “Million MAGA March” occurred in Washington, D.C., on November 14, 2020. A similar event occurred in Washington, D.C., on December 12, 2020.
7 Based on the investigation, “proton mails” appears to refer to the company “ProtonMail,” which offers encrypted email services.
8 Based on the investigation, “RP” appears to refer to “rally point.”
9 Based on the investigation, “OK” appears to refer to “Oath Keepers.”
10 Based on the investigation, “UTM” appears to refer to “Ultimate Training Munitions.”
11 Based on the investigation, “B.D.U.” appears to be a military reference to the Battle Dress Uniform, which is a camouflaged combat uniform.
12 On January 6, 2021, WA DUNS and others known and unknown communicated and coordinated their actions on ZelIa, using a Zello channel named "Stop the Steal J6."
70. On January 3, 2021, WATKINS sent CROWL a Facebook message stating, “Running a bit behind. I’ll txt when I’m back at the bar. Getting supplies for DC.”
71. On January 3, 2021, WATKINS and BENNIE PARKER discussed the uniforms, gear, and weapons they would wear and bring on January 6, 2021:
WATKINS to BENNIE PARKER: We are not bringing firearms. QRF will be our Law Enforcement members of Oathkeepers.
BENNIE PARKER to WATKINS: Good to know.
WATKINS to BENNIE PARKER: Pack Khaki/Tan pants. Weapons are ok now as well. Sorry for the confusion. We are packing the car and heading your way shortly
BENNIE PARKER to WATKINS: We don’t have any khakis We have jeans and our b d u’s11 So I can bring my gun?
72. On January 3, 2021, KELLY MEGGS and HARRELSON served as two of the three “organizers” of an 18-participant GoToMeeting titled “dc planning call.”
73. At least as early as January 3, 2021, WATKINS, KELLY MEGGS, YOUNG, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, ISAACS, and others known and unknown joined an invitation-only encrypted Signal group message titled “OK FL DC OP Jan 6” (hereinafter the “Florida Signal Chat”).
74. On January 3, 2021, KELLY MEGGS added HARRELSON to the Leadership Signal Chat, and wrote that HARRELSON would serve as the “Ground Team lead in Florida.”
75. On January 4, 2021, CALDWELL emailed PERSON THREE several maps along with the message, “These maps walk you from the hotel into D.C. and east toward the target area on multiple roads running west to east including M street and P street, two of my favorites . . . .”
76. [DELETE (6 LINES)]
77. [DELETE (3 LINES)]
Travel to Washington, D.C., for the January 6 Operation
78. On January 4, 2021, KELLY MEGGS wrote in the Florida Signal Chat, “Rally 3 pm if possible and need location DM but only those who will caravan.”
79. On January 4, 2021, HARRELSON and DOLAN departed Florida together in a vehicle rented by DOLAN and traveled to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
80. On January 4, 2021, YOUNG took a flight from Sarasota, Florida, to Greensboro, North Carolina.
81. On January 4, 2021, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, and BENNIE PARKER departed Ohio together and traveled to Northern Virginia, where they spent the night.
82. On January 4, 2021, PERSON TEN checked into the Hilton Garden Inn in Vienna, Virginia. The room was reserved and paid for using a credit card in PERSON ONE’s name.
83. On January 4, 2021, WATKINS wrote in the Florida Signal Chat, “Where can we drop off weapons to the QRF team? I’d like to have the weapons secured prior to the Op tomorrow.”
84. On the morning of January 5, 2021, HARRELSON asked in the Florida Signal Chat for the location of the “QRF hotel,” and KELLY MEGGS responded by asking for a direct message.
85. On January 5, 2021, PERSON ONE and MINUTA separately traveled to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and checked into the Hilton Garden Inn in Vienna, Virginia.
86. On January 5, 2021, YOUNG and STEELE departed North Carolina with others known and unknown and traveled to the Washington D.C., metropolitan area and checked into the Holiday Inn in Springfield, Virginia.
87. CALDWELL paid for a room for two people at the Comfort Inn Ballston from January 5-7, 2021.
88. WATKINS paid for a room for two people at the Comfort Inn Ballston—the hotel recommended by CALDWELL—from January 5-7, 2021, and reserved it under the name “Jessica Wagkins.”
89. SANDRA PARKER paid for a room for two people at the Comfort Inn Ballston from January 5-7, 2021.
90. KELLY MEGGS paid for two rooms, each for two people, at the Comfort Inn Ballston from January 5-6, 2021. The rooms were reserved under the name of PERSON THREE.
91. KELLY MEGGS also booked two rooms at the Hilton Garden Inn in Washington, D.C., from January 5-7, 2021. KELLY MEGGS paid for both of the rooms, using two different credit cards.
92. YOUNG paid for a room for two people at the Holiday Inn in Springfield, Virginia, from January 5-6, 2021.
93. HACKETT paid for a room at the Hilton Garden Inn in Washington, D.C., from January 5-7, 2021. The room was booked in the name of PERSON SIXTEEN.
94. DOLAN booked and paid for a room at the Hilton Garden Inn in Washington, D.C., from January 5-7, 2021.
95. MINUTA, using his personal email address and his personal home address, reserved three rooms at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., under the names of MINUTA, JAMES, and PERSON TWENTY. A debit card associated with PERSON FIFTEEN was used to pay for the room reserved under MINUTA’s name. A credit card associated with JAMES was used to pay for the room reserved under JAMES’s name.
96. [DELETE (1-1/2 LINES)]
The January 6 Operation
97. On the morning of January 6, 2021, YOUNG and STEELE traveled together from Springfield, Virginia, to Washington, D.C.
98. On the morning of January 6, 2021, CROWL, WATKINS, CALDWELL, SANDRA PARKER, and BENNIE PARKER, traveled from Arlington, Virginia, to Washington, D.C.
99. [DELETE (4 LINES)]
100. At 11:21 a.m., PERSON ONE placed a phone call to KELLY MEGGS, which lasted 51 seconds.
101. At or around this time, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, and HACKETT prepared themselves for battle before heading to the Capitol by equipping themselves with communication devices and donning reinforced vests, helmets, and goggles.
102. [DELETE (5 LINES)
103. At 12:58 p.m., MINUTA placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 11 seconds.
104. At 1:02 p.m., PERSON ONE placed a phone call to MINUTA, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 48 seconds.
105. At 1:25 p.m., PERSON ONE messaged the Leadership Signal Chat, "Pence is doing nothing. As I predicted." About 15 minutes later, he sent another message, stating, "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They've had enough."
106. At 1:48 p.m., PERSON ONE sent a message to the Leadership Signal Chat informing the group that he was on his way to the Capitol.
107. At 1:50 p.m., WATKINS transmitted a communication over Zello12 stating, "We have a good group. We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking together and sticking to the plan."
108. At 1:52 p.m., HARRELSON and DOLAN unlawfully entered the restricted Capitol grounds.
109. At 1:59 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to JAMES, which lasted approximately 30 seconds.
110. At 2:00 p.m., JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 12 seconds.
111. At 2:00 p.m., WATKINS stated on the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello channel, “Y’all, we’re one block away from the Capitol right now. I’m probably gonna go silent when we get there, because I’m gonna be a little busy.”
112. At 2:01 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 41 seconds.
113. At 2:03 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to JAMES, which lasted approximately 39 seconds. About 1 minute later, JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 3 minutes and 36 seconds.
114. At 2:03 p.m., the administrator of the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello channel directed the group, “You are executing citizen’s arrest. Arrest this assembly, we have probable cause for acts of treason, election fraud . . . .”
115. At 2:06 p.m., PERSON ONE sent another message to the Leadership Signal Chat asking for PERSON TEN’s location before stating, “I’m trying to get to you.”
116. At 2:06 p.m., CALDWELL sent WATKINS a text message stating: “Where are you? Pence has punked out. We are screwed. Teargassing peaceful protesters at capital steps. Getting rowdy here... I am here at the dry fountain to the left of the Capitol[.]”
117. At 2:07 p.m., JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 30 seconds, followed by an approximately 55-second phone call at 2:10 p.m.
118. At 2:13 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to JAMES, which lasted approximately 43 seconds.
119. At 2:14 p.m., PERSON TEN wrote to the Leadership Signal Chat, “The have taken ground at the capital[.] We need to regroup any members who are not on mission.”
120. At 2:15 p.m., PERSON ONE placed a phone call to KELLY MEGGS, which lasted approximately 15 seconds.
121. At 2:16 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to JAMES, which lasted approximately 42 seconds.
122. At 2:21 p.m., HARRELSON and DOLAN joined the crowd on the central east steps of the Capitol.
123. At 2:24 p.m., KELLY MEGGS placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 2 seconds.
124. At 2:25 p.m., PERSON ONE forwarded PERSON TEN’s message (“The have taken ground at the capital[.] We need to regroup any members who are not on mission.”) to the Leadership Signal Chat and instructed: “Come to South Side of Capitol on steps” and then sent a photograph showing the southeast side of the Capitol.
125. At 2:28 p.m., CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HACKETT, and ISAACS unlawfully entered the restricted Capitol grounds.
126. At 2:31 p.m., PERSON TEN placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 5 minutes and 25 seconds.
127. At 2:32 p.m., KELLY MEGGS placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 1 minute and 37 seconds.
128. [DELETE (6 LINES)]
129. [DELETE (3 LINES)]
130. At 2:33 p.m., JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 49 seconds.
131. [DELETE (3 LINES)]
132. At 2:35 p.m., CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HACKETT, and ISAACS joined together with others known and unknown to form a column or stack of individuals wearing Oath Keepers clothing, patches, insignia, and battle gear (the “Stack”). Together, the Stack maneuvered in an organized fashion up the steps on the east side of the Capitol—each member keeping at least one hand on the shoulder of the other in front of them.
133. Towards the top of the steps, HARRELSON and DOLAN joined with the Stack.
134. At the top of the steps, the Stack joined and then pushed forward alongside a mob that aggressively advanced towards the Columbus Doors at the central east entrance to the Capitol, assaulted the officers guarding the doors, threw objects and sprayed chemicals towards the officers and the doors, and pulled violently on the doors.
135. At 2:39 p.m., ISAACS joined the crowd in forcibly pushing against one of the Columbus Doors and the law enforcement officers guarding that door. Shortly thereafter, the Capitol doors were breached by the mob, and ISAACS entered the building.
136. Shortly after the mob breached the doors, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, and the others in the Stack forcibly entered the Capitol.
137. As they entered the Capitol, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, and the others in the Stack joined the larger mob in pushing past at least one law enforcement officer who was trying to stop them from breaching the Capitol building.
138. After they penetrated the Capitol building, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, ISAACS, and the others in the Stack collectively moved into an area inside the building known as the Capitol Rotunda.
139. As they navigated through the Capitol Rotunda, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, DOLAN, ISAACS, and the others in the Stack continued to communicate with one another by keeping their hands on each other’s backs.
140. At 2:44 p.m., WATKINS stated on the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello channel, “We are in the mezzanine. We are in the main dome right now. We are rocking it. They are throwing grenades, they are fricking shooting people with paint balls. But we are in here.”
141. An individual who had participated in at least one prior Oath Keeper operation with WATKINS responded, “Get it, Jess. Do your fucking thing. This is what we fucking [unintelligible] up for. Everything we fucking trained for.”
142. Shortly thereafter, WATKINS, CROWL, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, and ISAACS exited the Rotunda through the northbound hallway and attempted to enter the Senate wing of Congress.
143. ISAACS yelled “the fight’s not over” and waved rioters down the hallways towards the Senate.
144. At 2:45 p.m. and afterward, CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, and ISAACS joined the mob in pushing against a line of riot police officers guarding the hallway connecting the Rotunda to the Senate, as WATKINS commanded those around her to “push, push, push,” and to, “get in there, get in there,” while noting, “they [the officers] can’t hold us.”
145. When officers responded by deploying a chemical spray, the mob—including CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, and ISAACS—retreated.
146. CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, STEELE, and ISAACS regrouped in the Rotunda.
147. At 2:45 p.m., KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, and DOLAN walked southbound out of the Rotunda and towards the House of Representatives.
148. Meanwhile, CALDWELL, who was positioned on the west side of the Capitol, joined with PERSON TWO and others known and unknown in storming past barricades and climbing stairs up to a balcony on the west side of the Capitol building.
149. At 2:48 p.m., CALDWELL sent a message on Facebook, writing, “We are surging forward. Doors breached[.]”
150. At 2:54 p.m., HACKETT exited the Capitol.
151. At 2:57 p.m., HARRELSON and DOLAN exited the Capitol.
152. At 2:59 p.m., KELLY MEGGS and CONNIE MEGGS exited the Capitol.
153. At 3:05 p.m., CROWL, WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, YOUNG, and STEELE helped ISAACS out of the Capitol.
154. [DELETE (4 LINES)]
155. While entering the Capitol building, MINUTA and JAMES pushed past Capitol Police officers who placed their hands on MINUTA and JAMES in an unsuccessful attempt to stop them from advancing toward the Capitol Rotunda.
156. At 3:17 p.m., when MINUTA and JAMES reached the entrance to the Capitol Rotunda, they joined with others in the crowd in a confrontation with a line of law enforcement officers that had formed a barrier between the lobby and the Capitol Rotunda. JAMES yanked and pushed several of the riot officers out of the way. While engaging in this conduct, JAMES repeatedly yelled, “Get out of my Capitol!” and “This is my fucking building! This is not yours! This is my Capitol!”
157. As he stood behind JAMES while recording the events with a camera, MINUTA yelled, “This is what’s bound to happen, just get out! Get out! Get these cops out! It’s our fucking building! Get ‘em out, get out!”
158. JAMES briefly breached the Rotunda but was expelled by at least one officer who aimed chemical spray directly at JAMES, and multiple officers who pushed him out from behind.
159. At 3:19 p.m., while exiting the Capitol building through the same east side Rotunda door from which he entered, MINUTA held up two fingers and yelled at a law enforcement officer, among other things, “All that’s left is the Second Amendment!”
160. At 3:22 p.m., JAMES exited the Capitol through the east side Rotunda door from which he entered.
161. [DELETE (2 LINES)]
162. At 3:40 p.m., JAMES placed a phone call to PERSON TEN, which lasted approximately 3 minutes and 4 seconds.
163. At 4:04 p.m., MINUTA placed a phone call to PERSON ONE, which lasted approximately 42 seconds.
164. At 4:05 p.m., PERSON ONE placed a phone call to MINUTA, which lasted approximately 2 minutes and 56 seconds.
165. Shortly after 4:00 p.m., individuals who breached the Capitol, to include YOUNG, STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, HARRELSON, MINUTA, JAMES, [DELETE], HACKETT, DOLAN, and ISAACS, among others, gathered together with PERSON ONE and PERSON TEN approximately 100 feet from the Capitol, near the northeast corner of the building. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)
COUNT TWO
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2—Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting)
166. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein. As set forth in paragraphs 35 through 165, on or about January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
THOMAS CALDWELL,
DONOVAN CROWL,
JESSICA WATKINS,
SANDRA PARKER,
BENNIE PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
LAURA STEELE,
KELLY MEGGS,
CONNIE MEGGS,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
ROBERTO MINUTA,
JOSHUA JAMES,
[DELETE],
JOSEPH HACKETT,
JASON DOLAN, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, the Certification of the Electoral College vote, and did aid and abet others known and unknown to do the same.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2), 2)
COUNT THREE
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2—Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting)
167. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
168. As set forth in paragraphs 134 through 137 and paragraphs 142 through 145, on January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
DONOVAN CROWL,
JESSICA WATKINS,
SANDRA PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
LAURA STEELE,
KELLY MEGGS,
CONNIE MEGGS,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
JOSEPH HACKETT,
JASON DOLAN, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
attempted to, and did, willfully injure and commit depredation against property of the United States, that is, the United States Capitol building, thereby causing or attempting to cause damage that exceeded $1,000, and did aid and abet others known and unknown to do so.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1361, 2)
COUNT FOUR
(18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)—Restricted Building or Grounds)
169. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
170. As set forth in paragraphs 125, 136 to 137, 148 to 149, and 154 to 155, on or about January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
THOMAS CALDWELL,
DONOVAN CROWL,
JESSICA WATKINS,
SANDRA PARKER,
BENNIE PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
LAURA STEELE,
KELLY MEGGS,
CONNIE MEGGS,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
ROBERTO MINUTA,
JOSHUA JAMES,
[DELETE],
JOSEPH HACKETT,
JASON DOLAN, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
did knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, where the Vice President and Vice President-elect were temporarily visiting, without lawful authority to do so.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1752(a)(1))
COUNT FIVE
(18 U.S.C. §§ 231(a)(3), 2—Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting)
171. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
172. As set forth in paragraph 135, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, the defendant,
WILLIAM ISAACS,
committed and attempted to commit an act to obstruct, impede, and interfere with a law enforcement officer, that is, U.S. Capitol Police Officer M.C., while Officer M.C. was lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder, and the civil disorder obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the conduct and performance of a federally protected function.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 231(a)(3), 2)
COUNT SIX
(18 U.S.C. §§ 231(a)(3), 2—Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting)
173. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
174. As set forth in paragraphs 142 through 145, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, the defendants,
JESSICA WATKINS,
DONOVAN CROWL,
SANDRA PARKER,
GRAYDON YOUNG, and
WILLIAM ISAACS,
committed and attempted to commit an act to obstruct, impede, and interfere with a law enforcement officer, that is, law enforcement officers guarding the hallway between the Capitol Rotunda and Senate chamber, while those officers were lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder, and the civil disorder obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the conduct and performance of a federally protected function.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 231(a)(3), 2)
COUNT SEVEN
(18 U.S.C. §§ 231(a)(3), 2—Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting)
175. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
176. As set forth in paragraphs 156 and 158, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, the defendant,
JOSHUA JAMES,
committed and attempted to commit an act to obstruct, impede, and interfere with a law enforcement officer, that is, law enforcement officers in the Capitol Rotunda, while those officers were lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder, and the civil disorder obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the conduct and performance of a federally protected function.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 231(a)(3), 2)
COUNT EIGHT
(18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)—Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers)
177. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
178. As set forth in paragraphs 156 and 158, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, the defendant,
JOSHUA JAMES,
did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and interfere with an officer with the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department who was assisting officers and employees of the United States while such persons were engaged in and on account of the performance of official duties, and where the acts in violation of this section involved physical contact with the victim and the intent to commit another felony, namely, Count Two, charging Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2), 2.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1))
COUNT NINE
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
179. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and paragraphs 35 through 165 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
180. On January 6, 2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) opened an investigation into the attack on the Capitol, and a grand jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia subsequently opened an investigation.
181. On January 8, 2021, in response to a request from CROWL for a video, CALDWELL sent the video, and subsequently unsent the message containing the video.
182. Between January 6, 2021, and January 19, 2021, CALDWELL deleted photographs from his Facebook account that documented his participation in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
183. Between January 6, 2021, and January 19, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
THOMAS CALDWELL,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
COUNT TEN
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
184. Paragraphs 1 through 30, paragraphs 35 through 165, and paragraph 180 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
185. On January 8, 2021, YOUNG deleted his Facebook account.
186. On January 8, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
GRAYDON YOUNG,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
COUNT ELEVEN
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
187. Paragraphs 1 through 30, paragraphs 35 through 165, and paragraph 180 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
188. Sometime after January 7, 2021, KELLY MEGGS deleted from his cellular telephone certain media, files, and communications that showed his involvement in the offenses alleged herein.
189. On or around January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
KELLY MEGGS,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
COUNT TWELVE
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
190. Paragraphs 1 through 30, paragraphs 35 through 165, and paragraph 180 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
191. Sometime after January 7, 2021, HARRELSON deleted from his cellular telephone certain media, files, and communications that showed his involvement in the offenses alleged herein.
192. On or around January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
KENNETH HARRELSON,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
COUNT THIRTEEN
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)—Tampering with Documents or Proceedings)
193. Paragraphs 1 through 30, paragraphs 35 through 165, and paragraph 180 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth herein.
194. Sometime after January 7, 2021, JAMES deleted from his cellular telephone the Leadership Signal Chat.
195. On January 8, 2021, JAMES instructed PERSON FIFTEEN to “make sure that all signal comms about the op has been deleted and burned,” and PERSON FIFTEEN confirmed PERSON FIFTEEN did in fact do so.
196. On or around January 7-8, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant,
JOSHUA JAMES,
did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, that is, the FBI investigation and the grand jury investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(1))
A TRUE BILL
FOREPERSON
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
ACTING ATTORNEY FOR THE UNITED STATES
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_______________
Notes:
1 Based on the investigation, “QRF” appears to refer to “quick reaction force.”
2 The ages and residences listed herein are as of January 6, 2021.
3 Signal is an encrypted messaging service.
4 Zello is an application that emulates push-to-talk walkie-talkies over cellular telephone networks. Zello can be used on electronic communication devices, like cellular telephones and two-way radios.
5 GoToMeeting is an online meeting site that allows users to host conference calls and video conferences via the Internet in real time.
6 An event colloquially referred to as the “Million MAGA March” occurred in Washington, D.C., on November 14, 2020. A similar event occurred in Washington, D.C., on December 12, 2020.
7 Based on the investigation, “proton mails” appears to refer to the company “ProtonMail,” which offers encrypted email services.
8 Based on the investigation, “RP” appears to refer to “rally point.”
9 Based on the investigation, “OK” appears to refer to “Oath Keepers.”
10 Based on the investigation, “UTM” appears to refer to “Ultimate Training Munitions.”
11 Based on the investigation, “B.D.U.” appears to be a military reference to the Battle Dress Uniform, which is a camouflaged combat uniform.
12 On January 6, 2021, WA DUNS and others known and unknown communicated and coordinated their actions on ZelIa, using a Zello channel named "Stop the Steal J6."
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:13 am
Senate Republicans Block Insurrection Investigation While Courts Go Hard After Insurrectionists
by Glenn Kirschner
May 28, 2021
Today we are witness to a tale of two insurrections (Cleveland Meredith Jr. & Karl Dresch). Senate Republicans vote against an investigation into the insurrection. Whereas the courts, specifically DC District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, issues lengthy legal opinions castigating Donald Trump, his loyal media networks and political leaders in state and federal government for continuing to endanger our nation by continuing to promote the Big Lie. Here's a discussion of the implications of today's Senate vote and of Judge Jackson's orders denying pretrial release for two insurrectionists.
by Glenn Kirschner
May 28, 2021
Today we are witness to a tale of two insurrections (Cleveland Meredith Jr. & Karl Dresch). Senate Republicans vote against an investigation into the insurrection. Whereas the courts, specifically DC District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, issues lengthy legal opinions castigating Donald Trump, his loyal media networks and political leaders in state and federal government for continuing to endanger our nation by continuing to promote the Big Lie. Here's a discussion of the implications of today's Senate vote and of Judge Jackson's orders denying pretrial release for two insurrectionists.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:24 am
Order: USA v. Karl Dresch
by Judge Amy Berman Jackson
May 27, 2021
Document 25 Filed 05/27/21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:21-cr-00071-ABJ
Crim. Action No. 21-0071 (ABJ)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KARL DRESCH, Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant has been indicted on five counts: (1) Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2; (2) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1); (3) Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2); (4) Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D); and (5) Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building in violation of 40 U.S.c. § 5104(e)(2)(G). Indictment [Dkt. # 5] at 1-3.
Defendant was arrested on January 19, 2021, see Rule 5(c)(3) Docs. [Dkt. # 7] at 1, and the government moved for pretrial detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). Mot. for Detention [Dkt. # 23-1]. Defendant was ordered detained after a hearing before a Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Michigan on the grounds that the government had established that he posed a danger to the community and well as a risk of flight. Order of Detention Pending Trial [Dkt. # 18-6] at 2. The Magistrate Judge checked off boxes on the preprinted form to indicate that factors bearing on the decision included: "[the] Weight of the evidence is strong," "Prior criminal history," "History of violence or use of weapons," and "Prior attempt(s) to evade law enforcement." Id. at 2-3. The Magistrate Judge added:
Id. at 3 (citations omitted).
On April 1, defendant filed a motion to "lift his preventive detention in this case." Mot. to Lift Preventive Detention and P. & A. in Supp. Thereof [Dkt. # 16] ("Mot.") at 1. In addition to making legal arguments, defendant has submitted numerous letters of support from members of his community. See Letters of Support [Dkt. # 16-1] ("Letters'').1 The government opposed the motion, Gov't Resp. to Mot. [Dkt. # 18] ("Opp."), and the Court held a hearing on the motion on May 3, 2021. Min. Entry (May 3, 2021). The issue has been fully briefed. See Def.'s Reply to Opp. [Dkt. # 20] ("Reply"). For the following reasons, the motion will be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
I. Defendant's Participation in the Attack on the United States Capitol
Defendant was arrested on January 19, 2021 after agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") received a tip that he had posted information regarding his participation in the events now known as the Capitol Riots to his social media accounts. Statement of Facts [Dkt. # 1-1] ("SOF") , ¶ 11. Shortly thereafter, a search warrant was issued for additional information associated with defendant's Facebook account. Id. ¶ 12. The search revealed the following:
• On November 23,2020, defendant posted: "It's war everywhere if we let this election get stolen." Ex. 6 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-7].
• On December 16,2020, defendant posted: "Stop the Steal." SOF ¶ 13.
• On December 20, 2020, the day after then-President Trump tweeted, "Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"2 defendant posted: "7-4-1776= 1-6-2021." SOF ¶ 13.
• On January 3, 2021, defendant posted a series of messages announcing that he was preparing to go to Washington, D.C., that he was "prepared for chemical attacks and whatnot," and "NO EXCUSES! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! TAKE THE STREETS! TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! 1/6/2021 =7/4/1776." SOF ¶ 14.
• On January 5, 2021, defendant commented: "Stop the steal! this is the last stand of The United States of America to remain free." Ex. 8 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-9].
• On January 6, 2021, defendant posted photographs of a group approaching the Capitol along with the caption "Who's house? OUR HOUSE!" SOF ¶ 16.
• Defendant exchanged messages with other Facebook users on January 6, 2021, stating: "Patriots are in the Capitol building now"; sending pictures of groups inside of the building; and noting that he had "[ b]een using" a mask to protect against gas used by the police. He sent selfies from outside of the Capitol with captions such as "Just had a beer on our front porch," and "That's right outside the house of representative ... we got in! Took a lil gas ... wtf I love masks now!" As defendant put it, they "Had the cops booking it." SOF ¶ ¶ 21,23-26.3
• Defendant also posted a picture with the caption "We are in," SOF ¶ 17, which appears to depict an area inside of the U.S. Capitol Building. See also Mot. at 7 ("Admittedly, the government does appear to have video and pictures that show that Mr. Dresch was inside the Capitol with the protesting crowd on January 6."); Opp. at 4 ("The FBI shared the post with a U.S. Capitol Police Officer, who confirmed that it accurately depicts the inside of the U.S. Capitol Building, specifically, the 'Crypt,' a location under the rotunda in the center of the Capitol.").
• Defendant continued to communicate by social media into the evening: posting "I'm excited!"; commenting "Total Victory!" on a picture of a crowd at the Washington Monument; commenting on another user's post that "It was peaceful ... still got a lil gas tho ... mask on for safety"; and commenting on another post that "we broke no glass no shoving I seen." SOF ¶ ¶ 27-28.
• Defendant ended the day by posting a video taken earlier at the U.S. Capitol Visitor's Center:
SOF ¶¶ 19-20.
The social media activity continued after January 6.
• On January 7, 2021, defendant commented on an unidentified post that "Mike Pence gave our country to the communist hordes, traitor scum like the rest of them, we have your back give the word and we will be back even stronger." SOF ¶ 28.
• In another message dated January 7, defendant stated:
Ex. 15 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-16]. Defendant concluded: "And look if they can't hold the capitol with thousands of cops, how can they tell us what to do 1000 miles away." Id.
On January 11 and 12, 2021, defendant messaged a series of comments:
• "Haha you think I trust these airwaves . . . fuckheads up there are mass snitching me to feds."
• "Look up []."5
• "Fuck her what they got .. call the cops bitch lol ... I ain't saying shit."
• "Alright bro just wanted to holler let everyone know ... stand by and watch your block."
• "Yes but when it's everywhere makes it so much harder to stop us."
Ex. 13 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-14] at 1-4; see also Opp. at 15.
Later on January 12,2021, defendant returned to the subject of the person he had previously discussed:
• "Ya I looked at her shit and the ones commenting on it are the same."
• "They're the ones always mess with my Facebook ads."
• "Now they wanna snitch me out lol .. bunch of losers."
• "I sent her thing to tons of Patriots now it's gone haha, I'm sure I made a FBI folder but fuck it I know who my enemies are."
Ex. 14 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-15]; see also Opp. at 15-16.
II. Searches of Defendant's Residence
After defendant was arrested, FBI agents searched his residence in Calumet, Michigan. Opp. at 6. The government's opposition describes the initial search:
Id. at 6-7 (some italics omitted). The search warrant inventory, Ex. 2 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-2], provides additional information: the backpack with ammunition was found in the family room, and more ammunition was found in the dining room. Search Warrant Inventory at 3; see also Opp. at 6. Even more ammunition, as well as the shotgun and a "hand gun pistol grip," were found in the "2nd floor hall rm," and the Russian-made rifle was found in the main bedroom, as well as still more ammunition. Search Warrant Inventory at 3-4,6; see also Opp. at 6. The next day, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") obtained and executed a search warrant as well; those agents found two additional firearms - a Glock pistol and a Remington rifle - and even more ammunition. See Ex. 4a to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-4] at 3 ("ATF Search Warrant Inventory"); see also Ex. 4b to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-5]; Opp. at 9-10. The ATF inventory reveals that the Glock was found loaded in a bedroom closet; two more boxes of ammunition were found on the front porch in a laundry basket; eight more boxes of ammunition were found in a dining room cabinet; and the Remington rifle was found loaded in a closet of a different bedroom. ATF Search Warrant Inventory.
Since that time, defendant's mother has submitted materials to ATF indicating that she is the owner of the residence where the firearms were found, although she does not live there and has not lived there since she bought the home in 2008. See Reply ¶ 12; see also Materials Submitted to ATF [Dkt. # 20-1] ("ATF Materials") at 1. She explained that "the Russian rifle, the Glock, and one of the shotguns" belong to her, ATF Materials at 9; they became her property in 2006 when her husband passed away. Reply ¶ 12; see also ATF Materials at 3. She states that she left the firearms at the house now occupied by defendant because she has "never had any interest in owning a gun, and actually feel[s] nervous around guns," so she preferred not to have the weapons at her primary residence. ATF Materials at 1.6
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 et seq., starts with the proposition that the judicial officer shall order pretrial release on personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond unless he or she determines that release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community. See id. § 3142(b). If conditions are required, the law provides that the defendant shall be released subject to the condition that he not commit a federal, state, or local crime, and subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that the judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person and the safety of any other person and the community. See id. § 3142(c)(1).
If the judicial officer finds after a hearing that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, the judicial officer 'shall' order the detention of the person before trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(I). Under the terms of the statute, the facts the judicial officer relies upon to support a finding that no conditions will assure the safety of the community must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The statute is silent on the level of proof required to establish that the defendant poses a risk of flight, but the D.C. Circuit has ruled that such a finding need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1987), quoting United States v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327, 329 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Even if the defendant does not pose a flight risk, danger to the community alone can be a sufficient reason to order pretrial detention. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 (1987) ("When the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that an arrestee presents an identified and articulable threat to an individual or the community ... a court may disable the arrestee from executing that threat."); Simpkins, 826 F.2d at 98.
The government may only move for pretrial detention in the limited circumstances that are enumerated in the Act. See 18 U.S.C. §3142(f). In this case, the government moved for detention under subsection (f)(2), which provides that the judicial officer shall hold a hearing upon motion of the government or its own motion in a case that involves "(A) a serious risk that such person will flee; or (B) a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror."
When community safety is the basis for detention, the government must prove the need for detention by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996). To determine whether the government has carried its burden, the Court must consider: (1) "the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence," (2) "the weight of the evidence against the [defendant]," (3) "the history and characteristics of the [ defendant]," and (4) "the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). This is a forward-looking inquiry; "a defendant's detention based on dangerousness accords with due process only insofar as the district court determines that the defendant's history, characteristics, and alleged criminal conduct make clear that he or she poses a concrete, prospective threat to public safety." United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2021); see also Salerno, 481 U.S. at 752.
Finally, although the D.C. Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, courts in this district and many other circuits agree that the district judge should review de novo a detention decision rendered by a Magistrate Judge. See, e.g., United States v. Hassanshahi, 989 F. Supp. 3d 110, 113 (D.D.C. 2013); United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases); United States v. Stewart, 19 F. App'x 46, 48 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v. Gonzales, 149 F.3d 1192 at *1 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 36 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 1985).
ANALYSIS
I. Defendant is eligible for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(t)(2).
Defendant argues that that government lacked sufficient grounds to move for his detention under the Bail Reform Act. Mot. at 6-7. Section 3142(f)(2) states that the judicial officer shall hold a hearing upon motion of the government or its own motion in a case that involves "(A) a serious risk that such person will flee; or (B) a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror." The government contended at a status conference held on May 12, 2021 that once the initial detention determination has been made, the question of eligibility under section 3142(f) is no longer reviewable, and the only issue before the Court is whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that the defendant posed a danger or proof by a preponderance that he posed a risk of flight. The Court need not address the question of whether it has authority to reverse a Magistrate Judge's determination that section 3142(f) applies, since its decision below reflects that defendant's own statements and his criminal record supplied grounds to conclude both that there was a serious risk defendant would not reappear and that he would threaten or intimidate someone associated with the case.
II. The section 3142(g) factors support detention on the grounds of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
A. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged
The United States Capitol was not open to the public on January 6, 2021. SOF ¶¶ 3-4.
There was important business going on, though, because on that day, in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, a joint session of Congress was convened to certify the vote of the Electoral College in the 2020 Presidential Election.
This was after every single one of the fifty states, including those under Republican control or with Republican election officials, had certified its own count, and after court challenges to those counts or certifications had been rejected by more than sixty courts across the country - by state judges, and also by federal judges appointed by Presidents of both parties, including former President Trump. Vice President Mike Pence, also a Republican, was present and presiding, as the Constitution required. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1.
The United States Capitol Police, federal law enforcement officers surrounding the building, and the members of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department who were summoned to assist, were overcome.
Defendant was one of many individuals who made their way through the barricades and past the officers who were attempting to keep the crowd away from the building. He was one of the individuals who entered the closed building. See Mot. at 7; Opp. at 4. And that day, the certification process prescribed by the Constitution was interrupted as members of Congress of both parties and the Vice President had to be spirited to safety or were forced to barricade the doors or hide.
Defendant is charged with five counts related to his entry into the Capitol on January 6th. See Indictment. As the D.C. Circuit has noted, "[ i]t cannot be gainsaid that the violent breach of the Capitol on January 6 was a grave danger to our democracy." Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged are quite serious. "The actions of this violent mob, particularly those members who breached police lines and gained entry to the Capitol, are reprehensible as offenses against morality, civic virtue, and the rule of law." United States v. Chrestman, No. 21-mj-218 (ZMF), 2021 WL 765662, at *7 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2021). However, bond is an individualized determination, and the Court must consider what this particular defendant did, rather than the danger posed by the entire group, and the D.C. Circuit has advised that ''those who actually assaulted police officers and broke through windows, doors, and barricades, and those who aided, conspired with, planned, or coordinated such actions, are in a different category of dangerousness than those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way." Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284.
Defendant is alleged to have entered the building itself, which is more troubling than merely being present on the grounds; "[a] defendant who remained only on the grounds surrounding the Capitol exhibited less brazen disregard for restrictions on unlawful entrants than did a defendant who breached the interior of the Capitol building." Chrestman, 2021 WL 765662, at *8.
However, it is also true the government has presented no evidence that defendant assaulted anyone, nor is he alleged to have been one of the rioters who broke down physical barriers such as doors or windows. Cf. Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284. Defendant is also not alleged to have been a leader or coordinator of the attack.7 These are aspects of the nature and circumstances of the offense that must be weighed in his favor.
But even though defendant does not fall within the most serious category of offenders described in Munchel, there are many aspects of his participation that do not bode well for the future, and the record does not support the narrative advanced by many who wrote letters on his behalf who suggested that he merely got swept up in what others were doing.
Many wrote to say what they think defendant would or would not do, and the letters included a common refrain:
• A childhood friend: defendant "got caught up in everything that happened in January." Letters at 2.
• The Houghton Country Sheriff: "I believe [defendant] to be more a follower who went to have his voice heard and got caught up in the crowd and followed in." Id. at 4.
• Another longtime family friend: "While [defendant] may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up in the unfortunate events of the day, I can not imagine that he had any intent to inflict injury to persons or property." Id. at 11.
• His pastor: "[As] a fairly quick judge of character ... I do not believe that [defendant] is any real danger to our community or our government. I 'think' that [ defendant] got wrapped up in a movement and made some very foolish decisions." Id. at 5.
• A public school administrator: "I truly believe that [defendant] got caught up in the emotions of the crowd." Id. at 15.
But bond is not just an individualized determination, it is a determination based on facts. So it is necessary to dig deeper to decide whether defendant was someone who unwittingly found himself in the center of a maelstrom or if he planned to get past the cordon of police officers and enter the Capitol building all along.
The social media posts from before January 6 bear on that question. Six weeks earlier, on November 23, 2020, defendant posted: "Its war everywhere if we let this election get stolen," Opp. at 13, and he was posting the rallying cry, "Stop the Steal," as early as December 16, 2020. SOF ¶ 13. On December 19, then-President Trump tweeted: "Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" The very next day, defendant posted, "7-4-1776 = 1-6-2021." SOF ¶ 13. What did he mean? On January 3, 2021, he announced that he was preparing to go to Washington, D.C., and he was "prepared for chemical attacks and what not," proclaiming, "NO EXCUSES! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! TAKE THE STREETS! TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! 1/6/2021=7/4/1776." SOF ¶ 14. On January 5, he added: "Stop the steal. this is the last stand of The United States of America to remain free."[/b] Ex. 8 to Opp.; see also Opp. at 13.
Defendant argues that another communication from the same date establishes that he never had any plan to attack the Capitol - he just drove all the way to D.C. to attend a peaceful rally:
Reply ¶ 8.
But counsel's interpretation is not entirely consistent with what defendant wrote. While defendant did not advocate violence, and he expressed a view that it "could be done peacefully," the exchange does not go so far as to suggest that he did not intend to engage in any illegal activity: entering the Capitol on January 6 at all, even peacefully, was illegal. Defendant also agreed that "civil war" "may be necessary someday," and that he was going to be in Washington because Trump said to be there and "maybe he needs bodies or something." The fact that he was willing to be one of the available "bodies," even if it might turn out to be "pointless" and the civil war would be necessary some other day, is consistent with the evidence that it was his plan to "Stop the Steal," not to just "be present" and hear a speech about it.
Defendant's actions once he got to Washington also support that conclusion. He did not stand by; he did not cheer for his candidate in Freedom Plaza and then go home. As the group approached the Capitol, he posted, "Who's house? OUR HOUSE!" SOF ¶ 16. At 3:14 p.m., he announced that he had achieved his aim, posting a photo of himself in an area called the Crypt that was closed for the day with the caption, "We are in." Id. ¶ 17. He exchanged messages with others: "Patriots are in the Capitol building now." Id. ¶ 21. In other words, the entry into the building was the point all along, and it was what he was happy about.
The caption to the video he posted later that day emphasized the point:
SOF ¶¶ 19-20 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 15 to Opp. ("Bro you shoulda been there .... the news is all fake ... and just to correct shit .. we wasn't violent but we took the capitol .... antifa didn't do it ... it was us that got in.") (emphasis added). What's more, defendant bragged that they "Had the cops booking it." SOF ¶ 26 (emphasis added). These are not the comments of someone who was overwhelmed by events he did not anticipate.
At this point in the case, though, the purpose of analyzing the nature and circumstances of the offense - and the other 3142(g) factors - is to discern what they tell us about the future, not the past. As part of that exercise, it is useful to review what happened afterwards. After he had been inside the closed federal building, did defendant calm down? Was he chastened by the reports of serious injuries and even deaths that resulted from the attack?
On January 7, 2021, defendant commented on an someone else's Facebook post: "Mike Pence gave our country to the communist hordes, traitor scum like the rest of them, we have your back give the word and we will be back even stronger." SOF ¶ 28 (emphasis added). Defendant's promise to take action in the future cannot be dismissed as an unlikely occurrence given that his singular source of information, see Reply ¶ 8 ("Trump's the only big shot I trust right now"), continues to propagate the lie that inspired the attack on a near daily basis. See generally From the Desk of Donald J. Trump, https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk (last visited May 27, 2021).8 And the anger surrounding the false accusation continues to be stoked by multiple media outlets as well as the state and federal party leaders who are intent on censuring those who dare to challenge the former President's version of events.
So, the first factor weighs in favor of defendant and against a finding of dangerousness in that he did not break windows or doors to gain entry, and he did not harm anyone on the premises. But he did enter the building and did not simply stand in solidarity with the President outside, and his statements before, during, and after give rise to concerns that defendant was not only an enthusiastic, boastful participant in the assault on democracy that day, but that he stands ready to do it again.
B. The history and characteristics of the defendant
Defendant's motion summarizes the many letters from supporters in the community that were attached as exhibits:
Mot. ¶ 6.
The Court has read and considered the letters. It agrees that one must take defendant's connection to the community and his record of being non-violent, friendly, kind, and helpful to others, particularly elderly neighbors, into account when looking at who it is that is seeking to be released. Defendant is reportedly a hard worker and a loving son and father. But other than defendant's local lawyer (who is also the town's mayor), who conceded, "to be candid, [defendant] has occasionally exercised rather poor judgement," Letters at 13, the letter writers, while sincere, only shed light on a part of the total picture.9 Few of them grapple with the serious nature of the charges as they muse about what they think must have happened; none mention or even seem aware of the tone or content of defendant's Facebook posts, cf id. at 10 ("I have never once seen him angry or combative"), and only the lawyer and the sheriff appear to be aware of any previous brushes with the law.10
And when considering this factor, the Court is obliged to take defendant's criminal history, which is documented in the Pretrial Services Report, into account as well. Defendant was first arrested in Georgia in 2001. PSR at 4. He was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana Possession; the case was later dismissed. Id. In 2008, defendant was arrested in Lake Linden, Michigan, and initially charged with Assaulting/Resisting/Obstructing a Police Officer; he pled guilty to Disturbing the Peace. Id. In 2010, defendant was arrested in Houghton, Michigan, and charged with vehicle-related crimes: "Motor Vehicle - Operate Without Security," "Operate Owner Permitting Another to Violate Motor Vehicle Code," and "License Plate, Registration, Title - Unlawful Use." Id. One count was dismissed, and defendant paid a fine for the other two. Id. In 2011, defendant was again charged with Obstructing an Officer, this time in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Id. He pled guilty and paid a fine. Id.
Most seriously, defendant was convicted of felonies in two states after he led police officers on a high-speed chase in June of 2013. PSR at 4-5. Defendant, who was already traveling at more than seventy miles an hour when the police tried to stop him for speeding, rapidly doubled his speed. Id. at 5. He "traveled at rates of up to 145 miles per hour" while attempting to evade the officers, crossed state lines from Wisconsin into Michigan, and finally came to a stop "with smoke coming from the rear tires." Id. While the police were in pursuit, defendant swerved around other vehicles in no-pass zones, ignored stop signs, "nearly struck an eastbound motorcycle before swerving back into [his] lane of travel" (which almost caused the motorcycle to hit the pursuing officer), and "narrowly avoided a head on collision with an eastbound pickup truck." See Ex. 12 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-13] ("Police Report") at 7-8. When defendant was arrested, deputies "found multiple empty beer cans in the back seat,"11 and defendant "was found to have a breath alcohol content of .07 percent." PSR at 5. Based on these events, defendant pled guilty to felony charges in Wisconsin in 2014 and Michigan in 2017, and he spent eleven months in jail in Wisconsin and one year in jail in Michigan. PSR at 4-5.
Defendant attempts to minimize the significance of this pair of convictions by emphasizing that the events took place eight years ago, and that he has "extremely strong ties to his community." Mot. at 6. Also, at the bond review hearing, his attorney attributed defendant's recklessness to too much alcohol as opposed to a disrespectful attitude towards law enforcement. But eight years ago is not the distant past, especially since defendant was thirty-two years old at the time of the arrest, and the date of the second disposition, in Michigan, was reported by Pretrial Services to be December 11, 2017. PSR at 4.!2 In any event, on top of the fact that it was defendant who made the decision to combine alcohol with being behind the wheel in the first place, it is fair to say that even highly intoxicated drivers often pull over when the sirens begin to blare behind them. This defendant chose to place the lives of numerous officers, motorists, and bystanders at risk instead, and this is not the only offense on his record that relates to obstructing the police. These circumstances bear directly upon the assessment of his dangerousness, and they will weigh heavily in the analysis of the risk of flight as well. And, as the Magistrate Judge pointed out, defendant further showed his contempt for the law with his possession of multiple firearms notwithstanding these two prior felony convictions. See Order of Detention Pending Trial at 3.
The defense and some of the letter writers would have the Court overlook the firearms, too. They inform the Court that gun ownership is common in the Upper Peninsula. See, e.g., Letters at 4. This may be true, but it does not address the potential illegality of the gun ownership by a person with two prior felony convictions. Defendant's pleadings characterize the weapons that were seized as "unremarkable," Mot. ¶ 8, and counsel explained that defendant kept them only "for hunting and home protection." Id. ¶ 10. Defendant scoffs at the discovery of 'just two shotguns, an old rifle and a handgun," id. at 10, saying there is "nothing concerning about them," id, and that they are not "modern firearms," id ¶ 8, and he makes particular efforts to minimize the 7.62 mm, 39 caliber, Russian-made rifle. See Reply at 8 ("The SKS rifle that was allegedly found at Mr. Dresch's residence is not a modern rifle. Internet research shows that the SKS rifle was manufactured in Russia for its Army starting in 1945. The SKS rifle was last manufactured in Russia in 1958. The rifle allegedly found at Mr. Dresch's residence would therefore have to be at least over 60 years old.") (citation omitted).
But if the Russian rifle is of so little use, what would justify the quantity of 7.62 ammunition found throughout the house - in the dining room, the main bedroom, the top of the stairs,13 and even in the backpack that appears to have traveled with defendant to Washington?14 Ex. 2 to Opp; at 3-4; Ex. 4b to Opp. at 3. And if the pistol is just an old relic that belongs to defendant's mother, why does defendant have a supply of bullets for that as well; even more concerning, why was it loaded? ATF Search Warrant Inventory at 2. The Remington shotgun was also found loaded, id., and ammunition for that was in the dining room and a laundry basket on the front porch. Id. at 3; Ex. 4b to Opp. at 3. In sum, there was a weapon or ammunition in almost every room in the house, some of it simply characterized by the first set of officers as "8 boxes of misc. ammunition." ATF Search Warrant Inventory at 3. Is this unsecured and scattered collection of firearms and ammunition15 consistent with the sheriffs assurances that, in his community, "people are trained to respect the weapons for their intended use for sport"? Letters at 4. Is this how a responsible sportsman with a thirteen-year-old child in the house stores his equipment?16
Thus, while there are aspects of defendant's history and characteristics that count in his favor, there are also facts that weigh heavily in favor of detention, especially when one considers them in tandem with defendant's boast that law enforcement cannot stop him from doing what he wants to do, especially from "1000 miles away." Ex. 15 to Opp.
C. The weight of the evidence against the defendant
The weight of the evidence is strong. Defendant posted pictures and videos from within the Capitol Building on his social media accounts, and the posts from both before and after reveal that was where he wanted to be. Defendant acknowledges that the government has evidence that he was present in the Capitol. Mot. at 7 ("Admittedly, the government does appear to have video and pictures that show that Mr. Dresch was inside the Capitol with the protesting crowd on January 6."). And he recognizes that "this evidence might go some way towards helping it get convictions against Mr. Dresch for the four misdemeanor counts it has charged him with." Id. But defendant argues that there is limited support for the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding: "t is less clear how the government can prove that Mr. Dresch intended his conduct to be anything more than an act of protest - as opposed to an attempt to actually obstruct Congress from performing its duties." Id
But as the Court has already detailed in connection with the first factor, defendant's own words and deeds are entirely consistent with the grand jury's determination that it was defendant's objective to enter the building to interrupt the official proceedings - or, as he put it, to "[s]top the steal." SOF ¶ 13; see also Ex. 8 to Opp. The timing of defendant's entry into the Capitol was hardly coincidental. It came on the date that Congress was set to certify the Electoral College vote count, and defendant had been posting about the significance of the date since mid-December. See SOF ¶ 14 ("NO EXCUSES! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! TAKE THE STREETS! TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! 1/6/2021 =7/4/1776.").
Courts in other circuits have cautioned, though, that a district court assessing the evidence should not consider the weight of the evidence of defendant's guilt, but rather must consider only the weight of the evidence of defendant's dangerousness. United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 948 (6th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that section 3142(g) "neither requires nor permits a pretrial determination of guilt").
All of this evidence gives rise to serious concerns in that regard as well. And while the D.C. Circuit may have implied that the unparalleled events of January 6 were a unique confluence of circumstances that have passed, Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284 ("the specific circumstances of January 6 have passed"), defendant has made clear that he sees that date as part of a broader effort. As he stated a month before the trip: "[i]ts war everywhere if we let this election get stolen." Ex. 6 to Opp.; see also Opp. at 13. His view at the end of the day? "[ b]est day ever ... I think it was a good show of force ... look what we can do peacefully, wait til we decide to get pissed." Ex. 15 to Opp. And he announced the next day: "give the word and we will be back even stronger." Ex. 10 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-12]. In the exchange quoted in his motion, defendant stated, "Trump's the only big shot I trust right now," Reply ¶ 8, and for Trump, the effort to-challenge the result of the election is not over. So it is quite concerning that in the very email that the defense asked the Court to consider, defendant agreed that "[y]a," a civil war "may be necessary some day." Id.
D. The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant's release
Here again, it is defendant's own pronouncements that give rise to significant concerns. On January 7, defendant went well beyond exulting in a political message conveyed on January 6 when he posted:
Ex. 15 to Opp.; see also Opp. at 16. After that, defendant got wind of how others were reacting to what had occurred, and he took particular offense at those who were identifying participants for the FBI. On January 11 and 12, 2021, defendant said, among other things:
• "[F]uckheads up there are mass snitching me to feds."
• "Look up []."
• "Fuck her ... call the cops bitch lol ... I ain't saying shit."
• " ... [i]when it's everywhere makes it so much harder to stop us." Ex. 13 to Opp. (emphasis added); see also Opp. at 15. On January 12, he says more about the person he believed had posted information about individuals who participated in the attack:
• "Ya I looked at her shit and the ones commenting on it are the same."
• "Now they wanna snitch me out lol .. bunch of losers."
• "I sent her thing to tons of Patriots now it's gone haha."
Ex. 14 to Opp.; see also Opp. at 15-16. The record does not indicate precisely what defendant said when he sent the materials on, but his own observation was:
• "I'm sure I made a FBI folder but fuck it I know who my enemies are." Id. (emphasis added).
Given defendant's offer to return to Washington to engage in a similar effort to disrupt democratic processes again, his warning that authorities here cannot reach him at home, the utter contempt he showed for law enforcement and the safety of the community during the high speed chase, the threatening remarks directed at an individual who was reporting participants in the attack to the FBI, defendant's other convictions for obstructive conduct, and his knowing possession of multiple weapons and a considerable supply of ammunition after two felony convictions, the Court has clear and convincing reasons to believe that defendant poses a danger to the community that cannot be alleviated by the imposition of any conditions.
III. The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a risk that defendant will fail to appear.
All of this evidence also supports a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a risk that if released, defendant will fail to appear for trial. Defendant maintains that the presence of family and friends and his long-standing ties to the community suggest that he would not leave the Upper Peninsula to abscond to Canada. But the concern is not whether he would up and move to another country; the concern is whether he will conform to his obligations and appear in this Court, and respect its orders when he is supposed to. Defendant has given the Court plenty of reasons to be concerned that he will be resistant to reappearing if released, and that it would not go well if the Court had to send the U.S. Marshals to collect him. Defendant's criminal record, and the evasive and obstructive conduct that the felonies represent, weigh heavily against defendant's release, just as they would in the case of a local defendant - with real ties to this community - in any other case in this courthouse.
For all of these reasons, defendant's motion to be released on bond will be DENIED.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge
DATE: May 27, 2021
_______________
Notes:
• From R.G. (defendant's childhood and lifelong friend): "[Defendant] is an intelligent individual, and a very caring friend. He is generous, always willing to help a friend in need. . .. I have never seen [defendant] act violent, lash out, or even act physically or verbally aggressive or confrontational toward anyone. He is a kind, sensitive, thoughtful individual, who has strong political beliefs, but is not a threat to anyone, ever .... It saddens my heart to know that [defendant] got caught up in everything that happened in January." Letters at 2.
• B.Y. (defendant's neighbor and friend): "[Defendant] is a fine, upstanding, conscientious young man, a good father, ... and a wonderful son. He is a hard worker and has always been someone that others could count on to do a good and thorough job, such as shoveling snow as a teenager for older neighbors and helping his mom with difficult maintenance jobs in her home .... There is not a malicious bone in his body. I believe in his integrity and goodness as a person." Id. at 3.
• B.M. (sheriff of defendant's county of residence): "The Dresch family has always had a good and solid reputation here .... I believe [defendant] to be more a follower who went to have his voice heard and got caught up in the crowd and followed in and posted his photos to prove to everyone that he had made his statement." "[T]here were weapons [law enforcement] found at [defendant's apartment], but nearly all homes here have weapons." Id. at 4.
• T.L. (pastor of a local church): "[Defendant and his wife] are not yet members of the church." "We have shared a few meals together, and [defendant] has done some work for the church. . . . That is the extent of our relationship." "[As] a fairly quick judge of character ... I do not believe that [defendant] is any real danger to our community or government. I 'think' that [defendant] got wrapped up in a movement and made some very foolish decisions." Id. at 5.
• R.P. (knew defendant since defendant was five): "[Defendant] has been a polite and kind young man. He is the kind of son who helps his elderly mother. . . . He also does heavy chores for her." "[Defendant] is also a good father to his 13-year-old son who, needs him in his life." Id. at 6.
• D.C. (defendant's childhood friend): "I have grown to know my friend as a kind, caring, and thoughtful person with little to no ego .... [Defendant] has a brilliant, articulate, keen mind. . .. In all the years I've known him, I've never seen him with a temper, never seen him yell at anyone. Violence is not in his nature, he would never be capable of it, nor would he ever condone it." "[Defendant] believes in high moral values, love and thoughtfulness, along with the truth." Id. at 7.
• R.S. (defendant's neighbor): "[Defendant] has always been a very polite considerate young man - a good member of our community .... He did participate in the Jan 6th uprising. Perhaps he was misled by the former President Trump's rhetoric and conspiracy theorists. [Defendant] is a fine young man. He would never have any evil intentions of any kind." Id. at 8.
• L.M. & R.M. (defendant's aunt & uncle ): "[Defendant] is a talented man with an excellent work ethic .... In our observation, [defendant] has been respectful and considerate of the family, old and young. He is not an angry or violent person." "May it be taken into consideration that no damage or violence was exhibited by [defendant]." Id. at 9.
• T.S. (defendant's childhood friend): "In the countless great times I have spent with [defendant] I have never once seen him angry or combative." "It would be a great disservice to justice to persecute this man for supporting the cause of freedom and truth. I implore the court to consider the reality of the events of January 6th and not to the sensational headlines that media has chosen to paint what happened that day with ... I know [defendant] was not there to do anything other than support a cause he believed in." Id. at 10.
• A.P. (defendant's longtime family friend): "While [defendant] may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up in the unfortunate events of the day, I cannot imagine that he had any intent to inflict injury to persons or property." Id. at 11.
• F.W. (has known defendant for twenty-five years): "[Defendant] has always enthusiastically embraced the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights but is not inclined to violence or destructive behavior." "[Defendant] is certainly not a 'rabble-rouser' and while his passions for his country and patriotism for the American people sometimes carry him to over-enthusiasm, his actions do not warrant further incarceration!" Id. at 12.
• P.L. (defendant's longtime friend and local attorney): "[Defendant] has very strong political views concerning government, in particular the legislative and executive branches, and law enforcement." "[T]o be candid, [defendant] has occasionally exercised rather poor judgement." "I have never known [defendant] to be violent in any way nor do I believe him to be flight risk nor a person who would obstruct justice." Id. at 13.
• S.F. (casual acquaintance of defendant for past two years): "I can vouch for [defendant's] sincere friendly character, morals and integrity over the time I have known him." Id. at 14.
• J.B. (member of the public school administration): "I am hoping that you will be able to see [defendant] as a good person separate from his entering the Capitol. I truly believe that he got caught up in the emotions of the crowd. . .. In [ defendant]'s case, he has also been vilified in the press both nationally and locally. People in Houghton County ... have unfairly been called extremists. This couldn't be farther from the truth unless one is an extremist merely by virtue of being a Republican." Id. at 15.
2 President Trump's Twitter account is no longer accessible, but the tweet was widely reported on at the time. See, e.g., Trump promises 'wild' protest in Washington DC on Jan. 6, claims it's 'impossible' he lost, Fox News, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... n-dc-jan-6 (Dec. 19,2020).
3 Defendant regularly uses ellipses in his messages. Though defendant often did not space out his ellipses, e.g., writing ... rather than . . ., the Court has taken the initiative to space out ellipses even when quoting defendant in order to improve the readability of the messages.
4 This video was posted shortly after midnight, so the date is technically January 7, 2021. SOF ¶ 20.
5 The Court has chosen not to include this person's name.
6 In the reply, the defense emphasized, "[t]hus, it appears that at least three of the four guns found at Mr. Dresch['s] residence had initially been placed there for storage several years before Mr. Dresch even moved in." Reply ¶ 12. But at the hearing, counsel did not dispute that defendant knew they were there. The Pretrial Services Report reflects that as of the time of the search, he had been living in the house for more than three years (since January of 2018). Pretrial Services Report [Dkt. # 21] (SEALED) ("PSR") at 1. And while defendant's mother averred that she stored the guns in a closet at least ten years ago, see ATF Materials at 1, the Russian made rifle that had been her husband's was found in the master bedroom. See ATF Search Warrant Inventory.
7 Defendant did generally encourage others to join the cause. For example, defendant posted, "NO EXCUSES! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! TAKE THE STREETS! TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! 1/6/2021=7/4/1776." SOF ¶ 14. However, this does not rise to the level of leading or coordinating.
8 As another court in this district has noted, "If defendant truly believes that the only reason he participated in an assault on the U.S. Capitol was to comply with President Trump's orders, this shows defendant's inability (or refusal) to exercise his independent judgment and conform his behavior to the law." United States v. Chansley, No. 21-cr-3, 2021 WL 861079, at *10 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2021); see also United States v. Whitton, No. 21-cr-35-5, 2021 WL 1546931, at *12 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2021) ("While the certification of the 2020 Presidential Election is now complete, and President Biden has taken office, the Court is not convinced that dissatisfaction and concern about the legitimacy of the election results has dissipated for all Americans. Former President Donald J. Trump continues to make forceful public comments about the 'stolen election,' chastising individuals who did not reject the supposedly illegitimate results that put the current administration in place.") (citations omitted).
9 Many of the letter writers did not appear to know the forty-year-old defendant very well although they knew or thought well of his accomplished father and mother, who were prominent members of the community. See generally Letters (reporting that he is "a fine, upstanding, conscientious young man"; "certainly not a 'rabble-rouser"'; "a polite and kind young man"; "a very polite considerate young man.").
10 The Court also received a letter from a Michigan resident asking that defendant be detained pending trial and emphasizing the seriousness of his conduct. See Letter to the Court [Dkt. # 22] ("I support your decision to keep Mr. Dresch in jail for two reasons. First because of his own behavior but equally so because of the context of domestic terrorism.").
11 The PSR only mentions empty beer cans, but the police report states that officers found not just empty beer cans, but full beers, an almost empty bottle of tequila, and another half full bottle of liquor. See Police Report at 9.
12 These facts suggest that the Court cannot put much stock in the sheriff's statement that "although in his teens [defendant] had a few brushes with local law enforcement ... [he] settled down a lot as he grew older." Letters at 4.
13 The area at the top of the stairs is variously treated as an open area, a closet, and a "hall room," so though the reports vary with how they characterize this area, the Court is under the impression that these discoveries may all be from the same area.
14 The backpack also contained a January 5, 2021 receipt from a gas station in Hagerstown, Maryland. Ex. 3 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-3] (noting miscellaneous papers and unattached photos of such); see also Opp. at 6.
15 The amount of ammunition, the fact that the weapons were not all secured in the closet where defendant's mother supposedly stored them a decade ago, and the assertion that defendant had the firearms on hand for hunting and for protection are all inconsistent with counsel's suggestion at the hearing that defendant did not "possess" the guns.
16 Defendant also attempts to stir up suspicion about the origin of the weapons based on the fact that only two guns were observed and seized during the initial search on January 19, and that the house was left unattended and unlocked between that time and the January 21 search by the ATF agents that produced two more firearms. He argues that "it appears that some, if not all, of the items may have been placed in the residence after the first search." Reply, ¶ 13. At the hearing, the government emphasized that the first set of agents was not there to look for firearms. But in addition, a close look at what was found on each date undermines the suggestion that the guns were somehow nefariously planted in the interim. Defendant's mother asserted ownership over "the Russian rifle, the Glock, and one of the shotguns," ATF Materials at 1, and she averred that at some point between 2008 and 2011, she placed them all in "upstairs bedrooms closets." Id. The Russian rifle was found the first day, along with one shotgun. Search Warrant Inventory at 3. But it was the Glock pistol and the second shotgun that were recovered two days later in upstairs closets, where defendant's mother stated they'd been stored. ATF Search Warrant Inventory at 3. And it is the Glock and its ammunition that defendant's mother asked to have returned. ATF Materials at 1.
by Judge Amy Berman Jackson
May 27, 2021
Document 25 Filed 05/27/21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:21-cr-00071-ABJ
Crim. Action No. 21-0071 (ABJ)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KARL DRESCH, Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant has been indicted on five counts: (1) Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2; (2) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1); (3) Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2); (4) Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D); and (5) Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building in violation of 40 U.S.c. § 5104(e)(2)(G). Indictment [Dkt. # 5] at 1-3.
Defendant was arrested on January 19, 2021, see Rule 5(c)(3) Docs. [Dkt. # 7] at 1, and the government moved for pretrial detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). Mot. for Detention [Dkt. # 23-1]. Defendant was ordered detained after a hearing before a Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Michigan on the grounds that the government had established that he posed a danger to the community and well as a risk of flight. Order of Detention Pending Trial [Dkt. # 18-6] at 2. The Magistrate Judge checked off boxes on the preprinted form to indicate that factors bearing on the decision included: "[the] Weight of the evidence is strong," "Prior criminal history," "History of violence or use of weapons," and "Prior attempt(s) to evade law enforcement." Id. at 2-3. The Magistrate Judge added:
In addition, the undersigned finds by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community based on[:]
(1) Defendant's possession of firearms and ammunition following a felony conviction,
(2) Defendant's posting of statements reflecting a willingness to engage[] in additional actions that are similar to those he took on Jan. 6, 2021[,] and
(3) Defendant's willingness to flee pursuing police officers at high speed in 2013.
Id. at 3 (citations omitted).
On April 1, defendant filed a motion to "lift his preventive detention in this case." Mot. to Lift Preventive Detention and P. & A. in Supp. Thereof [Dkt. # 16] ("Mot.") at 1. In addition to making legal arguments, defendant has submitted numerous letters of support from members of his community. See Letters of Support [Dkt. # 16-1] ("Letters'').1 The government opposed the motion, Gov't Resp. to Mot. [Dkt. # 18] ("Opp."), and the Court held a hearing on the motion on May 3, 2021. Min. Entry (May 3, 2021). The issue has been fully briefed. See Def.'s Reply to Opp. [Dkt. # 20] ("Reply"). For the following reasons, the motion will be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
I. Defendant's Participation in the Attack on the United States Capitol
Defendant was arrested on January 19, 2021 after agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") received a tip that he had posted information regarding his participation in the events now known as the Capitol Riots to his social media accounts. Statement of Facts [Dkt. # 1-1] ("SOF") , ¶ 11. Shortly thereafter, a search warrant was issued for additional information associated with defendant's Facebook account. Id. ¶ 12. The search revealed the following:
• On November 23,2020, defendant posted: "It's war everywhere if we let this election get stolen." Ex. 6 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-7].
• On December 16,2020, defendant posted: "Stop the Steal." SOF ¶ 13.
• On December 20, 2020, the day after then-President Trump tweeted, "Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"2 defendant posted: "7-4-1776= 1-6-2021." SOF ¶ 13.
• On January 3, 2021, defendant posted a series of messages announcing that he was preparing to go to Washington, D.C., that he was "prepared for chemical attacks and whatnot," and "NO EXCUSES! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! TAKE THE STREETS! TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! 1/6/2021 =7/4/1776." SOF ¶ 14.
• On January 5, 2021, defendant commented: "Stop the steal! this is the last stand of The United States of America to remain free." Ex. 8 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-9].
• On January 6, 2021, defendant posted photographs of a group approaching the Capitol along with the caption "Who's house? OUR HOUSE!" SOF ¶ 16.
• Defendant exchanged messages with other Facebook users on January 6, 2021, stating: "Patriots are in the Capitol building now"; sending pictures of groups inside of the building; and noting that he had "[ b]een using" a mask to protect against gas used by the police. He sent selfies from outside of the Capitol with captions such as "Just had a beer on our front porch," and "That's right outside the house of representative ... we got in! Took a lil gas ... wtf I love masks now!" As defendant put it, they "Had the cops booking it." SOF ¶ ¶ 21,23-26.3
• Defendant also posted a picture with the caption "We are in," SOF ¶ 17, which appears to depict an area inside of the U.S. Capitol Building. See also Mot. at 7 ("Admittedly, the government does appear to have video and pictures that show that Mr. Dresch was inside the Capitol with the protesting crowd on January 6."); Opp. at 4 ("The FBI shared the post with a U.S. Capitol Police Officer, who confirmed that it accurately depicts the inside of the U.S. Capitol Building, specifically, the 'Crypt,' a location under the rotunda in the center of the Capitol.").
• Defendant continued to communicate by social media into the evening: posting "I'm excited!"; commenting "Total Victory!" on a picture of a crowd at the Washington Monument; commenting on another user's post that "It was peaceful ... still got a lil gas tho ... mask on for safety"; and commenting on another post that "we broke no glass no shoving I seen." SOF ¶ ¶ 27-28.
• Defendant ended the day by posting a video taken earlier at the U.S. Capitol Visitor's Center:
Okay all you conspiracy theorists [winking smiley face emoji] don't worry I loves yous all just setting the record straight.antifa did not take the capitol.that was Patriots, I can't guarantee there weren't some shit birds in the crowd but what multi-million crowd can you guarantee?.don't give them the thunder, we the people took back our house, the news is all bullshit.and now those traitors Know who's really in charge. And I can't say I saw any violence from our people, despite all the poking of the capitol police, gassing randomly into women and children being peaceful, beating old men we kept it chill. 4
SOF ¶¶ 19-20.
The social media activity continued after January 6.
• On January 7, 2021, defendant commented on an unidentified post that "Mike Pence gave our country to the communist hordes, traitor scum like the rest of them, we have your back give the word and we will be back even stronger." SOF ¶ 28.
• In another message dated January 7, defendant stated:
Bro you shoulda been there .... the news is all fake ... and just to correct shit .. we wasn't violent but we took the capitol .... antifa didn't do it they may have had some idiots undercover in the crowd but it was us that got in ... and we didn't fuck shit up ... I seen a broken window ... we picked up water bottle s and shit cleaned up .. it was grand ... best day ever ... I think it was a good show of force ... look what we can do peacefully, wait til we decide to get pissed.
Ex. 15 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-16]. Defendant concluded: "And look if they can't hold the capitol with thousands of cops, how can they tell us what to do 1000 miles away." Id.
On January 11 and 12, 2021, defendant messaged a series of comments:
• "Haha you think I trust these airwaves . . . fuckheads up there are mass snitching me to feds."
• "Look up []."5
• "Fuck her what they got .. call the cops bitch lol ... I ain't saying shit."
• "Alright bro just wanted to holler let everyone know ... stand by and watch your block."
• "Yes but when it's everywhere makes it so much harder to stop us."
Ex. 13 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-14] at 1-4; see also Opp. at 15.
Later on January 12,2021, defendant returned to the subject of the person he had previously discussed:
• "Ya I looked at her shit and the ones commenting on it are the same."
• "They're the ones always mess with my Facebook ads."
• "Now they wanna snitch me out lol .. bunch of losers."
• "I sent her thing to tons of Patriots now it's gone haha, I'm sure I made a FBI folder but fuck it I know who my enemies are."
Ex. 14 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-15]; see also Opp. at 15-16.
II. Searches of Defendant's Residence
After defendant was arrested, FBI agents searched his residence in Calumet, Michigan. Opp. at 6. The government's opposition describes the initial search:
Among other items, agents located several hundred rounds of rifle (7.62) ammunition, a Russian rifle, shotgun shells, a shotgun, and an Atlanta Braves backpack. See Exhibit 2, Search Warrant Inventory. The ammunition was located in multiple places throughout the house, including the dining room, the master bedroom, an upstairs hall room, and inside the backpack. Exh. 2. Specifically, the backpack contained a Pilot gas station receipt from Hagerstown, Maryland dated January 5, 2021, a Metro SmartTrip card, and 8 boxes of 7.62 ammunition, containing a total of 160 rounds. See Exhibit 3, FBI 302 dated 1/29/21 of Contents of Backpack, and Figures 2a-2c. The boxes matched the boxes of ammunition found in the house. See Figure 2a and 3c. The firearms were identified in the Michigan State Police Report as a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun and a Russian-made SKS 7.62 mm x 39 caliber rifle. See Exhibit 3b, Michigan State Police Report dated January 19, 2021.
Id. at 6-7 (some italics omitted). The search warrant inventory, Ex. 2 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-2], provides additional information: the backpack with ammunition was found in the family room, and more ammunition was found in the dining room. Search Warrant Inventory at 3; see also Opp. at 6. Even more ammunition, as well as the shotgun and a "hand gun pistol grip," were found in the "2nd floor hall rm," and the Russian-made rifle was found in the main bedroom, as well as still more ammunition. Search Warrant Inventory at 3-4,6; see also Opp. at 6. The next day, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") obtained and executed a search warrant as well; those agents found two additional firearms - a Glock pistol and a Remington rifle - and even more ammunition. See Ex. 4a to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-4] at 3 ("ATF Search Warrant Inventory"); see also Ex. 4b to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-5]; Opp. at 9-10. The ATF inventory reveals that the Glock was found loaded in a bedroom closet; two more boxes of ammunition were found on the front porch in a laundry basket; eight more boxes of ammunition were found in a dining room cabinet; and the Remington rifle was found loaded in a closet of a different bedroom. ATF Search Warrant Inventory.
Since that time, defendant's mother has submitted materials to ATF indicating that she is the owner of the residence where the firearms were found, although she does not live there and has not lived there since she bought the home in 2008. See Reply ¶ 12; see also Materials Submitted to ATF [Dkt. # 20-1] ("ATF Materials") at 1. She explained that "the Russian rifle, the Glock, and one of the shotguns" belong to her, ATF Materials at 9; they became her property in 2006 when her husband passed away. Reply ¶ 12; see also ATF Materials at 3. She states that she left the firearms at the house now occupied by defendant because she has "never had any interest in owning a gun, and actually feel[s] nervous around guns," so she preferred not to have the weapons at her primary residence. ATF Materials at 1.6
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 et seq., starts with the proposition that the judicial officer shall order pretrial release on personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond unless he or she determines that release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community. See id. § 3142(b). If conditions are required, the law provides that the defendant shall be released subject to the condition that he not commit a federal, state, or local crime, and subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that the judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person and the safety of any other person and the community. See id. § 3142(c)(1).
If the judicial officer finds after a hearing that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, the judicial officer 'shall' order the detention of the person before trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(I). Under the terms of the statute, the facts the judicial officer relies upon to support a finding that no conditions will assure the safety of the community must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The statute is silent on the level of proof required to establish that the defendant poses a risk of flight, but the D.C. Circuit has ruled that such a finding need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1987), quoting United States v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327, 329 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Even if the defendant does not pose a flight risk, danger to the community alone can be a sufficient reason to order pretrial detention. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 (1987) ("When the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that an arrestee presents an identified and articulable threat to an individual or the community ... a court may disable the arrestee from executing that threat."); Simpkins, 826 F.2d at 98.
The government may only move for pretrial detention in the limited circumstances that are enumerated in the Act. See 18 U.S.C. §3142(f). In this case, the government moved for detention under subsection (f)(2), which provides that the judicial officer shall hold a hearing upon motion of the government or its own motion in a case that involves "(A) a serious risk that such person will flee; or (B) a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror."
When community safety is the basis for detention, the government must prove the need for detention by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996). To determine whether the government has carried its burden, the Court must consider: (1) "the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence," (2) "the weight of the evidence against the [defendant]," (3) "the history and characteristics of the [ defendant]," and (4) "the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). This is a forward-looking inquiry; "a defendant's detention based on dangerousness accords with due process only insofar as the district court determines that the defendant's history, characteristics, and alleged criminal conduct make clear that he or she poses a concrete, prospective threat to public safety." United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2021); see also Salerno, 481 U.S. at 752.
Finally, although the D.C. Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, courts in this district and many other circuits agree that the district judge should review de novo a detention decision rendered by a Magistrate Judge. See, e.g., United States v. Hassanshahi, 989 F. Supp. 3d 110, 113 (D.D.C. 2013); United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases); United States v. Stewart, 19 F. App'x 46, 48 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v. Gonzales, 149 F.3d 1192 at *1 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 36 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 1985).
ANALYSIS
I. Defendant is eligible for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(t)(2).
Defendant argues that that government lacked sufficient grounds to move for his detention under the Bail Reform Act. Mot. at 6-7. Section 3142(f)(2) states that the judicial officer shall hold a hearing upon motion of the government or its own motion in a case that involves "(A) a serious risk that such person will flee; or (B) a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror." The government contended at a status conference held on May 12, 2021 that once the initial detention determination has been made, the question of eligibility under section 3142(f) is no longer reviewable, and the only issue before the Court is whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that the defendant posed a danger or proof by a preponderance that he posed a risk of flight. The Court need not address the question of whether it has authority to reverse a Magistrate Judge's determination that section 3142(f) applies, since its decision below reflects that defendant's own statements and his criminal record supplied grounds to conclude both that there was a serious risk defendant would not reappear and that he would threaten or intimidate someone associated with the case.
II. The section 3142(g) factors support detention on the grounds of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
A. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged
The United States Capitol was not open to the public on January 6, 2021. SOF ¶¶ 3-4.
There was important business going on, though, because on that day, in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, a joint session of Congress was convened to certify the vote of the Electoral College in the 2020 Presidential Election.
This was after every single one of the fifty states, including those under Republican control or with Republican election officials, had certified its own count, and after court challenges to those counts or certifications had been rejected by more than sixty courts across the country - by state judges, and also by federal judges appointed by Presidents of both parties, including former President Trump. Vice President Mike Pence, also a Republican, was present and presiding, as the Constitution required. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1.
The United States Capitol Police, federal law enforcement officers surrounding the building, and the members of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department who were summoned to assist, were overcome.
Defendant was one of many individuals who made their way through the barricades and past the officers who were attempting to keep the crowd away from the building. He was one of the individuals who entered the closed building. See Mot. at 7; Opp. at 4. And that day, the certification process prescribed by the Constitution was interrupted as members of Congress of both parties and the Vice President had to be spirited to safety or were forced to barricade the doors or hide.
Defendant is charged with five counts related to his entry into the Capitol on January 6th. See Indictment. As the D.C. Circuit has noted, "[ i]t cannot be gainsaid that the violent breach of the Capitol on January 6 was a grave danger to our democracy." Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged are quite serious. "The actions of this violent mob, particularly those members who breached police lines and gained entry to the Capitol, are reprehensible as offenses against morality, civic virtue, and the rule of law." United States v. Chrestman, No. 21-mj-218 (ZMF), 2021 WL 765662, at *7 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2021). However, bond is an individualized determination, and the Court must consider what this particular defendant did, rather than the danger posed by the entire group, and the D.C. Circuit has advised that ''those who actually assaulted police officers and broke through windows, doors, and barricades, and those who aided, conspired with, planned, or coordinated such actions, are in a different category of dangerousness than those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way." Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284.
Defendant is alleged to have entered the building itself, which is more troubling than merely being present on the grounds; "[a] defendant who remained only on the grounds surrounding the Capitol exhibited less brazen disregard for restrictions on unlawful entrants than did a defendant who breached the interior of the Capitol building." Chrestman, 2021 WL 765662, at *8.
However, it is also true the government has presented no evidence that defendant assaulted anyone, nor is he alleged to have been one of the rioters who broke down physical barriers such as doors or windows. Cf. Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284. Defendant is also not alleged to have been a leader or coordinator of the attack.7 These are aspects of the nature and circumstances of the offense that must be weighed in his favor.
But even though defendant does not fall within the most serious category of offenders described in Munchel, there are many aspects of his participation that do not bode well for the future, and the record does not support the narrative advanced by many who wrote letters on his behalf who suggested that he merely got swept up in what others were doing.
Many wrote to say what they think defendant would or would not do, and the letters included a common refrain:
• A childhood friend: defendant "got caught up in everything that happened in January." Letters at 2.
• The Houghton Country Sheriff: "I believe [defendant] to be more a follower who went to have his voice heard and got caught up in the crowd and followed in." Id. at 4.
• Another longtime family friend: "While [defendant] may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up in the unfortunate events of the day, I can not imagine that he had any intent to inflict injury to persons or property." Id. at 11.
• His pastor: "[As] a fairly quick judge of character ... I do not believe that [defendant] is any real danger to our community or our government. I 'think' that [ defendant] got wrapped up in a movement and made some very foolish decisions." Id. at 5.
• A public school administrator: "I truly believe that [defendant] got caught up in the emotions of the crowd." Id. at 15.
But bond is not just an individualized determination, it is a determination based on facts. So it is necessary to dig deeper to decide whether defendant was someone who unwittingly found himself in the center of a maelstrom or if he planned to get past the cordon of police officers and enter the Capitol building all along.
The social media posts from before January 6 bear on that question. Six weeks earlier, on November 23, 2020, defendant posted: "Its war everywhere if we let this election get stolen," Opp. at 13, and he was posting the rallying cry, "Stop the Steal," as early as December 16, 2020. SOF ¶ 13. On December 19, then-President Trump tweeted: "Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" The very next day, defendant posted, "7-4-1776 = 1-6-2021." SOF ¶ 13. What did he mean? On January 3, 2021, he announced that he was preparing to go to Washington, D.C., and he was "prepared for chemical attacks and what not," proclaiming, "NO EXCUSES! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! TAKE THE STREETS! TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! 1/6/2021=7/4/1776." SOF ¶ 14. On January 5, he added: "Stop the steal. this is the last stand of The United States of America to remain free."[/b] Ex. 8 to Opp.; see also Opp. at 13.
Defendant argues that another communication from the same date establishes that he never had any plan to attack the Capitol - he just drove all the way to D.C. to attend a peaceful rally:
In the exchange, the other individual asks the person identified as Mr. Dresch, "What's the goal of this [going to D.C. on January 6]?" The individual then continues, "I heard they are going to start a civil war if things don't go our way." To this, the person identified as Mr. Dresch responds, "Ya it may be necessary some day but could be done peacefully I think, I just figured Trump said be there maybe he needs bodies or something .... I'm not sure the point but Trump's the only big shot I trust right now so I'm going, making a trip out of it so even if it's pointless." This message makes clear that, as late as the day before, the person identified as Mr. Dresch on Facebook had no plans to do anything on January 6 other than to be present in D.C. to support the then-sitting president. Moreover, it is clear that the person was only envisioning engaging in peaceful activity. Thus, despite the government's arguments to the contrary, it is clear that, at least as of the day before, Mr. Dresch had not intended to engage [in] any illegal activity on January 6.
Reply ¶ 8.
But counsel's interpretation is not entirely consistent with what defendant wrote. While defendant did not advocate violence, and he expressed a view that it "could be done peacefully," the exchange does not go so far as to suggest that he did not intend to engage in any illegal activity: entering the Capitol on January 6 at all, even peacefully, was illegal. Defendant also agreed that "civil war" "may be necessary someday," and that he was going to be in Washington because Trump said to be there and "maybe he needs bodies or something." The fact that he was willing to be one of the available "bodies," even if it might turn out to be "pointless" and the civil war would be necessary some other day, is consistent with the evidence that it was his plan to "Stop the Steal," not to just "be present" and hear a speech about it.
Defendant's actions once he got to Washington also support that conclusion. He did not stand by; he did not cheer for his candidate in Freedom Plaza and then go home. As the group approached the Capitol, he posted, "Who's house? OUR HOUSE!" SOF ¶ 16. At 3:14 p.m., he announced that he had achieved his aim, posting a photo of himself in an area called the Crypt that was closed for the day with the caption, "We are in." Id. ¶ 17. He exchanged messages with others: "Patriots are in the Capitol building now." Id. ¶ 21. In other words, the entry into the building was the point all along, and it was what he was happy about.
The caption to the video he posted later that day emphasized the point:
Ok all you conspiracy theorists ... don't worry I loves you all just setting the record straight.antifa did not take the capitol.that was Patriots ... don't give them the thunder, we the people took back our house, the news is all bullshit.and now those traitors Know who's really in charge.
SOF ¶¶ 19-20 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 15 to Opp. ("Bro you shoulda been there .... the news is all fake ... and just to correct shit .. we wasn't violent but we took the capitol .... antifa didn't do it ... it was us that got in.") (emphasis added). What's more, defendant bragged that they "Had the cops booking it." SOF ¶ 26 (emphasis added). These are not the comments of someone who was overwhelmed by events he did not anticipate.
At this point in the case, though, the purpose of analyzing the nature and circumstances of the offense - and the other 3142(g) factors - is to discern what they tell us about the future, not the past. As part of that exercise, it is useful to review what happened afterwards. After he had been inside the closed federal building, did defendant calm down? Was he chastened by the reports of serious injuries and even deaths that resulted from the attack?
On January 7, 2021, defendant commented on an someone else's Facebook post: "Mike Pence gave our country to the communist hordes, traitor scum like the rest of them, we have your back give the word and we will be back even stronger." SOF ¶ 28 (emphasis added). Defendant's promise to take action in the future cannot be dismissed as an unlikely occurrence given that his singular source of information, see Reply ¶ 8 ("Trump's the only big shot I trust right now"), continues to propagate the lie that inspired the attack on a near daily basis. See generally From the Desk of Donald J. Trump, https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk (last visited May 27, 2021).8 And the anger surrounding the false accusation continues to be stoked by multiple media outlets as well as the state and federal party leaders who are intent on censuring those who dare to challenge the former President's version of events.
So, the first factor weighs in favor of defendant and against a finding of dangerousness in that he did not break windows or doors to gain entry, and he did not harm anyone on the premises. But he did enter the building and did not simply stand in solidarity with the President outside, and his statements before, during, and after give rise to concerns that defendant was not only an enthusiastic, boastful participant in the assault on democracy that day, but that he stands ready to do it again.
B. The history and characteristics of the defendant
Defendant's motion summarizes the many letters from supporters in the community that were attached as exhibits:
It is clear from letters that Mr. Dresch lives in a community where he is well known, valued, and trusted. The letters are consistent in stressing Mr. Dresch's humble and gentle nature and the essential goodwill he has for his family, friends, and neighbors. The letters unqualifyingly present Mr. Dresch as a non-violent person. The letters are from people of all walks of life in Mr. Dresch's community and include letters from the local sheriff, a local mayor, and the pastor of Mr. Dresch's church.
Mot. ¶ 6.
The Court has read and considered the letters. It agrees that one must take defendant's connection to the community and his record of being non-violent, friendly, kind, and helpful to others, particularly elderly neighbors, into account when looking at who it is that is seeking to be released. Defendant is reportedly a hard worker and a loving son and father. But other than defendant's local lawyer (who is also the town's mayor), who conceded, "to be candid, [defendant] has occasionally exercised rather poor judgement," Letters at 13, the letter writers, while sincere, only shed light on a part of the total picture.9 Few of them grapple with the serious nature of the charges as they muse about what they think must have happened; none mention or even seem aware of the tone or content of defendant's Facebook posts, cf id. at 10 ("I have never once seen him angry or combative"), and only the lawyer and the sheriff appear to be aware of any previous brushes with the law.10
And when considering this factor, the Court is obliged to take defendant's criminal history, which is documented in the Pretrial Services Report, into account as well. Defendant was first arrested in Georgia in 2001. PSR at 4. He was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana Possession; the case was later dismissed. Id. In 2008, defendant was arrested in Lake Linden, Michigan, and initially charged with Assaulting/Resisting/Obstructing a Police Officer; he pled guilty to Disturbing the Peace. Id. In 2010, defendant was arrested in Houghton, Michigan, and charged with vehicle-related crimes: "Motor Vehicle - Operate Without Security," "Operate Owner Permitting Another to Violate Motor Vehicle Code," and "License Plate, Registration, Title - Unlawful Use." Id. One count was dismissed, and defendant paid a fine for the other two. Id. In 2011, defendant was again charged with Obstructing an Officer, this time in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Id. He pled guilty and paid a fine. Id.
Most seriously, defendant was convicted of felonies in two states after he led police officers on a high-speed chase in June of 2013. PSR at 4-5. Defendant, who was already traveling at more than seventy miles an hour when the police tried to stop him for speeding, rapidly doubled his speed. Id. at 5. He "traveled at rates of up to 145 miles per hour" while attempting to evade the officers, crossed state lines from Wisconsin into Michigan, and finally came to a stop "with smoke coming from the rear tires." Id. While the police were in pursuit, defendant swerved around other vehicles in no-pass zones, ignored stop signs, "nearly struck an eastbound motorcycle before swerving back into [his] lane of travel" (which almost caused the motorcycle to hit the pursuing officer), and "narrowly avoided a head on collision with an eastbound pickup truck." See Ex. 12 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-13] ("Police Report") at 7-8. When defendant was arrested, deputies "found multiple empty beer cans in the back seat,"11 and defendant "was found to have a breath alcohol content of .07 percent." PSR at 5. Based on these events, defendant pled guilty to felony charges in Wisconsin in 2014 and Michigan in 2017, and he spent eleven months in jail in Wisconsin and one year in jail in Michigan. PSR at 4-5.
Defendant attempts to minimize the significance of this pair of convictions by emphasizing that the events took place eight years ago, and that he has "extremely strong ties to his community." Mot. at 6. Also, at the bond review hearing, his attorney attributed defendant's recklessness to too much alcohol as opposed to a disrespectful attitude towards law enforcement. But eight years ago is not the distant past, especially since defendant was thirty-two years old at the time of the arrest, and the date of the second disposition, in Michigan, was reported by Pretrial Services to be December 11, 2017. PSR at 4.!2 In any event, on top of the fact that it was defendant who made the decision to combine alcohol with being behind the wheel in the first place, it is fair to say that even highly intoxicated drivers often pull over when the sirens begin to blare behind them. This defendant chose to place the lives of numerous officers, motorists, and bystanders at risk instead, and this is not the only offense on his record that relates to obstructing the police. These circumstances bear directly upon the assessment of his dangerousness, and they will weigh heavily in the analysis of the risk of flight as well. And, as the Magistrate Judge pointed out, defendant further showed his contempt for the law with his possession of multiple firearms notwithstanding these two prior felony convictions. See Order of Detention Pending Trial at 3.
The defense and some of the letter writers would have the Court overlook the firearms, too. They inform the Court that gun ownership is common in the Upper Peninsula. See, e.g., Letters at 4. This may be true, but it does not address the potential illegality of the gun ownership by a person with two prior felony convictions. Defendant's pleadings characterize the weapons that were seized as "unremarkable," Mot. ¶ 8, and counsel explained that defendant kept them only "for hunting and home protection." Id. ¶ 10. Defendant scoffs at the discovery of 'just two shotguns, an old rifle and a handgun," id. at 10, saying there is "nothing concerning about them," id, and that they are not "modern firearms," id ¶ 8, and he makes particular efforts to minimize the 7.62 mm, 39 caliber, Russian-made rifle. See Reply at 8 ("The SKS rifle that was allegedly found at Mr. Dresch's residence is not a modern rifle. Internet research shows that the SKS rifle was manufactured in Russia for its Army starting in 1945. The SKS rifle was last manufactured in Russia in 1958. The rifle allegedly found at Mr. Dresch's residence would therefore have to be at least over 60 years old.") (citation omitted).
But if the Russian rifle is of so little use, what would justify the quantity of 7.62 ammunition found throughout the house - in the dining room, the main bedroom, the top of the stairs,13 and even in the backpack that appears to have traveled with defendant to Washington?14 Ex. 2 to Opp; at 3-4; Ex. 4b to Opp. at 3. And if the pistol is just an old relic that belongs to defendant's mother, why does defendant have a supply of bullets for that as well; even more concerning, why was it loaded? ATF Search Warrant Inventory at 2. The Remington shotgun was also found loaded, id., and ammunition for that was in the dining room and a laundry basket on the front porch. Id. at 3; Ex. 4b to Opp. at 3. In sum, there was a weapon or ammunition in almost every room in the house, some of it simply characterized by the first set of officers as "8 boxes of misc. ammunition." ATF Search Warrant Inventory at 3. Is this unsecured and scattered collection of firearms and ammunition15 consistent with the sheriffs assurances that, in his community, "people are trained to respect the weapons for their intended use for sport"? Letters at 4. Is this how a responsible sportsman with a thirteen-year-old child in the house stores his equipment?16
Thus, while there are aspects of defendant's history and characteristics that count in his favor, there are also facts that weigh heavily in favor of detention, especially when one considers them in tandem with defendant's boast that law enforcement cannot stop him from doing what he wants to do, especially from "1000 miles away." Ex. 15 to Opp.
C. The weight of the evidence against the defendant
The weight of the evidence is strong. Defendant posted pictures and videos from within the Capitol Building on his social media accounts, and the posts from both before and after reveal that was where he wanted to be. Defendant acknowledges that the government has evidence that he was present in the Capitol. Mot. at 7 ("Admittedly, the government does appear to have video and pictures that show that Mr. Dresch was inside the Capitol with the protesting crowd on January 6."). And he recognizes that "this evidence might go some way towards helping it get convictions against Mr. Dresch for the four misdemeanor counts it has charged him with." Id. But defendant argues that there is limited support for the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding: "t is less clear how the government can prove that Mr. Dresch intended his conduct to be anything more than an act of protest - as opposed to an attempt to actually obstruct Congress from performing its duties." Id
But as the Court has already detailed in connection with the first factor, defendant's own words and deeds are entirely consistent with the grand jury's determination that it was defendant's objective to enter the building to interrupt the official proceedings - or, as he put it, to "[s]top the steal." SOF ¶ 13; see also Ex. 8 to Opp. The timing of defendant's entry into the Capitol was hardly coincidental. It came on the date that Congress was set to certify the Electoral College vote count, and defendant had been posting about the significance of the date since mid-December. See SOF ¶ 14 ("NO EXCUSES! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! TAKE THE STREETS! TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! 1/6/2021 =7/4/1776.").
Courts in other circuits have cautioned, though, that a district court assessing the evidence should not consider the weight of the evidence of defendant's guilt, but rather must consider only the weight of the evidence of defendant's dangerousness. United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 948 (6th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that section 3142(g) "neither requires nor permits a pretrial determination of guilt").
All of this evidence gives rise to serious concerns in that regard as well. And while the D.C. Circuit may have implied that the unparalleled events of January 6 were a unique confluence of circumstances that have passed, Munchel, 991 F.3d at 1284 ("the specific circumstances of January 6 have passed"), defendant has made clear that he sees that date as part of a broader effort. As he stated a month before the trip: "[i]ts war everywhere if we let this election get stolen." Ex. 6 to Opp.; see also Opp. at 13. His view at the end of the day? "[ b]est day ever ... I think it was a good show of force ... look what we can do peacefully, wait til we decide to get pissed." Ex. 15 to Opp. And he announced the next day: "give the word and we will be back even stronger." Ex. 10 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-12]. In the exchange quoted in his motion, defendant stated, "Trump's the only big shot I trust right now," Reply ¶ 8, and for Trump, the effort to-challenge the result of the election is not over. So it is quite concerning that in the very email that the defense asked the Court to consider, defendant agreed that "[y]a," a civil war "may be necessary some day." Id.
D. The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant's release
Here again, it is defendant's own pronouncements that give rise to significant concerns. On January 7, defendant went well beyond exulting in a political message conveyed on January 6 when he posted:
"it was grand ... best day ever ... I think it was a good show of force ... look what we can do peacefully, wait til we decide to get pissed."
"And look if they can't hold the capitol with thousands of cops, how can they tell us what to do 1000 miles away."
Ex. 15 to Opp.; see also Opp. at 16. After that, defendant got wind of how others were reacting to what had occurred, and he took particular offense at those who were identifying participants for the FBI. On January 11 and 12, 2021, defendant said, among other things:
• "[F]uckheads up there are mass snitching me to feds."
• "Look up []."
• "Fuck her ... call the cops bitch lol ... I ain't saying shit."
• " ... [i]when it's everywhere makes it so much harder to stop us." Ex. 13 to Opp. (emphasis added); see also Opp. at 15. On January 12, he says more about the person he believed had posted information about individuals who participated in the attack:
• "Ya I looked at her shit and the ones commenting on it are the same."
• "Now they wanna snitch me out lol .. bunch of losers."
• "I sent her thing to tons of Patriots now it's gone haha."
Ex. 14 to Opp.; see also Opp. at 15-16. The record does not indicate precisely what defendant said when he sent the materials on, but his own observation was:
• "I'm sure I made a FBI folder but fuck it I know who my enemies are." Id. (emphasis added).
Given defendant's offer to return to Washington to engage in a similar effort to disrupt democratic processes again, his warning that authorities here cannot reach him at home, the utter contempt he showed for law enforcement and the safety of the community during the high speed chase, the threatening remarks directed at an individual who was reporting participants in the attack to the FBI, defendant's other convictions for obstructive conduct, and his knowing possession of multiple weapons and a considerable supply of ammunition after two felony convictions, the Court has clear and convincing reasons to believe that defendant poses a danger to the community that cannot be alleviated by the imposition of any conditions.
III. The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a risk that defendant will fail to appear.
All of this evidence also supports a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a risk that if released, defendant will fail to appear for trial. Defendant maintains that the presence of family and friends and his long-standing ties to the community suggest that he would not leave the Upper Peninsula to abscond to Canada. But the concern is not whether he would up and move to another country; the concern is whether he will conform to his obligations and appear in this Court, and respect its orders when he is supposed to. Defendant has given the Court plenty of reasons to be concerned that he will be resistant to reappearing if released, and that it would not go well if the Court had to send the U.S. Marshals to collect him. Defendant's criminal record, and the evasive and obstructive conduct that the felonies represent, weigh heavily against defendant's release, just as they would in the case of a local defendant - with real ties to this community - in any other case in this courthouse.
For all of these reasons, defendant's motion to be released on bond will be DENIED.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge
DATE: May 27, 2021
_______________
Notes:
• From R.G. (defendant's childhood and lifelong friend): "[Defendant] is an intelligent individual, and a very caring friend. He is generous, always willing to help a friend in need. . .. I have never seen [defendant] act violent, lash out, or even act physically or verbally aggressive or confrontational toward anyone. He is a kind, sensitive, thoughtful individual, who has strong political beliefs, but is not a threat to anyone, ever .... It saddens my heart to know that [defendant] got caught up in everything that happened in January." Letters at 2.
• B.Y. (defendant's neighbor and friend): "[Defendant] is a fine, upstanding, conscientious young man, a good father, ... and a wonderful son. He is a hard worker and has always been someone that others could count on to do a good and thorough job, such as shoveling snow as a teenager for older neighbors and helping his mom with difficult maintenance jobs in her home .... There is not a malicious bone in his body. I believe in his integrity and goodness as a person." Id. at 3.
• B.M. (sheriff of defendant's county of residence): "The Dresch family has always had a good and solid reputation here .... I believe [defendant] to be more a follower who went to have his voice heard and got caught up in the crowd and followed in and posted his photos to prove to everyone that he had made his statement." "[T]here were weapons [law enforcement] found at [defendant's apartment], but nearly all homes here have weapons." Id. at 4.
• T.L. (pastor of a local church): "[Defendant and his wife] are not yet members of the church." "We have shared a few meals together, and [defendant] has done some work for the church. . . . That is the extent of our relationship." "[As] a fairly quick judge of character ... I do not believe that [defendant] is any real danger to our community or government. I 'think' that [defendant] got wrapped up in a movement and made some very foolish decisions." Id. at 5.
• R.P. (knew defendant since defendant was five): "[Defendant] has been a polite and kind young man. He is the kind of son who helps his elderly mother. . . . He also does heavy chores for her." "[Defendant] is also a good father to his 13-year-old son who, needs him in his life." Id. at 6.
• D.C. (defendant's childhood friend): "I have grown to know my friend as a kind, caring, and thoughtful person with little to no ego .... [Defendant] has a brilliant, articulate, keen mind. . .. In all the years I've known him, I've never seen him with a temper, never seen him yell at anyone. Violence is not in his nature, he would never be capable of it, nor would he ever condone it." "[Defendant] believes in high moral values, love and thoughtfulness, along with the truth." Id. at 7.
• R.S. (defendant's neighbor): "[Defendant] has always been a very polite considerate young man - a good member of our community .... He did participate in the Jan 6th uprising. Perhaps he was misled by the former President Trump's rhetoric and conspiracy theorists. [Defendant] is a fine young man. He would never have any evil intentions of any kind." Id. at 8.
• L.M. & R.M. (defendant's aunt & uncle ): "[Defendant] is a talented man with an excellent work ethic .... In our observation, [defendant] has been respectful and considerate of the family, old and young. He is not an angry or violent person." "May it be taken into consideration that no damage or violence was exhibited by [defendant]." Id. at 9.
• T.S. (defendant's childhood friend): "In the countless great times I have spent with [defendant] I have never once seen him angry or combative." "It would be a great disservice to justice to persecute this man for supporting the cause of freedom and truth. I implore the court to consider the reality of the events of January 6th and not to the sensational headlines that media has chosen to paint what happened that day with ... I know [defendant] was not there to do anything other than support a cause he believed in." Id. at 10.
• A.P. (defendant's longtime family friend): "While [defendant] may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up in the unfortunate events of the day, I cannot imagine that he had any intent to inflict injury to persons or property." Id. at 11.
• F.W. (has known defendant for twenty-five years): "[Defendant] has always enthusiastically embraced the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights but is not inclined to violence or destructive behavior." "[Defendant] is certainly not a 'rabble-rouser' and while his passions for his country and patriotism for the American people sometimes carry him to over-enthusiasm, his actions do not warrant further incarceration!" Id. at 12.
• P.L. (defendant's longtime friend and local attorney): "[Defendant] has very strong political views concerning government, in particular the legislative and executive branches, and law enforcement." "[T]o be candid, [defendant] has occasionally exercised rather poor judgement." "I have never known [defendant] to be violent in any way nor do I believe him to be flight risk nor a person who would obstruct justice." Id. at 13.
• S.F. (casual acquaintance of defendant for past two years): "I can vouch for [defendant's] sincere friendly character, morals and integrity over the time I have known him." Id. at 14.
• J.B. (member of the public school administration): "I am hoping that you will be able to see [defendant] as a good person separate from his entering the Capitol. I truly believe that he got caught up in the emotions of the crowd. . .. In [ defendant]'s case, he has also been vilified in the press both nationally and locally. People in Houghton County ... have unfairly been called extremists. This couldn't be farther from the truth unless one is an extremist merely by virtue of being a Republican." Id. at 15.
2 President Trump's Twitter account is no longer accessible, but the tweet was widely reported on at the time. See, e.g., Trump promises 'wild' protest in Washington DC on Jan. 6, claims it's 'impossible' he lost, Fox News, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... n-dc-jan-6 (Dec. 19,2020).
3 Defendant regularly uses ellipses in his messages. Though defendant often did not space out his ellipses, e.g., writing ... rather than . . ., the Court has taken the initiative to space out ellipses even when quoting defendant in order to improve the readability of the messages.
4 This video was posted shortly after midnight, so the date is technically January 7, 2021. SOF ¶ 20.
5 The Court has chosen not to include this person's name.
6 In the reply, the defense emphasized, "[t]hus, it appears that at least three of the four guns found at Mr. Dresch['s] residence had initially been placed there for storage several years before Mr. Dresch even moved in." Reply ¶ 12. But at the hearing, counsel did not dispute that defendant knew they were there. The Pretrial Services Report reflects that as of the time of the search, he had been living in the house for more than three years (since January of 2018). Pretrial Services Report [Dkt. # 21] (SEALED) ("PSR") at 1. And while defendant's mother averred that she stored the guns in a closet at least ten years ago, see ATF Materials at 1, the Russian made rifle that had been her husband's was found in the master bedroom. See ATF Search Warrant Inventory.
7 Defendant did generally encourage others to join the cause. For example, defendant posted, "NO EXCUSES! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! TAKE THE STREETS! TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! 1/6/2021=7/4/1776." SOF ¶ 14. However, this does not rise to the level of leading or coordinating.
8 As another court in this district has noted, "If defendant truly believes that the only reason he participated in an assault on the U.S. Capitol was to comply with President Trump's orders, this shows defendant's inability (or refusal) to exercise his independent judgment and conform his behavior to the law." United States v. Chansley, No. 21-cr-3, 2021 WL 861079, at *10 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2021); see also United States v. Whitton, No. 21-cr-35-5, 2021 WL 1546931, at *12 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2021) ("While the certification of the 2020 Presidential Election is now complete, and President Biden has taken office, the Court is not convinced that dissatisfaction and concern about the legitimacy of the election results has dissipated for all Americans. Former President Donald J. Trump continues to make forceful public comments about the 'stolen election,' chastising individuals who did not reject the supposedly illegitimate results that put the current administration in place.") (citations omitted).
9 Many of the letter writers did not appear to know the forty-year-old defendant very well although they knew or thought well of his accomplished father and mother, who were prominent members of the community. See generally Letters (reporting that he is "a fine, upstanding, conscientious young man"; "certainly not a 'rabble-rouser"'; "a polite and kind young man"; "a very polite considerate young man.").
10 The Court also received a letter from a Michigan resident asking that defendant be detained pending trial and emphasizing the seriousness of his conduct. See Letter to the Court [Dkt. # 22] ("I support your decision to keep Mr. Dresch in jail for two reasons. First because of his own behavior but equally so because of the context of domestic terrorism.").
11 The PSR only mentions empty beer cans, but the police report states that officers found not just empty beer cans, but full beers, an almost empty bottle of tequila, and another half full bottle of liquor. See Police Report at 9.
12 These facts suggest that the Court cannot put much stock in the sheriff's statement that "although in his teens [defendant] had a few brushes with local law enforcement ... [he] settled down a lot as he grew older." Letters at 4.
13 The area at the top of the stairs is variously treated as an open area, a closet, and a "hall room," so though the reports vary with how they characterize this area, the Court is under the impression that these discoveries may all be from the same area.
14 The backpack also contained a January 5, 2021 receipt from a gas station in Hagerstown, Maryland. Ex. 3 to Opp. [Dkt. # 18-3] (noting miscellaneous papers and unattached photos of such); see also Opp. at 6.
15 The amount of ammunition, the fact that the weapons were not all secured in the closet where defendant's mother supposedly stored them a decade ago, and the assertion that defendant had the firearms on hand for hunting and for protection are all inconsistent with counsel's suggestion at the hearing that defendant did not "possess" the guns.
16 Defendant also attempts to stir up suspicion about the origin of the weapons based on the fact that only two guns were observed and seized during the initial search on January 19, and that the house was left unattended and unlocked between that time and the January 21 search by the ATF agents that produced two more firearms. He argues that "it appears that some, if not all, of the items may have been placed in the residence after the first search." Reply, ¶ 13. At the hearing, the government emphasized that the first set of agents was not there to look for firearms. But in addition, a close look at what was found on each date undermines the suggestion that the guns were somehow nefariously planted in the interim. Defendant's mother asserted ownership over "the Russian rifle, the Glock, and one of the shotguns," ATF Materials at 1, and she averred that at some point between 2008 and 2011, she placed them all in "upstairs bedrooms closets." Id. The Russian rifle was found the first day, along with one shotgun. Search Warrant Inventory at 3. But it was the Glock pistol and the second shotgun that were recovered two days later in upstairs closets, where defendant's mother stated they'd been stored. ATF Search Warrant Inventory at 3. And it is the Glock and its ammunition that defendant's mother asked to have returned. ATF Materials at 1.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:16 am
Republican Lawmaker in Oregon Expelled for Helping Armed Protesters Enter State Capitol
by Amy Goodman
Democracy Now
JUN 11, 2021
Lawmakers in Oregon have voted to expel Republican state Representative Mike Nearman after video surfaced showing him literally opening the door to let armed right-wing protesters enter the state Capitol in December at a time when the building was closed to the public. Days before the incident, Nearmen spoke on a live stream where he gave out his phone number and explained how he could help them get inside.
Rep. Mike Nearman: “If you say, ’I’m at the west entrance,’ during the session and text to that number there, that somebody might exit that door while you’re standing there.”
The breach of the Oregon Capitol occurred about two weeks before the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Meanwhile, six California men, including a former police chief, have been indicted on federal conspiracy charges for their role in the January 6 insurrection in Washington. Several of the men are connected to the far-right Three Percenters movement.
******************************
Showing D.C. How It’s Done: Oregon Boots Lawmaker Who Aided State Capitol Incursion
State representative Mike Nearman was caught on video opening the door of the state capitol to an armed incursion, completing what he’d referred to as “Operation Hall Pass”
by Tim Dickinson
Rolling Stone
June 11, 2021
PORTLAND, OREGON — Official accountability for the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol is not coming quickly. GOP politicians who saluted, inspired, or even abetted the militants who stormed the Capitol chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!” have not been investigated. And Republicans in the Senate have blocked the formation of a bipartisan commission to probe that day’s dark events. In striking contrast, lawmakers in Oregon, from both parties, have moved decisively to expel a Republican state representative who literally opened the door for a group of armed protesters who staged a similar incursion of the state capitol in Salem last December.
State Rep. Mike Nearman is the first state representative ever to be removed from office in Oregon. The vote to expel him was 59-1, with Nearman casting the only vote in his favor. (In January Nearman released a statement insisting: “I don’t condone violence nor participate in it.”)
Nearman — whose wacky official bio touted his past work as a grave digger and a degree in computer science that confirmed he was “educated beyond his intelligence”— has represented a rural district west of the capital city since 2015. On the morning of December 21st, right-wing agitators, including members of the Washington-state based Patriot Prayer, assembled to protest the fact that state business was being conducted behind closed doors. Because of Covid restrictions, the Capitol building had been closed to the public, but the sessions were broadcast, and public input was enabled via phone and video links.
The protest quickly turned to vandalism as some attempted to break down doors to the building. Nearman was caught on surveillance video opening a door to a group of agitators, some of whom were armed with long guns. The agitators entered the state Capitol, where Nearman’s colleagues were in session. The intruders soon clashed with State Police in riot gear, who were able to turn back the incursion despite being maced with bear spray. Four agitators were arrested.
In recent days, another video surfaced making plain that Nearman had aided the agitators on purpose. In the video, filmed in advance of the incursion, Nearman is seen talking to a crowd of right-wing activists about what he calls “Operation Hall Pass.” He gives out what is reportedly his personal cellphone number and tells the activists how they might text that number with information about which Capitol entrance they were gathering at and “someone might exit that door while you’re standing there.”
“We had a state Rep., let me remind you, a state Rep. open that door for us,” Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, said in a video posted to Parler in January.
Prior to being expelled, Nearman had faced a unanimous call to resign from his GOP state house colleagues, who wrote: “Given the newest evidence that has come to light regarding the events of December 21, 2020, it is our beliefs as friends and colleagues that it is in the best interest of your caucus, your family, yourself, and the state of Oregon for you to step down from your office.”
But Nearman had remained defiant, telling local Rush Limbaugh wannabe Lars Larson, “I’m not gonna resign,” and instead called for the resignation of the speaker of the state house, a Democrat. “At the end of the day, it’s not about safety,” Nearman told Larson. “They don’t want you in the building. They don’t want your listeners in the building. And they don’t want people like me in the building when they pass their vaccine mandates and they wanna take away your guns and all that kinda stuff.”
In addition to his historic expulsion, Nearman has been charged with a pair of misdemeanor crimes in relation to the state capitol incursion.
by Amy Goodman
Democracy Now
JUN 11, 2021
Lawmakers in Oregon have voted to expel Republican state Representative Mike Nearman after video surfaced showing him literally opening the door to let armed right-wing protesters enter the state Capitol in December at a time when the building was closed to the public. Days before the incident, Nearmen spoke on a live stream where he gave out his phone number and explained how he could help them get inside.
Rep. Mike Nearman: “If you say, ’I’m at the west entrance,’ during the session and text to that number there, that somebody might exit that door while you’re standing there.”
The breach of the Oregon Capitol occurred about two weeks before the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Meanwhile, six California men, including a former police chief, have been indicted on federal conspiracy charges for their role in the January 6 insurrection in Washington. Several of the men are connected to the far-right Three Percenters movement.
******************************
Showing D.C. How It’s Done: Oregon Boots Lawmaker Who Aided State Capitol Incursion
State representative Mike Nearman was caught on video opening the door of the state capitol to an armed incursion, completing what he’d referred to as “Operation Hall Pass”
by Tim Dickinson
Rolling Stone
June 11, 2021
PORTLAND, OREGON — Official accountability for the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol is not coming quickly. GOP politicians who saluted, inspired, or even abetted the militants who stormed the Capitol chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!” have not been investigated. And Republicans in the Senate have blocked the formation of a bipartisan commission to probe that day’s dark events. In striking contrast, lawmakers in Oregon, from both parties, have moved decisively to expel a Republican state representative who literally opened the door for a group of armed protesters who staged a similar incursion of the state capitol in Salem last December.
State Rep. Mike Nearman is the first state representative ever to be removed from office in Oregon. The vote to expel him was 59-1, with Nearman casting the only vote in his favor. (In January Nearman released a statement insisting: “I don’t condone violence nor participate in it.”)
Nearman — whose wacky official bio touted his past work as a grave digger and a degree in computer science that confirmed he was “educated beyond his intelligence”— has represented a rural district west of the capital city since 2015. On the morning of December 21st, right-wing agitators, including members of the Washington-state based Patriot Prayer, assembled to protest the fact that state business was being conducted behind closed doors. Because of Covid restrictions, the Capitol building had been closed to the public, but the sessions were broadcast, and public input was enabled via phone and video links.
The protest quickly turned to vandalism as some attempted to break down doors to the building. Nearman was caught on surveillance video opening a door to a group of agitators, some of whom were armed with long guns. The agitators entered the state Capitol, where Nearman’s colleagues were in session. The intruders soon clashed with State Police in riot gear, who were able to turn back the incursion despite being maced with bear spray. Four agitators were arrested.
Dan Tilkin
@DanTilkinKOIN6
JUST IN: surveillance video at the Oregon Capitol shows @Oregon_GOP Rep. Mike Nearman opening the door for right wing demonstrators on December 21st. Nearman is under @ORStatePolice investigation. koin.com/news/protests/...
1:35 PM Jan 8, 2021
In recent days, another video surfaced making plain that Nearman had aided the agitators on purpose. In the video, filmed in advance of the incursion, Nearman is seen talking to a crowd of right-wing activists about what he calls “Operation Hall Pass.” He gives out what is reportedly his personal cellphone number and tells the activists how they might text that number with information about which Capitol entrance they were gathering at and “someone might exit that door while you’re standing there.”
John Scott-Railton
@jsrailton
NEW FOOTAGE: watch Oregon's @RePNearman tell people, step-by-step, how to breach the Oregon Capitol... with his assistance.
Days later, the breach happened.
Videos adapted from @Oregonian
Story oregonlive.com/politics/2021/...
“We had a state Rep., let me remind you, a state Rep. open that door for us,” Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, said in a video posted to Parler in January.
Prior to being expelled, Nearman had faced a unanimous call to resign from his GOP state house colleagues, who wrote: “Given the newest evidence that has come to light regarding the events of December 21, 2020, it is our beliefs as friends and colleagues that it is in the best interest of your caucus, your family, yourself, and the state of Oregon for you to step down from your office.”
But Nearman had remained defiant, telling local Rush Limbaugh wannabe Lars Larson, “I’m not gonna resign,” and instead called for the resignation of the speaker of the state house, a Democrat. “At the end of the day, it’s not about safety,” Nearman told Larson. “They don’t want you in the building. They don’t want your listeners in the building. And they don’t want people like me in the building when they pass their vaccine mandates and they wanna take away your guns and all that kinda stuff.”
In addition to his historic expulsion, Nearman has been charged with a pair of misdemeanor crimes in relation to the state capitol incursion.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:18 am
Boston Globe Editorial Board Advocates Prosecuting Donald Trump. Here's Why They're Right
Glenn Kirschner
Jun 12, 2021
The Boston Globe Editorial Board published a six-part series laying out the case for prosecuting Donald Trump as the only way to protect and preserve our democracy. This video exposes why the more traditional remedies of the ballot box and legislation will not be enough for our nation to recover from four years of a runaway criminal president who continues to assert that the election results are not legitimate. Here's why prosecuting Trump and other criminal politicians for their crimes is the most important and effective step we can take in our quest to save our democracy.
Glenn Kirschner
Jun 12, 2021
The Boston Globe Editorial Board published a six-part series laying out the case for prosecuting Donald Trump as the only way to protect and preserve our democracy. This video exposes why the more traditional remedies of the ballot box and legislation will not be enough for our nation to recover from four years of a runaway criminal president who continues to assert that the election results are not legitimate. Here's why prosecuting Trump and other criminal politicians for their crimes is the most important and effective step we can take in our quest to save our democracy.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:26 am
Future-Proofing the Presidency: Donald Trump brought our democracy to the brink and exposed its weak spots. How to thwart the next American tyrant.
by The Editorial Board
Boston Globe
June 14, 2021
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY H. HOPP-BRUCE / GLOBE STAFF; PHOTO BY DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
• A treasure map for an American tyrant
• Who owns the president?
• A sordid family affair
• Hiding the evidence
• Rewards for doing the president’s bidding
• The case for prosecuting Donald Trump
***
From the moment that Donald Trump took office, he began to profit personally from holding the office of the presidency. Here, President-elect Trump arrives to be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States in Washington Jan. 20, 2017. JIM LO SCALZO / EPA
A treasure map for an American tyrant
Before the day Donald Trump moved into the White House in 2017, Americans had never had to contend with a president in such deep financial trouble — and with such determination to conceal his true finances from the public. Trump’s business empire — the one he espoused during the campaign as an example of his purported financial acumen — was nothing more than a hollow gold-plated shell. While he was dumping money into his hotels, his golf courses, and his real estate deals, they were netting him almost nothing but significant losses year after year. By the time he was running for reelection, Trump was over $400 million in debt, most of which would have been due during his second term should he have won in 2020.
And yet for nearly four years, there was effectively nothing whatsoever the public could do about it. As was the case for so many of the countless outrageous abuses of his presidency, the former president largely got away with serving a full term in which he bargained with foreign leaders, signed tax legislation, and named financial regulators, without ever coming clean about his own personal debts and the conflicts of interest and opportunities for corruption they created. While there are supposed to be laws and limits on the presidency, Trump was unrestrained, exposing just how toothless those safeguards have become and just how urgently the nation needs to reform the office of the presidency itself.
Donald Trump at a campaign event in Vienna, Ohio, March 2016. Trump began one of the most corrupt presidencies in US history on the campaign trail when he failed to disclose his full tax returns and his hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. MARK MAKELA / THE NEW YORK TIMES
Presidents in a democratic system of government are not meant to be able to extract personal profits from government service — or hand out pardons to imprisoned buddies, pervert justice, or foment an insurrection. That’s the promise of democracy: that it will be superior to these authoritarian tendencies of tyrants and kings. When these laws and norms are violated, they should be backed up by severe consequences if that democracy is to maintain its integrity. But right now, as it stands after Trump’s four years in office, American presidents can, in fact, commit all those abuses — and suffer little more than losing their Twitter account.
Trump may not have destroyed the American presidency, but he did put the institution on a perilous path. Because while Trump himself has been sitting in Mar-a-Lago brooding over his loss to Joe Biden, all the weaknesses in our legal and constitutional system that he exploited remain, waiting for a future presidential miscreant to take advantage of them — maybe even for Trump himself, if he is reelected in 2024. That’s why Congress and the current president must act fast and impose more durable legal guardrails on the commander in chief. By passing stronger anti-corruption laws, strengthening existing norms and creating new ones, and deterring future presidents from abusing their power by making an example of Trump and holding him accountable, the country can protect itself against future — and potentially far more devastating — presidential corruption and misconduct. The nation can, and must, prevent the rise of an American tyrant.
Donald Trump’s purported financial acumen helped him ascend to the nation’s highest office. But it was little more than gold veneer for his growing debts and his abuse of the presidency to enrich himself and his family. MARK MAKELA / THE NEW YORK TIMES
As hard as it might be to imagine in our hyperpolarized political climate, imposing new restrictions on the presidency ought to be a bipartisan cause. For those Trump supporters who delighted in the former president’s transgressions, and loved the way he “owned the libs” by ignoring their nattering on about ethics, remember: Corruption knows no party, and the next crooked president could be a Democrat.
We start with Trump’s stonewalling on his personal debt not because concealing his finances was necessarily the worst offense of his presidency, but because it was surely one of his most brazen. Even low-ranking civil servants have to disclose their personal debts in order to guard against corruption, and yet somehow the man in the Oval Office did not. It’s not that Americans had no idea that Trump was a lousy or crooked businessman — that fact was already well documented. But Trump’s refusal to disclose his taxes and other personal financial details left many wondering what more he was hiding. Did he pay federal taxes? How much? Did he have significant debts to foreign actors or others to whom he would be beholden?
The last four years underscored just how corruptible the presidency is. Whether dealing with issues of foreign policy, the economy, or race, Trump’s self-interest was his administration’s north star. His tax cuts served him. His attorney general acted as if he were the president’s personal attorney. And he failed to protect the nation from an attack led by his sympathizers. His national security officials downplayed white supremacist threats because he allegedly lost interest in pursuing investigations of violent threats the minute he would find out that the perpetrator was one of his supporters. Olivia Troye, who worked as a homeland security and counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, told the Globe editorial board that there was an expectation of officials to not talk about white nationalism when sending intelligence up the chain to the president. “We [didn’t] talk about white supremacy,” she said, describing the culture of the Trump White House.
From the White House, Donald Trump ignored the danger of white supremacist groups, and equivocated on the threat they posed to American values and the homeland. After the 2017 Charlottesville, Va., rally that recruited KKK members such as this one from Harrison, Ark., Trump argued that there were good people “on both sides.” Trump later went on to foment an insurrection and attempted coup with the support of white supremacist groups. EVELYN HOCKSTEIN / PHOTO FOR THE WASHINGTON POST
An aggressive Congress might have been able to thwart the corruption and abuses of power of the 45th president. Broadly speaking, Congress is supposed to be the main check on the presidency and, in theory, it still could be. But its primary instrument for curbing the presidency — impeachment — has turned out to be a blunt and, in modern times, ineffective weapon. The Trump years demonstrated that too: Twice impeached for clear violations of the public trust, Trump was twice acquitted by senators in his own party.
Ultimately, Congress proved itself a deeply flawed check on an authoritarian president willing to break the law out in the open — and sometimes even admit it on national television. “Our norms only go so far in protecting the democracy. Our laws only go so far. Even our Constitution — as brilliantly written as it is — only goes as far as the men and women are willing to give its provisions meaning,” Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, who served as the lead House impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment trial, said in an interview. “If you acknowledge, as many of the Republican senators did during the trial, that the House had proved the president guilty but you still make the decision to acquit, there’s nothing much that the Constitution can do to protect us.
“It didn’t require a great clairvoyance to see that if he was guilty and then nonetheless acquitted” in the first trial, Schiff said, “that he would [violate his oath] again in new and perhaps even more debilitating ways.”
The failure of the existing accountability system in the Constitution not only enabled Trump to act on his worst impulses. It also may very well have made his presidency a prelude to something much worse. Because democracies don’t die suddenly; they’re poisoned by strongmen who systematically chip away at checks on their power, just as Recep Tayyip Erdogan has done in Turkey, Narendra Modi in India, or Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Even with Trump out of office, American democracy is becoming weaker as long as his deeds go unpunished and the system is unchanged. The next Trump will have an easier time usurping it.
Members of the National Socialist Movement, one of the largest neo-Nazi groups in the US, hold a swastika burning after a rally in April 2018 in Draketown, Ga. From the White House, Donald Trump ignored the danger of white supremacist groups, and equivocated on the threat they posed to American values and the homeland.Trump later went on to foment an insurrection and attempted coup with the support of white supremacist groups. SPENCER PLATT / GETTY IMAGES
There are many people who, justifiably, want to move on from the horror show that was Trump’s presidency. It was riddled with scandals, and it often felt like each day presented a new unprecedented crisis (or two). But that would be extraordinarily irresponsible. Shown how weak our system of government has become, we have an obligation to fix it.
The American Constitution, as designed by the original Framers, proved to be an incredibly powerful document. But the Framers’ vision was not the sole reason the Constitution was able to sustain a democracy for over 200 years. Waves of American visionaries fought and sacrificed their lives to improve the Constitution and expand American democracy, as was done, for example, with the 13th and 14th, and 19th Amendments. As has always been the case in American history, a strong and resilient democracy requires an active and engaged citizenry, one that is willing to constantly work to improve what they already have. The United States is in desperate need of that kind of commitment and work today.
In this series, the Globe editorial board outlines the key presidential reforms that would prevent a future authoritarian president — perhaps a more competent one than Trump — from abusing their power and subverting our democracy. Just because President Biden has restored a semblance of normalcy to the White House, Americans should not be lulled into inaction. Our government survived a scrape with authoritarian corruption. Next time, we might not be so lucky.
***
Trump International Hotel & Tower, New York, March 2019. Donald Trump was riddled with conflicts of interest throughout his time in office and abused the presidency to enrich himself and his family. His refusal to divest from his businesses resulted in him violating the constitution by indirectly receiving money from foreign governments. MICHAEL NAGLE / BLOOMBERG
Who owns the president?
As soon as Donald Trump took his hand off Abraham Lincoln’s Bible on Jan. 20, 2017, he broke the oath he had just taken to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Never before had the United States elected a president with a sprawling business empire — one that he insisted on keeping ownership of while in office — and Trump stood to have his private organization profit directly from the US government as well as foreign nations while serving in office.
That’s why, within three days of Trump’s being sworn in, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a lawsuit against the president to prevent him from illegally receiving money from foreign governments. The violation in question was the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars presidents from receiving money or gifts from other nations. And Trump was certainly on the path to breaking the law: Shortly after he won the election in 2016, the Saudi government funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into his Washington, D.C., hotel by booking 500 of its rooms for their lobbyists.
Donald Trump abused the presidency to enrich himself and his family. His business dealings also raised questions about whether he was truly representing the nation’s interest or his own. The government of Saudi Arabia made more than $270,000 in payments to the Trump Hotel after his election, just a few months before he finalized one of the largest arms deals in US history with the kingdom. CHIP SOMODEVILLA / GETTY IMAGES
Pocketing money from foreign governments, whether directly or otherwise, presents exactly the kind of situation that the Founders did not want the president to be in. And that’s because the president might show undue deference to an adversarial government, putting his or her own interests ahead of the nation’s.
Take Saudi Arabia’s payments to the Trump Hotel, which totaled $270,000 between November 2016 and February 2017. Those payments came just a few months prior to Trump finalizing one of the largest arms deals in US history with the kingdom. He also later went on to protect the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, after the brutal killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. “I saved his ass,” Trump bragged to the journalist Bob Woodward, in reference to bin Salman. “I was able to get Congress to leave him alone. I was able to get them to stop.”
It wasn’t just the hotel payments; Saudi Arabia was still paying the Trump Organization tens of thousands of dollars a year for the floor in Trump World Tower that it purchased for $4.5 million in 2001. This is not to say it’s been proved that Trump acted the way he did with Saudi Arabia because of his business ties with them. But it is to say that the Saudis’ money may have, in fact, influenced him. After all, Trump, who was suffocating in debt, probably appreciated the payments, and he certainly didn’t discourage the Saudis from patronizing his businesses.
Saudi King Salman presented President Donald Trump with the highest civilian honor, the Collar of Abdulaziz Al Saud, at the Royal Court Palace, in Riyadh. President Trump bragged about having protected the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, after the brutal killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. EVAN VUCCI / AP
Yet despite all of this, Trump faced no legal consequences and was able to continuously violate both the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses throughout his time in office. And that’s because the lawsuit that CREW filed dragged on for four long years. (It was initially dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff had no right to sue the president, a decision that was reversed on appeal, and was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court only after Trump left office.) All the while, Trump visited his properties hundreds of times — charging taxpayers for the Secret Service’s use of them — and many foreign officials spent their money at his hotels.
That’s just scratching the surface of Trump’s unprecedented conflicts of interest. He was also hundreds of millions of dollars in debt — to whom, the public only partially knows. That’s why Congress ought to ensure that future presidents have as few conflicts of interest as possible. And in order to do that, it should start with two reforms.
The first is to require all future presidents to divest themselves of their businesses and other assets that could pose a potential conflict of interest. The reason for this is simple: No matter how well intentioned a president is, their financial self-interest is bound to cloud their judgment, wittingly or otherwise, when making decisions that affect the whole nation. And though divestment may be perceived as an extreme solution — with some arguing that it would discourage successful businesspeople from running for president and therefore limit the talent pool — it would dramatically reduce the potential for presidents to be in bed financially with foreign adversaries, precluding the need to legally enforce the emoluments clause while someone is in the White House.
The second is to require all future presidents to publicly release their tax returns. Transparency is key to preventing corruption, especially in a democracy. Tax returns would provide far greater insight into a candidate’s potential conflicts of interest, and voters could then decide for themselves whether the candidate was too prone to act in his or her own self-interest. That electoral threat alone could deter would-be presidential candidates from running for office prior to eliminating their financial conflicts of interest.
Before Trump, every president since Jimmy Carter had disclosed their full tax returns in an effort to be transparent about any potential conflicts of interests upon entering office. But that tradition was merely a norm, and because norms are generally enforced by the desire to avoid being shamed, Trump easily maneuvered his way out of it by being himself: shameless. And in resisting the public pressure to release his tax returns, Trump has now set a precedent that candidates do not, in fact, have to release their tax returns. (This has already proved to be the case; in the 2020 Democratic primaries, billionaire Mike Bloomberg followed Trump’s lead and failed to disclose a fully transparent financial report.)
That’s why this norm should be turned into law by Congress.
Of course, transparency alone can only go so far. The public knew, for example, that Trump owned hotels where foreign dignitaries could stay, but that knowledge didn’t prevent him from indirectly receiving money from foreign governments by those means. And Trump’s tax returns — leaked to the press in 2020 — did finally get a public viewing, and yet over 74 million voters chose to vote for him anyway. Saving our democracy from corruption will always rely in part on voters taking conflicts exposed in financial disclosures seriously.
The same is true for divestment: Though it would have dramatically limited Trump’s conflicts of interests, some conflicts, whether political or financial, are always bound to arise given the president’s central role in government. But when they do, the public ought to know, because while Trump was historically corrupt, neither the courts nor Congress held him accountable; in the end, only the voters did.
***
Donald Trump took nepotism to a new level, populating the White House with loyalists and family members unqualified for their roles, including his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
A sordid family affair
On the 2016 campaign trail, Donald Trump told voters that if they elected him, he would surround himself with the “best” and “most serious” people — a dubious claim given that he had long associated with fraudsters and crooks during his turbulent career in the private sector. Quickly after he was elected, however, it became clear that Trump planned on running the government the same way he ran his business: Hire his family to top positions and flood the White House with loyalists. The result was corruption, incompetence, and what clearly did not come close to meeting the bar of “best” or “most serious.”
In fact, two of Trump’s earliest White House appointments were glaring examples of his willingness to engage in petty corruption: On Jan. 9, 2017, Trump hired his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a senior White House adviser, which, only a few months later, was followed by the new president giving a similar role to his daughter Ivanka Trump.
Donald Trump’s decision to appoint his own family members to high-ranking White House positions resulted in disastrous policy choices, as was the case when his son-in-law Jared Kushner took a leading role in the administration’s pandemic response despite his lack of experience. TASOS KATOPODIS / GETTY IMAGES
These appointments were troublesome for several reasons. First, neither Kushner nor Ivanka Trump had prior qualifications for the work they were assigned, meaning that their appointments were made on the grounds that they had a close relationship with the president. (That relationship would later allow them to get special treatment and give them the ability to flout certain ethics rules.) Second, though both Kushner and Ivanka waived their White House salaries, they still stood to profit from their role in the administration — expanding the Trump family’s use of the presidency as a for-profit operation. And third, such clear displays of nepotism by public officials are illegal — a law that technically applies to the president as well, but in which Trump managed to find loopholes.
While serving in the Trump White House, Ivanka and Kushner did indeed leverage their positions to bolster their profits. Like Trump, neither of them had fully divested from their businesses, and Kushner sold his stake in one of his businesses only after it directly benefited from the tax bill that his father-in-law signed into law. Kushner’s family’s real estate company came under scrutiny on several occasions because his family members appeared to lean on their relationship with the administration. At one business event in Beijing, Kushner’s sister promoted an EB-5 visa program — which grants immigrants a path to citizenship if they invest substantially in a company that creates jobs in the United States — and essentially implied that her relationship with her brother would help expedite a pathway to citizenship for investors in a Kushner-owned property before the visa program rule was set to change the minimum investment from $500,000 to $900,000. And Kushner’s family company had business dealings in Israel even as one of his chief responsibilities included Middle East policy.
The fact that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner did not take government salaries while serving in the White House did not keep them from enriching themselves while holding public office. ALESSANDRO DELLA VALLE / KEYSTONE VIA AP
Trump was hardly the first president to appoint relatives to top jobs; John F. Kennedy famously nominated his brother for attorney general and appointed his brother-in-law as the Peace Corps’ first director. Given that nepotism is an easy opportunity for public officials to turn their public office into a money-making enterprise — one that the Trump family clearly took advantage of — it’s important to crack down on it at every level of government. After all, nepotism is an act of self-enrichment in and of itself and a quintessential example of petty corruption that undoubtedly sows distrust in government.
That distrust would be justified. Filling up key government posts with close relatives of the president, for example, will probably result in a staff that’s more loyal to the president than they are to government institutions, or even to democracy itself. Nepotism is also unlikely to produce the most competent government; Kushner, for example, was profoundly unqualified for his wide-ranging role, and the American people paid the price when he took a leading role in the Trump administration’s coronavirus response.
In democracies, nepotism can quickly grow rampant. In India, for example — the world’s largest democracy — political dynasties have dominated the nation’s politics since the country gained independence from the British. In fact, in 2009, nearly a third of the country’s elected members of parliament had relatives who served in public office immediately before them or at the same time. And that can easily become a relatively accepted norm: According to one survey, 46 percent of Indians said that they would “prefer” voting for a candidate who comes from a political family. (India has been consistently ranked by international corruption watchdog groups as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.)
Filling government posts with the president’s family members risks officials becoming more loyal to the president than the democratic institutions they are supposed to serve. CHRISTOPHER PIKE / POOL PHOTO VIA AP
In order to eradicate nepotism from government, an example must be set from the very top, which is why Congress should ensure that anti-nepotism laws apply to both the president and vice president.
When Trump hired Kushner, some legal scholars argued that the president does not have to abide by the federal anti-nepotism statute. That’s why, in order to ensure that this degree of corruption does not take place, Congress should pass a bill to make explicit that the president cannot appoint a relative to any official government post, even if they forgo a salary. In the event that a president’s relative is widely perceived to be the best qualified for a certain role, that appointment should require a waiver from Congress so that the candidate can be evaluated on their merits. Appointments of family members should be the exception, not the norm.
Nepotism erodes trust in government and often results in wholly unqualified people being entrusted with critical roles to the nation’s interests, whether negotiating peace in the Middle East or leading pandemic response. MENAHEM KAHANA / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
There’s also the issue of fixing the existing law. While there does exist a federal anti-nepotism statute, the penalty is to withhold salary from the appointee, and both Kushner and Ivanka had already waived their government salaries. But since that didn’t stop them from using their positions in government to make money in the private sector, it’s clear that anti-nepotism laws should have stricter penalties, including job termination if the appointment is proved to have been made on the grounds of an employee’s relationship to the president rather than their qualifications.
Given just how many conflicts of interest consumed the Trump family while they were in the White House, it’s time to ensure that no future president will follow Trump’s example. Because if nepotism is not seriously addressed, then Trump’s presidency would only serve as a blueprint for other corrupt business families to run for office to expand their wealth in the future.
Nepotism is a defining characteristic of monarchies — a system of government the Founders specifically wanted to expel from the United States. So it’s time for Congress to stop, even on occasion, letting the president be king.
***
Donald Trump got away with obstructing the investigation into his campaign’s dealings with Russia when it interfered in the 2016 election, also known as the Mueller inquiry. The Mueller report detailed the ways that the president thwarted the special counsel’s efforts to discover the truth about how the Trump campaign may have cooperated with Russia to secure electoral victory.
Hiding the evidence
Right out of the gate, Donald Trump appeared to break the law and brazenly admit it to the entire nation — not with remorse but with pride and conviction. Within four months of being sworn in, Trump fired FBI director James Comey, which the White House insisted was a decision rooted in Comey’s mishandling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. But Trump rebuffed his Department of Justice’s line of reasoning in a television interview with NBC, saying that he was planning on firing Comey because of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Trump fired then-FBI director James Comey and then admitted on television that he didn’t like Comey’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Yet Trump managed to stay in office for an entire term despite this obstruction of justice. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
This was just one of several instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report — the culmination of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s involvement in Russia’s election interference. Trump also obstructed justice when he tried to fire Mueller, when he tried to curtail Mueller, and when he ordered his White House counsel to lie about his attempt to fire Mueller. But having faced no legal consequences for these and other attempts to undermine the investigation, Trump unsurprisingly went on to commit the same crime again, and was eventually impeached for obstruction of Congress in a completely different case that involved his efforts to thwart the investigation of a whistle-blower complaint about his corrupt call to the president of Ukraine.
As it stands, Trump’s presidency will only embolden future presidents to abuse their power because he showed impeachment to be a far less threatening tool than it once was. While Richard Nixon’s resignation and the public shaming that came along with it may have served as a warning to his successors of the social and political pitfalls of corruption, Trump’s shamelessness and resilience in riding out both of his impeachment trials until the Senate acquitted him may be a lesson to his successors to double down on their wrongdoings because their own party will protect them.
This is not to say that impeachment has been rendered a completely useless tool; Congress should still use it when a president is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors. But impeachment is not as strong a deterrent as it was before Trump. The solution to preventing presidential abuse of power lies in improving the accountability of the president under the law, outside the scope of impeachment, which should be Congress’s last resort. Four things should be done to accomplish that:
First, Congress should strengthen whistle-blower protections. “One of the best, most important ways to constrain and prevent this sort of malfeasance is to provide adequate incentives for and protections for folks who blow the whistle on bad behavior,” said Matthew Stephenson, a Harvard law professor who focuses on anti-corruption. House Democrats introduced legislation, known as the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which seeks to implement a slew of reforms, including expanding whistle-blower protection to political appointees. The reason this is important is that whistle-blowing is effectively a stimulant for investigations. The Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump’s first impeachment, for example, was the direct result of a concerned official raising the alarm.
Second, Congress must strengthen its oversight over the presidency in tangible ways. That means being able to more effectively enforce Congress’s subpoena power. “You can’t do oversight without power behind those subpoenas, and you certainly can’t hold a president and an administration accountable if you can’t require them to give information about the conduct of their office and whether they’re faithfully executing the laws,” Representative Adam Schiff of California said.
Indeed, Trump officials were able to evade subpoenas and effectively run down the clock because court proceedings to enforce congressional subpoenas can take a long time. The House, for example, tried but failed to get Don McGahn, who served as White House counsel under Trump, to testify in front of the Judiciary Committee about Trump’s obstruction of justice during the Mueller probe. Although McGahn did cooperate with Mueller, parts of the final report were redacted by the Justice Department. Congress, in its oversight capacity, should have been able to reconstruct parts of the investigation. Doing so may have prevented the Trump administration from getting away with its efforts to spin the final Mueller report as an exoneration of Trump, which it very clearly was not.
Congressional subpoena power is currently too weak to be an effective check on a corrupt president. Despite efforts by the House of Representatives to demand that Don McGahn, White House counsel under Trump, testify in the Mueller probe, McGahn was able to avoid testifying. DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
That’s why reforming subpoena power, a critical step in bolstering Congress as a check on the president, ought to include the possibility of fast-tracking court proceedings for congressional subpoenas and issuing fines for those who defy them.
Third, President Biden should appoint a White House ethics czar, which he has yet to do, to ensure that the White House correctly implements and abides by high ethical standards. It’s important for the Biden team to codify in clear terms, for example, the limits of the White House’s interactions with the Department of Justice in order to guarantee greater independence of the department. And there are already clear signs that the Biden team needs an ethics czar: Though Biden has released public logs of White House visitors — something the Trump administration stopped doing — he has chosen not to disclose virtual meetings. This is a mistake, given that transparency in White House communications is a key tool to protect the Department of Justice’s independence. An ethics czar dedicated to getting input from public accountability groups could change such policies and set a new norm.
Lastly, the Department of Justice should revisit its policy, issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This is not the law of the land, and the constitutionality of whether a president can be indicted while in office has yet to be determined by the courts. Rather, it lies in a tradition that began in 1973. The head of the OLC at the time argued in a memo that “a necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court . . . would interfere with the president’s unique official duties.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller considered himself unable to weigh in on the question of whether the president should be indicted for obstruction of justice because of a Department of Justice policy that advises against indicting sitting presidents. That policy must change. MANDEL NGAN / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
It might sound reasonable to say that indicting a sitting president could pose political problems — and potential national security risks — because a criminal trial would effectively incapacitate a president. But an indictment does not necessarily mean that the president has to sit through a criminal trial. That could always be postponed until a president leaves office. In that 1973 memo, the rationale for not indicting a sitting president, even if all proceedings are deferred until they are out of office, rests merely on the perceived damage the image of the office of the president might endure. “The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as chief executive boggles the imagination,” the memo said.
A greater spectacle, however, is a reckless, authoritarian president who is seen on the world stage bending the rule of law to his will. That’s why presidents should be indicted for crimes that they commit, with their trials postponed to when they leave office. Had Mueller been able to operate under a guideline that allowed for Trump’s indictment, the former president probably would have faced legal accountability for his early acts of obstruction of justice. That, on its own, could have deterred him from obstructing justice later in his presidency, as he did during his first impeachment inquiry.
So while presidents should not, for logistical reasons, be required to be a part of a criminal trial while in office, they should not be immune from indictments. Because until presidents can be indicted, they will always be, by definition, above the law.
***
Donald Trump abused the power of the presidency by pardoning loyalists and friends, including his former campaign chair, Paul Manafort (center), who broke his plea deal and thwarted the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and its alleged connection to the Trump campaign. SETH WENIG / AP
Rewards for doing the president’s bidding
One of the broadest, most unlimited powers of the president of the United States is the authority to grant pardons. And if it’s used properly, that power can be an incredibly effective — and democratic — tool in righting the wrongs of the country’s criminal justice system. One of Jimmy Carter’s campaign promises, for example, was to pardon the hundreds of thousands of men who had evaded the draft during the Vietnam War, and he signed an executive order to do so on his first full day in office. And in the era of mass incarceration, executive clemency can and should be used as a means to combat an overly criminalizing and punitive system. Barack Obama used his authority to grant pardons to do just that: Most of the nearly 2,000 people whom he granted executive clemency to were people convicted of nonviolent drug-related crimes.
But Donald Trump has proved that a president can use his pardon power not as a corrective for injustice but in exchange for political and personal favors — or even as a tool of coercion or manipulation — and get away with it. In stark contrast to his immediate predecessor, Trump granted clemency to only 237 people. And though some of those acts of clemency included commuting unjustly long sentences for minor offenses, over 100 of them, according to the Lawfare Blog, were granted to people who either had personal connections with the former president or advanced his political cause. Trump was hardly the first president to use his pardon power nefariously, but his blatantly corrupt use of it should be a wake-up call to lawmakers of both major parties that executive clemency must be reformed to limit its potential for abuse.
The president’s pardon power is intended to be a tool of forgiveness to correct for an overly punitive justice system, not a tool to reward criminals who do the president’s bidding. But Donald Trump pardoned Roger Stone in December 2020, after he was convicted of seven felonies including lying under oath. Current laws and norms do too little to stop a president from using their power this way. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
“While the president can by and large pardon whomever he wants, it can be obstruction of justice if the president dangles the possibility of a pardon to stop someone from cooperating with an investigation. And it can be bribery if a president is getting some kind of reward for a pardon,” said Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “In the case of somebody like Paul Manafort, there might be something there,” Bookbinder said. “It really does appear that the possibility of a pardon was fairly publicly dangled in front of him.”
Manafort, Trump’s campaign chair, agreed to cooperate with federal investigators in their probe into Russia’s 2016 election interference and its ties to the Trump campaign, but afterward, he quickly broke his plea deal and, according to prosecutors, lied to them repeatedly. Trump eventually pardoned him. While there is currently no proof Trump directly offered Manafort a pardon in exchange for not cooperating with the authorities, he did publicly say that he may pardon Manafort while the investigation was still ongoing, and the former president’s lawyer reportedly relayed that information directly to Manafort’s attorneys. That, on its own, could very well be obstruction of justice, and it shows how a president could use pardons to evade accountability for the dirty dealings of their campaigns, or even to cover up their connections, or that they are beholden to foreign adversaries.
Donald Trump pardoned a longtime friend of his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik (left), for felony convictions. Future presidents might use the pardon power to even more detrimental effect to shield themselves and their inner circle from those who could testify to their misdeeds or crimes. MARK LENNIHAN / AP
So what exactly can be done about such a broad power bestowed on the president by the Constitution? First, the federal government should follow the example of most states. Instead of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, which oversees clemency reviews and is housed in the Department of Justice, President Biden should establish a clemency board through executive order. That way, with an entire board of various criminal justice experts reviewing petitions together rather than the pardon attorney doing so alone through their office, there would be more eyes on each individual case and a more deliberative process. It should also ensure a transparent process and should be heavily invested in and sufficiently staffed so that it can go through applications more efficiently. While this could be undone by a future president, it would set a new norm for how pardons should be used: to consistently and efficiently undo injustices carried out by federal courts.
"Pardon reform is not a partisan issue — at least not yet."
Second, Congress should muster the will to pass a constitutional amendment that would narrowly constrain the president’s pardon power. This should not be a major curtailment of the president’s power, but rather an effort to reduce the possibility of conflicts of interest and obstruction of justice when it comes to executive clemency. That’s why Congress should strip presidents of the power to pardon themselves, high-ranking administration officials, advisers or senior members of their campaigns, a business associate who worked with the president 10 years prior to entering office, or any person tied up in an investigation involving the president. (Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee has introduced similar legislation.) Though constitutional amendments seem to be a chimera these days, both parties in Congress should be wary of the way a president can abuse pardons. And after all, pardon reform is not a partisan issue — at least not yet.
In the end, presidents should retain a relatively broad power to grant pardons. They’re a critical component of the criminal justice system, and often the only hope of granting people a second chance. But so long as Biden and Congress absolve themselves of the responsibility to reform presidential pardons, future abuse of that power is not only likely; it’s inevitable.
***
Donald Trump’s presidency made clear that our institutions are currently incapable of holding presidents accountable for breaking the law. Unless he faces consequences, the message to future corrupt leaders is that they will not face consequences either. EVAN VUCCI / AP
The case for prosecuting Donald Trump
Norms in a democracy are only as good as our willingness to enforce them.
After the precedent-busting, lawbreaking presidency of Donald Trump, Congress needs to pass new laws to constrain future officeholders. That’s the case the Globe has made in this series: curbs on the pardon power, safeguards against nepotism, broadening the power of Congress to investigate the president, protections for whistle-blowers, requirements that presidents make financial disclosures to root out conflicts of interest.
All of that is crucial to protect Americans against a repeat of the last four years.
But imposing stricter rules on future presidents, by itself, is clearly insufficient. Those presidents also need a clear message, one that will echo through history, that breaking the law in the Oval Office will actually be punished — that ethics policies and legal requirements, both the existing ones and those Congress will hopefully enact in the future, are more than just words on paper.
Trump’s presidency didn’t just expose glaring legal weaknesses: It also made clear that our institutions are incapable of holding presidents accountable for breaking even our existing laws. If Congress had played the role the Founders envisioned, by removing Trump from the presidency after his criminality became clear in the Ukraine affair, that might have been enough of a deterrent to scare future presidents straight. But lawmakers didn’t.
So now there is only one way left to restore deterrence and convey to future presidents that the rule of law applies to them. The Justice Department must abandon two centuries of tradition by indicting and prosecuting Donald Trump for his conduct in office.
That’s not a recommendation made lightly. The longstanding reluctance to prosecute former leaders is based on legitimate concerns about the justice system being used to settle political scores. But filing charges against former leaders is not a radical step, either: Foreign democracies, including South Korea, Italy, and France, routinely manage to prosecute crooked former leaders without starting down a slippery slope to authoritarianism. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was recently found guilty of bribery, a decade after his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, was convicted of corruption. France’s democracy and its image around the world remain intact.
In the case of Trump, prosecutors would have plenty of potential crimes from which to choose. While Trump may be prosecuted for financial crimes he potentially committed before he became president, what is most important to go after are his actions during his time in office, especially those after the 2020 election, which culminated in fomenting a full-on, violent assault on American democracy.
Donald Trump tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including by asking Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough votes to falsely declare Trump that state’s winner. He also incited his supporters to reject the election’s outcome. Here, supporters of Trump protest in front of the Clark County Election Department in Nevada days after the November election. JOHN LOCHER / AP
First, there are Trump’s repeated attempts to obstruct justice, as documented in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the former president’s campaign ties to Russia. As Mueller himself put it, while the investigators operated under the guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted — a view this editorial board disagrees with — the point of their investigation was to “preserve evidence” for prosecutors to evaluate after Trump left office.
Second, there are Trump’s efforts to overturn the Georgia election results. Trump’s call to Georgia’s secretary of state, in which he pressured the secretary to “find” enough votes to undo his defeat, was clear election interference, which is a violation of state and federal law. That means both Georgia and federal prosecutors can — and should — investigate the matter further.
Third, there’s Trump’s infamous incitement of insurrection, which he committed on national television. It is a federal crime to incite a riot or insurrection, and though Trump was impeached over this, he was wrongfully acquitted by the Senate, leaving the courts with the responsibility to hold him accountable. Even senators who acquitted him of the incitement charge alluded to the fact that his crime should be dealt with in the criminal justice system. “If you believe he committed a crime, he can be prosecuted like any other citizen,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a longtime Trump ally. (And depending on how the investigations go — if prosecutors have enough evidence to show that Trump gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists — there’s a chance sedition charges could be brought against him, just like the charges his supporters who stormed the Capitol are likely to face.)
Donald Trump incited an insurrection and yet the Senate was still unwilling to remove him from office. There is only one way left to restore deterrence and convey to future presidents that the rule of law applies to them. JOHN MINCHILLO / AP
To avoid a potential political tit for tat, the Department of Justice and state prosecutors must remain completely apolitical in their handling of Trump’s case. “His crimes should be investigated independently, and the president should stay a thousand miles away,” Norman Eisen, a former ethics czar in the Obama administration, said in an interview. That’s exactly what President Biden has done so far, and he should continue to separate himself and resist any urge to weigh in one way or the other.
Congress’s failure to hold Trump accountable is one reason to break with precedent and prosecute him now. Another, perhaps more obvious reason, is that Trump’s misconduct ought to be handled differently because it was different. There’s a far stronger case that he committed serious crimes in office than could plausibly be made against even the country’s most unethical previous presidents. One of the reasons no president in history has been prosecuted for actions stemming from his presidency is that none of them before the 45th tried to instigate a coup.
The reluctance to prosecute presidents is deep-rooted, and extreme caution does make sense. (The last thing that the country needs is for Trump to be charged, tried, and then acquitted.) But it cannot be the case that there is no line — no hypothetical act of presidential criminality that would not rise to the level of seriousness that merits setting aside our qualms. And if one accepts that there is a line, it’s hard to imagine Donald Trump didn’t cross it. The events of Jan. 6, and those that led up to them, were an extreme abuse of power that few ever imagined a president would commit. A commander in chief tried his very best to subvert democracy. He attacked his own country. Five people died. Allowing him to go unpunished would set a far more dangerous precedent than having Trump stand trial. To reform the presidency so that the last four years are never repeated, the country must go beyond passing laws: It must make clear through its actions that no person, not even the president, is above them.
by The Editorial Board
Boston Globe
June 14, 2021
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY H. HOPP-BRUCE / GLOBE STAFF; PHOTO BY DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
• A treasure map for an American tyrant
• Who owns the president?
• A sordid family affair
• Hiding the evidence
• Rewards for doing the president’s bidding
• The case for prosecuting Donald Trump
***
From the moment that Donald Trump took office, he began to profit personally from holding the office of the presidency. Here, President-elect Trump arrives to be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States in Washington Jan. 20, 2017. JIM LO SCALZO / EPA
A treasure map for an American tyrant
Donald Trump exposed the weaknesses in our system of government that could now be exploited by a corrupt leader with control of the White House. In this series, the Globe editorial board outlines the urgent reforms needed to prevent the rise of an American tyrant — and to protect our democracy for posterity.
Before the day Donald Trump moved into the White House in 2017, Americans had never had to contend with a president in such deep financial trouble — and with such determination to conceal his true finances from the public. Trump’s business empire — the one he espoused during the campaign as an example of his purported financial acumen — was nothing more than a hollow gold-plated shell. While he was dumping money into his hotels, his golf courses, and his real estate deals, they were netting him almost nothing but significant losses year after year. By the time he was running for reelection, Trump was over $400 million in debt, most of which would have been due during his second term should he have won in 2020.
And yet for nearly four years, there was effectively nothing whatsoever the public could do about it. As was the case for so many of the countless outrageous abuses of his presidency, the former president largely got away with serving a full term in which he bargained with foreign leaders, signed tax legislation, and named financial regulators, without ever coming clean about his own personal debts and the conflicts of interest and opportunities for corruption they created. While there are supposed to be laws and limits on the presidency, Trump was unrestrained, exposing just how toothless those safeguards have become and just how urgently the nation needs to reform the office of the presidency itself.
Donald Trump at a campaign event in Vienna, Ohio, March 2016. Trump began one of the most corrupt presidencies in US history on the campaign trail when he failed to disclose his full tax returns and his hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. MARK MAKELA / THE NEW YORK TIMES
Presidents in a democratic system of government are not meant to be able to extract personal profits from government service — or hand out pardons to imprisoned buddies, pervert justice, or foment an insurrection. That’s the promise of democracy: that it will be superior to these authoritarian tendencies of tyrants and kings. When these laws and norms are violated, they should be backed up by severe consequences if that democracy is to maintain its integrity. But right now, as it stands after Trump’s four years in office, American presidents can, in fact, commit all those abuses — and suffer little more than losing their Twitter account.
Trump may not have destroyed the American presidency, but he did put the institution on a perilous path. Because while Trump himself has been sitting in Mar-a-Lago brooding over his loss to Joe Biden, all the weaknesses in our legal and constitutional system that he exploited remain, waiting for a future presidential miscreant to take advantage of them — maybe even for Trump himself, if he is reelected in 2024. That’s why Congress and the current president must act fast and impose more durable legal guardrails on the commander in chief. By passing stronger anti-corruption laws, strengthening existing norms and creating new ones, and deterring future presidents from abusing their power by making an example of Trump and holding him accountable, the country can protect itself against future — and potentially far more devastating — presidential corruption and misconduct. The nation can, and must, prevent the rise of an American tyrant.
Donald Trump’s purported financial acumen helped him ascend to the nation’s highest office. But it was little more than gold veneer for his growing debts and his abuse of the presidency to enrich himself and his family. MARK MAKELA / THE NEW YORK TIMES
As hard as it might be to imagine in our hyperpolarized political climate, imposing new restrictions on the presidency ought to be a bipartisan cause. For those Trump supporters who delighted in the former president’s transgressions, and loved the way he “owned the libs” by ignoring their nattering on about ethics, remember: Corruption knows no party, and the next crooked president could be a Democrat.
We start with Trump’s stonewalling on his personal debt not because concealing his finances was necessarily the worst offense of his presidency, but because it was surely one of his most brazen. Even low-ranking civil servants have to disclose their personal debts in order to guard against corruption, and yet somehow the man in the Oval Office did not. It’s not that Americans had no idea that Trump was a lousy or crooked businessman — that fact was already well documented. But Trump’s refusal to disclose his taxes and other personal financial details left many wondering what more he was hiding. Did he pay federal taxes? How much? Did he have significant debts to foreign actors or others to whom he would be beholden?
"Our norms only go so far in protecting the democracy. Our laws only go so far."
— Adam Schiff
The last four years underscored just how corruptible the presidency is. Whether dealing with issues of foreign policy, the economy, or race, Trump’s self-interest was his administration’s north star. His tax cuts served him. His attorney general acted as if he were the president’s personal attorney. And he failed to protect the nation from an attack led by his sympathizers. His national security officials downplayed white supremacist threats because he allegedly lost interest in pursuing investigations of violent threats the minute he would find out that the perpetrator was one of his supporters. Olivia Troye, who worked as a homeland security and counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, told the Globe editorial board that there was an expectation of officials to not talk about white nationalism when sending intelligence up the chain to the president. “We [didn’t] talk about white supremacy,” she said, describing the culture of the Trump White House.
From the White House, Donald Trump ignored the danger of white supremacist groups, and equivocated on the threat they posed to American values and the homeland. After the 2017 Charlottesville, Va., rally that recruited KKK members such as this one from Harrison, Ark., Trump argued that there were good people “on both sides.” Trump later went on to foment an insurrection and attempted coup with the support of white supremacist groups. EVELYN HOCKSTEIN / PHOTO FOR THE WASHINGTON POST
An aggressive Congress might have been able to thwart the corruption and abuses of power of the 45th president. Broadly speaking, Congress is supposed to be the main check on the presidency and, in theory, it still could be. But its primary instrument for curbing the presidency — impeachment — has turned out to be a blunt and, in modern times, ineffective weapon. The Trump years demonstrated that too: Twice impeached for clear violations of the public trust, Trump was twice acquitted by senators in his own party.
Ultimately, Congress proved itself a deeply flawed check on an authoritarian president willing to break the law out in the open — and sometimes even admit it on national television. “Our norms only go so far in protecting the democracy. Our laws only go so far. Even our Constitution — as brilliantly written as it is — only goes as far as the men and women are willing to give its provisions meaning,” Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, who served as the lead House impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment trial, said in an interview. “If you acknowledge, as many of the Republican senators did during the trial, that the House had proved the president guilty but you still make the decision to acquit, there’s nothing much that the Constitution can do to protect us.
"Democracies don’t die suddenly; they’re poisoned by strongmen who systematically chip away at checks on their power."
“It didn’t require a great clairvoyance to see that if he was guilty and then nonetheless acquitted” in the first trial, Schiff said, “that he would [violate his oath] again in new and perhaps even more debilitating ways.”
The failure of the existing accountability system in the Constitution not only enabled Trump to act on his worst impulses. It also may very well have made his presidency a prelude to something much worse. Because democracies don’t die suddenly; they’re poisoned by strongmen who systematically chip away at checks on their power, just as Recep Tayyip Erdogan has done in Turkey, Narendra Modi in India, or Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Even with Trump out of office, American democracy is becoming weaker as long as his deeds go unpunished and the system is unchanged. The next Trump will have an easier time usurping it.
Members of the National Socialist Movement, one of the largest neo-Nazi groups in the US, hold a swastika burning after a rally in April 2018 in Draketown, Ga. From the White House, Donald Trump ignored the danger of white supremacist groups, and equivocated on the threat they posed to American values and the homeland.Trump later went on to foment an insurrection and attempted coup with the support of white supremacist groups. SPENCER PLATT / GETTY IMAGES
There are many people who, justifiably, want to move on from the horror show that was Trump’s presidency. It was riddled with scandals, and it often felt like each day presented a new unprecedented crisis (or two). But that would be extraordinarily irresponsible. Shown how weak our system of government has become, we have an obligation to fix it.
The American Constitution, as designed by the original Framers, proved to be an incredibly powerful document. But the Framers’ vision was not the sole reason the Constitution was able to sustain a democracy for over 200 years. Waves of American visionaries fought and sacrificed their lives to improve the Constitution and expand American democracy, as was done, for example, with the 13th and 14th, and 19th Amendments. As has always been the case in American history, a strong and resilient democracy requires an active and engaged citizenry, one that is willing to constantly work to improve what they already have. The United States is in desperate need of that kind of commitment and work today.
In this series, the Globe editorial board outlines the key presidential reforms that would prevent a future authoritarian president — perhaps a more competent one than Trump — from abusing their power and subverting our democracy. Just because President Biden has restored a semblance of normalcy to the White House, Americans should not be lulled into inaction. Our government survived a scrape with authoritarian corruption. Next time, we might not be so lucky.
***
Trump International Hotel & Tower, New York, March 2019. Donald Trump was riddled with conflicts of interest throughout his time in office and abused the presidency to enrich himself and his family. His refusal to divest from his businesses resulted in him violating the constitution by indirectly receiving money from foreign governments. MICHAEL NAGLE / BLOOMBERG
Who owns the president?
The 45th president was in bed financially with foreign governments, a precedent for America’s enemies to wield influence over the Oval Office. Lawmakers and voters must prevent this from becoming common practice.
As soon as Donald Trump took his hand off Abraham Lincoln’s Bible on Jan. 20, 2017, he broke the oath he had just taken to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Never before had the United States elected a president with a sprawling business empire — one that he insisted on keeping ownership of while in office — and Trump stood to have his private organization profit directly from the US government as well as foreign nations while serving in office.
That’s why, within three days of Trump’s being sworn in, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a lawsuit against the president to prevent him from illegally receiving money from foreign governments. The violation in question was the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars presidents from receiving money or gifts from other nations. And Trump was certainly on the path to breaking the law: Shortly after he won the election in 2016, the Saudi government funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into his Washington, D.C., hotel by booking 500 of its rooms for their lobbyists.
Donald Trump abused the presidency to enrich himself and his family. His business dealings also raised questions about whether he was truly representing the nation’s interest or his own. The government of Saudi Arabia made more than $270,000 in payments to the Trump Hotel after his election, just a few months before he finalized one of the largest arms deals in US history with the kingdom. CHIP SOMODEVILLA / GETTY IMAGES
Pocketing money from foreign governments, whether directly or otherwise, presents exactly the kind of situation that the Founders did not want the president to be in. And that’s because the president might show undue deference to an adversarial government, putting his or her own interests ahead of the nation’s.
Take Saudi Arabia’s payments to the Trump Hotel, which totaled $270,000 between November 2016 and February 2017. Those payments came just a few months prior to Trump finalizing one of the largest arms deals in US history with the kingdom. He also later went on to protect the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, after the brutal killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. “I saved his ass,” Trump bragged to the journalist Bob Woodward, in reference to bin Salman. “I was able to get Congress to leave him alone. I was able to get them to stop.”
It wasn’t just the hotel payments; Saudi Arabia was still paying the Trump Organization tens of thousands of dollars a year for the floor in Trump World Tower that it purchased for $4.5 million in 2001. This is not to say it’s been proved that Trump acted the way he did with Saudi Arabia because of his business ties with them. But it is to say that the Saudis’ money may have, in fact, influenced him. After all, Trump, who was suffocating in debt, probably appreciated the payments, and he certainly didn’t discourage the Saudis from patronizing his businesses.
Saudi King Salman presented President Donald Trump with the highest civilian honor, the Collar of Abdulaziz Al Saud, at the Royal Court Palace, in Riyadh. President Trump bragged about having protected the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, after the brutal killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. EVAN VUCCI / AP
Yet despite all of this, Trump faced no legal consequences and was able to continuously violate both the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses throughout his time in office. And that’s because the lawsuit that CREW filed dragged on for four long years. (It was initially dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff had no right to sue the president, a decision that was reversed on appeal, and was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court only after Trump left office.) All the while, Trump visited his properties hundreds of times — charging taxpayers for the Secret Service’s use of them — and many foreign officials spent their money at his hotels.
That’s just scratching the surface of Trump’s unprecedented conflicts of interest. He was also hundreds of millions of dollars in debt — to whom, the public only partially knows. That’s why Congress ought to ensure that future presidents have as few conflicts of interest as possible. And in order to do that, it should start with two reforms.
"Congress ought to ensure that future presidents have as few conflicts of interest as possible."
The first is to require all future presidents to divest themselves of their businesses and other assets that could pose a potential conflict of interest. The reason for this is simple: No matter how well intentioned a president is, their financial self-interest is bound to cloud their judgment, wittingly or otherwise, when making decisions that affect the whole nation. And though divestment may be perceived as an extreme solution — with some arguing that it would discourage successful businesspeople from running for president and therefore limit the talent pool — it would dramatically reduce the potential for presidents to be in bed financially with foreign adversaries, precluding the need to legally enforce the emoluments clause while someone is in the White House.
The second is to require all future presidents to publicly release their tax returns. Transparency is key to preventing corruption, especially in a democracy. Tax returns would provide far greater insight into a candidate’s potential conflicts of interest, and voters could then decide for themselves whether the candidate was too prone to act in his or her own self-interest. That electoral threat alone could deter would-be presidential candidates from running for office prior to eliminating their financial conflicts of interest.
Before Trump, every president since Jimmy Carter had disclosed their full tax returns in an effort to be transparent about any potential conflicts of interests upon entering office. But that tradition was merely a norm, and because norms are generally enforced by the desire to avoid being shamed, Trump easily maneuvered his way out of it by being himself: shameless. And in resisting the public pressure to release his tax returns, Trump has now set a precedent that candidates do not, in fact, have to release their tax returns. (This has already proved to be the case; in the 2020 Democratic primaries, billionaire Mike Bloomberg followed Trump’s lead and failed to disclose a fully transparent financial report.)
That’s why this norm should be turned into law by Congress.
Of course, transparency alone can only go so far. The public knew, for example, that Trump owned hotels where foreign dignitaries could stay, but that knowledge didn’t prevent him from indirectly receiving money from foreign governments by those means. And Trump’s tax returns — leaked to the press in 2020 — did finally get a public viewing, and yet over 74 million voters chose to vote for him anyway. Saving our democracy from corruption will always rely in part on voters taking conflicts exposed in financial disclosures seriously.
The same is true for divestment: Though it would have dramatically limited Trump’s conflicts of interests, some conflicts, whether political or financial, are always bound to arise given the president’s central role in government. But when they do, the public ought to know, because while Trump was historically corrupt, neither the courts nor Congress held him accountable; in the end, only the voters did.
***
Donald Trump took nepotism to a new level, populating the White House with loyalists and family members unqualified for their roles, including his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
A sordid family affair
Donald Trump exploited loopholes to build a White House rife with nepotism. Lawmakers must close them.
On the 2016 campaign trail, Donald Trump told voters that if they elected him, he would surround himself with the “best” and “most serious” people — a dubious claim given that he had long associated with fraudsters and crooks during his turbulent career in the private sector. Quickly after he was elected, however, it became clear that Trump planned on running the government the same way he ran his business: Hire his family to top positions and flood the White House with loyalists. The result was corruption, incompetence, and what clearly did not come close to meeting the bar of “best” or “most serious.”
In fact, two of Trump’s earliest White House appointments were glaring examples of his willingness to engage in petty corruption: On Jan. 9, 2017, Trump hired his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a senior White House adviser, which, only a few months later, was followed by the new president giving a similar role to his daughter Ivanka Trump.
Donald Trump’s decision to appoint his own family members to high-ranking White House positions resulted in disastrous policy choices, as was the case when his son-in-law Jared Kushner took a leading role in the administration’s pandemic response despite his lack of experience. TASOS KATOPODIS / GETTY IMAGES
These appointments were troublesome for several reasons. First, neither Kushner nor Ivanka Trump had prior qualifications for the work they were assigned, meaning that their appointments were made on the grounds that they had a close relationship with the president. (That relationship would later allow them to get special treatment and give them the ability to flout certain ethics rules.) Second, though both Kushner and Ivanka waived their White House salaries, they still stood to profit from their role in the administration — expanding the Trump family’s use of the presidency as a for-profit operation. And third, such clear displays of nepotism by public officials are illegal — a law that technically applies to the president as well, but in which Trump managed to find loopholes.
While serving in the Trump White House, Ivanka and Kushner did indeed leverage their positions to bolster their profits. Like Trump, neither of them had fully divested from their businesses, and Kushner sold his stake in one of his businesses only after it directly benefited from the tax bill that his father-in-law signed into law. Kushner’s family’s real estate company came under scrutiny on several occasions because his family members appeared to lean on their relationship with the administration. At one business event in Beijing, Kushner’s sister promoted an EB-5 visa program — which grants immigrants a path to citizenship if they invest substantially in a company that creates jobs in the United States — and essentially implied that her relationship with her brother would help expedite a pathway to citizenship for investors in a Kushner-owned property before the visa program rule was set to change the minimum investment from $500,000 to $900,000. And Kushner’s family company had business dealings in Israel even as one of his chief responsibilities included Middle East policy.
The fact that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner did not take government salaries while serving in the White House did not keep them from enriching themselves while holding public office. ALESSANDRO DELLA VALLE / KEYSTONE VIA AP
Trump was hardly the first president to appoint relatives to top jobs; John F. Kennedy famously nominated his brother for attorney general and appointed his brother-in-law as the Peace Corps’ first director. Given that nepotism is an easy opportunity for public officials to turn their public office into a money-making enterprise — one that the Trump family clearly took advantage of — it’s important to crack down on it at every level of government. After all, nepotism is an act of self-enrichment in and of itself and a quintessential example of petty corruption that undoubtedly sows distrust in government.
"Nepotism is an act of self-enrichment in and of itself and a quintessential example of petty corruption."
That distrust would be justified. Filling up key government posts with close relatives of the president, for example, will probably result in a staff that’s more loyal to the president than they are to government institutions, or even to democracy itself. Nepotism is also unlikely to produce the most competent government; Kushner, for example, was profoundly unqualified for his wide-ranging role, and the American people paid the price when he took a leading role in the Trump administration’s coronavirus response.
In democracies, nepotism can quickly grow rampant. In India, for example — the world’s largest democracy — political dynasties have dominated the nation’s politics since the country gained independence from the British. In fact, in 2009, nearly a third of the country’s elected members of parliament had relatives who served in public office immediately before them or at the same time. And that can easily become a relatively accepted norm: According to one survey, 46 percent of Indians said that they would “prefer” voting for a candidate who comes from a political family. (India has been consistently ranked by international corruption watchdog groups as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.)
Filling government posts with the president’s family members risks officials becoming more loyal to the president than the democratic institutions they are supposed to serve. CHRISTOPHER PIKE / POOL PHOTO VIA AP
In order to eradicate nepotism from government, an example must be set from the very top, which is why Congress should ensure that anti-nepotism laws apply to both the president and vice president.
When Trump hired Kushner, some legal scholars argued that the president does not have to abide by the federal anti-nepotism statute. That’s why, in order to ensure that this degree of corruption does not take place, Congress should pass a bill to make explicit that the president cannot appoint a relative to any official government post, even if they forgo a salary. In the event that a president’s relative is widely perceived to be the best qualified for a certain role, that appointment should require a waiver from Congress so that the candidate can be evaluated on their merits. Appointments of family members should be the exception, not the norm.
Nepotism erodes trust in government and often results in wholly unqualified people being entrusted with critical roles to the nation’s interests, whether negotiating peace in the Middle East or leading pandemic response. MENAHEM KAHANA / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
There’s also the issue of fixing the existing law. While there does exist a federal anti-nepotism statute, the penalty is to withhold salary from the appointee, and both Kushner and Ivanka had already waived their government salaries. But since that didn’t stop them from using their positions in government to make money in the private sector, it’s clear that anti-nepotism laws should have stricter penalties, including job termination if the appointment is proved to have been made on the grounds of an employee’s relationship to the president rather than their qualifications.
Given just how many conflicts of interest consumed the Trump family while they were in the White House, it’s time to ensure that no future president will follow Trump’s example. Because if nepotism is not seriously addressed, then Trump’s presidency would only serve as a blueprint for other corrupt business families to run for office to expand their wealth in the future.
Nepotism is a defining characteristic of monarchies — a system of government the Founders specifically wanted to expel from the United States. So it’s time for Congress to stop, even on occasion, letting the president be king.
***
Donald Trump got away with obstructing the investigation into his campaign’s dealings with Russia when it interfered in the 2016 election, also known as the Mueller inquiry. The Mueller report detailed the ways that the president thwarted the special counsel’s efforts to discover the truth about how the Trump campaign may have cooperated with Russia to secure electoral victory.
Hiding the evidence
Donald Trump got away with thwarting investigations of wrongdoing by his campaign and his White House. Without reforms, future criminals could exploit the powers of the presidency to even more dangerous ends.
Right out of the gate, Donald Trump appeared to break the law and brazenly admit it to the entire nation — not with remorse but with pride and conviction. Within four months of being sworn in, Trump fired FBI director James Comey, which the White House insisted was a decision rooted in Comey’s mishandling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. But Trump rebuffed his Department of Justice’s line of reasoning in a television interview with NBC, saying that he was planning on firing Comey because of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Trump fired then-FBI director James Comey and then admitted on television that he didn’t like Comey’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Yet Trump managed to stay in office for an entire term despite this obstruction of justice. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
This was just one of several instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report — the culmination of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s involvement in Russia’s election interference. Trump also obstructed justice when he tried to fire Mueller, when he tried to curtail Mueller, and when he ordered his White House counsel to lie about his attempt to fire Mueller. But having faced no legal consequences for these and other attempts to undermine the investigation, Trump unsurprisingly went on to commit the same crime again, and was eventually impeached for obstruction of Congress in a completely different case that involved his efforts to thwart the investigation of a whistle-blower complaint about his corrupt call to the president of Ukraine.
As it stands, Trump’s presidency will only embolden future presidents to abuse their power because he showed impeachment to be a far less threatening tool than it once was. While Richard Nixon’s resignation and the public shaming that came along with it may have served as a warning to his successors of the social and political pitfalls of corruption, Trump’s shamelessness and resilience in riding out both of his impeachment trials until the Senate acquitted him may be a lesson to his successors to double down on their wrongdoings because their own party will protect them.
"Impeachment is not as strong a deterrent as it was before Trump."
This is not to say that impeachment has been rendered a completely useless tool; Congress should still use it when a president is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors. But impeachment is not as strong a deterrent as it was before Trump. The solution to preventing presidential abuse of power lies in improving the accountability of the president under the law, outside the scope of impeachment, which should be Congress’s last resort. Four things should be done to accomplish that:
First, Congress should strengthen whistle-blower protections. “One of the best, most important ways to constrain and prevent this sort of malfeasance is to provide adequate incentives for and protections for folks who blow the whistle on bad behavior,” said Matthew Stephenson, a Harvard law professor who focuses on anti-corruption. House Democrats introduced legislation, known as the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which seeks to implement a slew of reforms, including expanding whistle-blower protection to political appointees. The reason this is important is that whistle-blowing is effectively a stimulant for investigations. The Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump’s first impeachment, for example, was the direct result of a concerned official raising the alarm.
"Until presidents can be indicted, they will always be, by definition, above the law."
Second, Congress must strengthen its oversight over the presidency in tangible ways. That means being able to more effectively enforce Congress’s subpoena power. “You can’t do oversight without power behind those subpoenas, and you certainly can’t hold a president and an administration accountable if you can’t require them to give information about the conduct of their office and whether they’re faithfully executing the laws,” Representative Adam Schiff of California said.
Indeed, Trump officials were able to evade subpoenas and effectively run down the clock because court proceedings to enforce congressional subpoenas can take a long time. The House, for example, tried but failed to get Don McGahn, who served as White House counsel under Trump, to testify in front of the Judiciary Committee about Trump’s obstruction of justice during the Mueller probe. Although McGahn did cooperate with Mueller, parts of the final report were redacted by the Justice Department. Congress, in its oversight capacity, should have been able to reconstruct parts of the investigation. Doing so may have prevented the Trump administration from getting away with its efforts to spin the final Mueller report as an exoneration of Trump, which it very clearly was not.
Congressional subpoena power is currently too weak to be an effective check on a corrupt president. Despite efforts by the House of Representatives to demand that Don McGahn, White House counsel under Trump, testify in the Mueller probe, McGahn was able to avoid testifying. DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
That’s why reforming subpoena power, a critical step in bolstering Congress as a check on the president, ought to include the possibility of fast-tracking court proceedings for congressional subpoenas and issuing fines for those who defy them.
Third, President Biden should appoint a White House ethics czar, which he has yet to do, to ensure that the White House correctly implements and abides by high ethical standards. It’s important for the Biden team to codify in clear terms, for example, the limits of the White House’s interactions with the Department of Justice in order to guarantee greater independence of the department. And there are already clear signs that the Biden team needs an ethics czar: Though Biden has released public logs of White House visitors — something the Trump administration stopped doing — he has chosen not to disclose virtual meetings. This is a mistake, given that transparency in White House communications is a key tool to protect the Department of Justice’s independence. An ethics czar dedicated to getting input from public accountability groups could change such policies and set a new norm.
Lastly, the Department of Justice should revisit its policy, issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This is not the law of the land, and the constitutionality of whether a president can be indicted while in office has yet to be determined by the courts. Rather, it lies in a tradition that began in 1973. The head of the OLC at the time argued in a memo that “a necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court . . . would interfere with the president’s unique official duties.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller considered himself unable to weigh in on the question of whether the president should be indicted for obstruction of justice because of a Department of Justice policy that advises against indicting sitting presidents. That policy must change. MANDEL NGAN / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
It might sound reasonable to say that indicting a sitting president could pose political problems — and potential national security risks — because a criminal trial would effectively incapacitate a president. But an indictment does not necessarily mean that the president has to sit through a criminal trial. That could always be postponed until a president leaves office. In that 1973 memo, the rationale for not indicting a sitting president, even if all proceedings are deferred until they are out of office, rests merely on the perceived damage the image of the office of the president might endure. “The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as chief executive boggles the imagination,” the memo said.
A greater spectacle, however, is a reckless, authoritarian president who is seen on the world stage bending the rule of law to his will. That’s why presidents should be indicted for crimes that they commit, with their trials postponed to when they leave office. Had Mueller been able to operate under a guideline that allowed for Trump’s indictment, the former president probably would have faced legal accountability for his early acts of obstruction of justice. That, on its own, could have deterred him from obstructing justice later in his presidency, as he did during his first impeachment inquiry.
So while presidents should not, for logistical reasons, be required to be a part of a criminal trial while in office, they should not be immune from indictments. Because until presidents can be indicted, they will always be, by definition, above the law.
***
Donald Trump abused the power of the presidency by pardoning loyalists and friends, including his former campaign chair, Paul Manafort (center), who broke his plea deal and thwarted the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and its alleged connection to the Trump campaign. SETH WENIG / AP
Rewards for doing the president’s bidding
Donald Trump’s abuse of the pardon power to reward criminal loyalists is a precedent for a future authoritarian leader to commit crimes without consequence. Its use must be curtailed by Congress.
One of the broadest, most unlimited powers of the president of the United States is the authority to grant pardons. And if it’s used properly, that power can be an incredibly effective — and democratic — tool in righting the wrongs of the country’s criminal justice system. One of Jimmy Carter’s campaign promises, for example, was to pardon the hundreds of thousands of men who had evaded the draft during the Vietnam War, and he signed an executive order to do so on his first full day in office. And in the era of mass incarceration, executive clemency can and should be used as a means to combat an overly criminalizing and punitive system. Barack Obama used his authority to grant pardons to do just that: Most of the nearly 2,000 people whom he granted executive clemency to were people convicted of nonviolent drug-related crimes.
"Trump’s blatantly corrupt use of it should be a wake-up call to lawmakers of both major parties."
But Donald Trump has proved that a president can use his pardon power not as a corrective for injustice but in exchange for political and personal favors — or even as a tool of coercion or manipulation — and get away with it. In stark contrast to his immediate predecessor, Trump granted clemency to only 237 people. And though some of those acts of clemency included commuting unjustly long sentences for minor offenses, over 100 of them, according to the Lawfare Blog, were granted to people who either had personal connections with the former president or advanced his political cause. Trump was hardly the first president to use his pardon power nefariously, but his blatantly corrupt use of it should be a wake-up call to lawmakers of both major parties that executive clemency must be reformed to limit its potential for abuse.
The president’s pardon power is intended to be a tool of forgiveness to correct for an overly punitive justice system, not a tool to reward criminals who do the president’s bidding. But Donald Trump pardoned Roger Stone in December 2020, after he was convicted of seven felonies including lying under oath. Current laws and norms do too little to stop a president from using their power this way. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
“While the president can by and large pardon whomever he wants, it can be obstruction of justice if the president dangles the possibility of a pardon to stop someone from cooperating with an investigation. And it can be bribery if a president is getting some kind of reward for a pardon,” said Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “In the case of somebody like Paul Manafort, there might be something there,” Bookbinder said. “It really does appear that the possibility of a pardon was fairly publicly dangled in front of him.”
Manafort, Trump’s campaign chair, agreed to cooperate with federal investigators in their probe into Russia’s 2016 election interference and its ties to the Trump campaign, but afterward, he quickly broke his plea deal and, according to prosecutors, lied to them repeatedly. Trump eventually pardoned him. While there is currently no proof Trump directly offered Manafort a pardon in exchange for not cooperating with the authorities, he did publicly say that he may pardon Manafort while the investigation was still ongoing, and the former president’s lawyer reportedly relayed that information directly to Manafort’s attorneys. That, on its own, could very well be obstruction of justice, and it shows how a president could use pardons to evade accountability for the dirty dealings of their campaigns, or even to cover up their connections, or that they are beholden to foreign adversaries.
Donald Trump pardoned a longtime friend of his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik (left), for felony convictions. Future presidents might use the pardon power to even more detrimental effect to shield themselves and their inner circle from those who could testify to their misdeeds or crimes. MARK LENNIHAN / AP
So what exactly can be done about such a broad power bestowed on the president by the Constitution? First, the federal government should follow the example of most states. Instead of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, which oversees clemency reviews and is housed in the Department of Justice, President Biden should establish a clemency board through executive order. That way, with an entire board of various criminal justice experts reviewing petitions together rather than the pardon attorney doing so alone through their office, there would be more eyes on each individual case and a more deliberative process. It should also ensure a transparent process and should be heavily invested in and sufficiently staffed so that it can go through applications more efficiently. While this could be undone by a future president, it would set a new norm for how pardons should be used: to consistently and efficiently undo injustices carried out by federal courts.
"Pardon reform is not a partisan issue — at least not yet."
Second, Congress should muster the will to pass a constitutional amendment that would narrowly constrain the president’s pardon power. This should not be a major curtailment of the president’s power, but rather an effort to reduce the possibility of conflicts of interest and obstruction of justice when it comes to executive clemency. That’s why Congress should strip presidents of the power to pardon themselves, high-ranking administration officials, advisers or senior members of their campaigns, a business associate who worked with the president 10 years prior to entering office, or any person tied up in an investigation involving the president. (Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee has introduced similar legislation.) Though constitutional amendments seem to be a chimera these days, both parties in Congress should be wary of the way a president can abuse pardons. And after all, pardon reform is not a partisan issue — at least not yet.
In the end, presidents should retain a relatively broad power to grant pardons. They’re a critical component of the criminal justice system, and often the only hope of granting people a second chance. But so long as Biden and Congress absolve themselves of the responsibility to reform presidential pardons, future abuse of that power is not only likely; it’s inevitable.
***
Donald Trump’s presidency made clear that our institutions are currently incapable of holding presidents accountable for breaking the law. Unless he faces consequences, the message to future corrupt leaders is that they will not face consequences either. EVAN VUCCI / AP
The case for prosecuting Donald Trump
Saving American democracy for the long run requires a clear condemnation of the Trump presidency. That means making clear that no one is above the law.
Norms in a democracy are only as good as our willingness to enforce them.
After the precedent-busting, lawbreaking presidency of Donald Trump, Congress needs to pass new laws to constrain future officeholders. That’s the case the Globe has made in this series: curbs on the pardon power, safeguards against nepotism, broadening the power of Congress to investigate the president, protections for whistle-blowers, requirements that presidents make financial disclosures to root out conflicts of interest.
All of that is crucial to protect Americans against a repeat of the last four years.
"Presidents also need a clear message, one that will echo through history, that breaking the law in the Oval Office will actually be punished."
But imposing stricter rules on future presidents, by itself, is clearly insufficient. Those presidents also need a clear message, one that will echo through history, that breaking the law in the Oval Office will actually be punished — that ethics policies and legal requirements, both the existing ones and those Congress will hopefully enact in the future, are more than just words on paper.
Trump’s presidency didn’t just expose glaring legal weaknesses: It also made clear that our institutions are incapable of holding presidents accountable for breaking even our existing laws. If Congress had played the role the Founders envisioned, by removing Trump from the presidency after his criminality became clear in the Ukraine affair, that might have been enough of a deterrent to scare future presidents straight. But lawmakers didn’t.
"Filing charges against former leaders is not a radical step."
So now there is only one way left to restore deterrence and convey to future presidents that the rule of law applies to them. The Justice Department must abandon two centuries of tradition by indicting and prosecuting Donald Trump for his conduct in office.
That’s not a recommendation made lightly. The longstanding reluctance to prosecute former leaders is based on legitimate concerns about the justice system being used to settle political scores. But filing charges against former leaders is not a radical step, either: Foreign democracies, including South Korea, Italy, and France, routinely manage to prosecute crooked former leaders without starting down a slippery slope to authoritarianism. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was recently found guilty of bribery, a decade after his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, was convicted of corruption. France’s democracy and its image around the world remain intact.
In the case of Trump, prosecutors would have plenty of potential crimes from which to choose. While Trump may be prosecuted for financial crimes he potentially committed before he became president, what is most important to go after are his actions during his time in office, especially those after the 2020 election, which culminated in fomenting a full-on, violent assault on American democracy.
Donald Trump tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including by asking Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough votes to falsely declare Trump that state’s winner. He also incited his supporters to reject the election’s outcome. Here, supporters of Trump protest in front of the Clark County Election Department in Nevada days after the November election. JOHN LOCHER / AP
First, there are Trump’s repeated attempts to obstruct justice, as documented in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the former president’s campaign ties to Russia. As Mueller himself put it, while the investigators operated under the guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted — a view this editorial board disagrees with — the point of their investigation was to “preserve evidence” for prosecutors to evaluate after Trump left office.
Second, there are Trump’s efforts to overturn the Georgia election results. Trump’s call to Georgia’s secretary of state, in which he pressured the secretary to “find” enough votes to undo his defeat, was clear election interference, which is a violation of state and federal law. That means both Georgia and federal prosecutors can — and should — investigate the matter further.
Third, there’s Trump’s infamous incitement of insurrection, which he committed on national television. It is a federal crime to incite a riot or insurrection, and though Trump was impeached over this, he was wrongfully acquitted by the Senate, leaving the courts with the responsibility to hold him accountable. Even senators who acquitted him of the incitement charge alluded to the fact that his crime should be dealt with in the criminal justice system. “If you believe he committed a crime, he can be prosecuted like any other citizen,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a longtime Trump ally. (And depending on how the investigations go — if prosecutors have enough evidence to show that Trump gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists — there’s a chance sedition charges could be brought against him, just like the charges his supporters who stormed the Capitol are likely to face.)
Donald Trump incited an insurrection and yet the Senate was still unwilling to remove him from office. There is only one way left to restore deterrence and convey to future presidents that the rule of law applies to them. JOHN MINCHILLO / AP
To avoid a potential political tit for tat, the Department of Justice and state prosecutors must remain completely apolitical in their handling of Trump’s case. “His crimes should be investigated independently, and the president should stay a thousand miles away,” Norman Eisen, a former ethics czar in the Obama administration, said in an interview. That’s exactly what President Biden has done so far, and he should continue to separate himself and resist any urge to weigh in one way or the other.
Congress’s failure to hold Trump accountable is one reason to break with precedent and prosecute him now. Another, perhaps more obvious reason, is that Trump’s misconduct ought to be handled differently because it was different. There’s a far stronger case that he committed serious crimes in office than could plausibly be made against even the country’s most unethical previous presidents. One of the reasons no president in history has been prosecuted for actions stemming from his presidency is that none of them before the 45th tried to instigate a coup.
"A commander in chief tried his very best to subvert democracy. He attacked his own country. Five people died."
The reluctance to prosecute presidents is deep-rooted, and extreme caution does make sense. (The last thing that the country needs is for Trump to be charged, tried, and then acquitted.) But it cannot be the case that there is no line — no hypothetical act of presidential criminality that would not rise to the level of seriousness that merits setting aside our qualms. And if one accepts that there is a line, it’s hard to imagine Donald Trump didn’t cross it. The events of Jan. 6, and those that led up to them, were an extreme abuse of power that few ever imagined a president would commit. A commander in chief tried his very best to subvert democracy. He attacked his own country. Five people died. Allowing him to go unpunished would set a far more dangerous precedent than having Trump stand trial. To reform the presidency so that the last four years are never repeated, the country must go beyond passing laws: It must make clear through its actions that no person, not even the president, is above them.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests