The Texas attorney general’s office is attempting to withhold all messages Ken Paxton sent or received while in Washington for the pro-Donald Trump rally that devolved into a riot at the U.S. Capitol.
…
On Jan. 6, Paxton spoke at the pro-Trump rally in Washington. Appearing with his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, the attorney general touted his unsuccessful legal effort to overturn the presidential election.
“What we have in President Trump is a fighter," Paxton told the crowd of Trump supporters. "And I think that’s why we’re all here. We will not quit fighting. We’re Texans, we’re Americans, and the fight will go on.”
Members of the crowd, stirred up by false claims of voter fraud, later stormed the Capitol, fought with riot police and threatened lawmakers.
…
Paxton later falsely blamed the violence on antifa, a left-wing, anti-fascist movement, and claimed Trump supporters weren’t responsible for the insurrection. Federal prosecutors have charged more than 300 people in connection with the riot and alleged that some have ties to white supremacy groups. FBI Director Christopher Wray said investigators found no evidence that members of antifa attacked the Capitol.
…
The mind continues to be boggled. Ought to be used to it by now.
"[DEA agent] said in the interview that he was at the Capitol on January 6 because a “friend I served in Iraq with asked me to help him get there for documentation purposes and we were just spectators.”
Yeah - right. Plays the vet card, and wants us to believe that an LEO thinks the middle of a riot/protest/insurrection is the best time to stroll up to the Capitol for innocuous reasons. And he flew from LA to DC just to help his friend.
What the fuck are “documentation purposes?” Was he helping the friend obtain some personal documentation or were they “documenting” the protest.riot/insurrection? Just a couple of citizen media members…
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1986), 791 F.2d 68, 69.
Was he just in the crowd or did he enter the Capital?
Just in the crowd out side, then yeah take away his gun and badge, but no criminal charges unless he did something else.
If he was just outside, why would they take away gun and badge? First Amendment would protect him, I would think.
If he was knowingly past the barricades …
I wasn’t on the spot. But it would surprise me that any LEO would think they had any business being where the mob was milling about.
I guess someone MIGHT try to make the case that they just happened to be strolling by, they saw the crowd, and they ambled over to see what was happening. Didn’t see any barricades or anything, didn’t hear any instructions to disperse. But I’d suspect that would be somewhat farfetched.
That’s one thing that surprised me on 1/6. After the perimeter had been breached and as the crowd was milling about, I didn’t see/hear any efforts to tell/get them to disperse. Even after the curfew came and went. It just seemed as tho the LEOs would assume and enforce some perimeter - mostly silently, w/o interacting to the extent possible.
Me, I wanted the NG to storm up and start busting heads.
IMO a LEO who was a proper law enforcement officer would think and do as you say. One who was a RW authoritarian high on raging Trumpism would figure he has impunity.
Doesn’t have to be accidental presence. He could admit he intended to be on the grounds outside, and was there for the purpose of protesting. That would be protected conduct. And if thé barricades were down by the time he got there, and he wasn’t part of the mob, what offence had he committed?
Depends if the prosecutors can put him amongst the actual riot outside, on the steps and terrace. But if he’s correct and never went into the Capitol itself, or up the steps, that could be a hard case to make.
Will depend heavily on the facts.
It’s possible that being overwhelmed numerically (possibly due to the Pentagon delaying NG deployment) forced the Capitol police to strategically relax their enforcement of perimeters (which might have dovetailed with actions by pro-Trump traitors among the CP).
Hey - I understand.
And there is a difference between advancing a theory that MIGHT be successful in court, and everyone KNOWING that theory is really bullshit.
https://www.axios.com/house-chamber-security-capitol-riot-ce48d95d-8379-4cac-abb8-3fbb5a7a3a8f.html
The House chamber is being transformed into a massive safe room for members with the addition of bulletproof doors.
Why it matters: One of the most dramatic images from the Jan. 6 attack was Capitol Police officers inside the chamber holding protesters at bay by pointing their guns at them after they broke windows in the doors. The new doors will provide fresh fortification.
Details: An Axios reporter leaving the Capitol on Wednesday night saw workers removing doors on one of the double-doored entrances to the gallery one level above the floor of the chamber. Some members huddled there on Jan. 6.
- Workers revealed the new doors being installed would be fortified with kevlar — the same synthetic material used in bulletproof vests and military helmets.
…
Well, this is obviously pure political theater, since those friendlies who crashed the capitol on Jan 6 were just exercising their right as patriotic citizens to tour the site of lawmaking in Washington. What’s the big deal anyway?? That weak-kneed wimp Nancy Pelosi must be behind this stupid idea. 
LegalEagle has now commented on the Powell case:
Among other things, he points out that this is a Motion for Dismissal, with an attempt to argue that her conduct does not meet the criteria for defamation. It’s not an uncommon ploy. As is arguing that the person actually believed what they were saying to be true.
But it seems he thinks the main reason it will fail is that it starts to appeal to things outside the law, actually arguing facts. And that’s beyond the purview of a dismissal. A dismissal is based on assuming all facts will be decided in the favor of the opponent, saying that, even if everything they allege is true, there is no actual case to try.
This seems unlikely to pass muster.
hugging and kissing… zero threat… good heavens, the delusion is strong with this one.
Who hugged and kissed Officer Sicknick?
See, that was an accident. He got his neck hugged too hard.
They hugged them with flagstaffs and kissed them with metal fence posts.
I dunno why I clicked on that link, but it reminded me of how happy I am not to have to hear/think about that asshole any more.
Here’s some news: