January 6 Hearings Get Under Way

(John Hinderaker) The House Select Committee that purports to investigate the “insurrection” of January 6, 2021, started holding hearings today. I don’t intend to write much about this farce, as I think it is one of the dumbest things we have seen in many years. This is true for many reasons:

  • We Republicans may have our faults, but if we were actually going to stage an insurrection, at least one of us would remember to bring a firearm.
  • Along the same lines, if we were to undertake an insurrection, we would not call on a “shaman” wearing horns and a fur hat to lead it.
  • An actual insurrection would result in casualties. Here, the only person who died, or was seriously injured, other than by natural causes, was Ashli Babbitt. Will Pelosi’s committee call the officer who shot her as a witness? Inquiring minds want to know.
  • If the committee wants to investigate violent riots in Washington, D.C., it is barking up the wrong tree. There was a real riot on the day when Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2017, with businesses looted, buildings and vehicles burned, and innocent passers-by assaulted. Likewise, in July 2016 there was another real riot, in which (going from memory) around 60 D.C. police officers were wounded, and much property was destroyed. Do you suppose the Democrats are interested in investigating those riots?
  • There actually is one aspect of the January 6 protest that deserves investigation: the performance of Capitol security. The fact that a small rabble of unarmed protesters was able to access the Capitol illegally is, or should be, shocking. Moreover, we have all seen the video of the Capitol entrance where guards opened the doors and waved the protesters into the building. The protesters entered in an orderly fashion, taking photos with their cell phones and carefully staying between the red velvet ropes. I suspect that most of those who entered the Capitol on January 6 were invited in by guards. I have never seen an explanation of how and why this happened. Will the committee investigate this bizarre breakdown in security?

Just kidding.

  • The committee is proceeding without meaningful participations by the Republicans. To their everlasting shame, two alleged Republicans responded to Pelosi’s summons as collaborators. But no one on the committee will be a voice of sanity.
  • This committee reminds me of the Select Committee on Assassinations that House Democrats appointed, as I recall, some time during the 1970s. That committee, staffed by the usual suspects, purported to investigate the John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations. The committee wrote a report that concluded, if I remember correctly, that all three assassinations were fruits of conspiracies. If you don’t remember that bit of history, you are not alone. The committee’s report was generally viewed as an embarrassment and was quietly shelved. The current committee will, I think, be similarly forgotten.

On the bright side, I don’t believe the Democrats are fooling anyone. The current “investigation” is a joke, and I think everyone understands that. The New York Times et al. may pontificate about the “insurrection,” but the whole thing is a farce that will get the Dems nowhere.

It also is a reprise of the Dems’ unconstitutional–in my opinion–second impeachment of President Trump. That impeachment did nothing for the Dems, as far as I could see, and the current version is lamer, if only because of the lapse of time. If Joe Biden’s policies had not proved a comprehensive failure, the Democrats would not be trying to focus attention on an ex-president of the opposite party.

Source: January 6 Hearings Get Under Way

The Reichstag fire and the Dems’ Hitlerian response to Jan. 6

Sometimes Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply.

Usually, Hitler comparisons to American politicians and political party’s are erroneous and overwrought. But sometimes they’re very accurate.

The way American Thinker is formatted, it happens on very rare occasions that excellent content gets rolled off the front page and, as far as most readers are concerned, effectively vanished. Such is the case with F. Charles Parker IV’s As long as we’re making World War II comparisons….

We should all try our best to avoid reductio ad Hitlerum because what’s happening in America almost never mirrors what happens in Hitler’s Germany. Trump, for example, was the opposite of Hitlerian, despite the left’s frantic efforts to make the comparison. Trump was incredibly philo-Semitic. Trump sought to shrink, not expand, government, which is the exact opposite of what a socialist leader (as Hitler was) would do. Trump encouraged private citizens to own guns, which is the opposite of what any tyrant would do. And Trump, rather than seeking world domination, believed that America should be less involved in the affairs of other countries. He was the un-Hitler.

However, sometimes the comparisons are so apt that you really can’t help but see connections. Since Biden has been in office, he’s collected anti-Semites into his orbit and shown real sympathy for those who seek Israel’s destruction. He’s been hellbent on expanding the government, including supporting economic policies that will destroy the middle class. He’s been open about his desire to disarm all citizens. So far, the only thing he hasn’t done is made a bid for world domination.

And then there’s January 6 — and this is where F. Charles Parker IV’s post comes in:

When the Reichstag burned, Hitler had become Chancellor, but Germany was terribly divided, and his authority was not secure. Because a demented Dutch communist was accused of setting the fire, Hitler manufactured what would be termed today an existential national crisis. The Nazis termed the fire a prelude to an uprising or insurrection. He arrested many communists and managed to get enacted emergency powers. A law titled the Enabling Act gave him new powers of suppression with authority to pass laws by executive order, without involving legislative bodies. Ultimately, he manipulated the existential crisis to suppress all opposition, including the communists and social democrats.

Source: The Reichstag fire and the Dems’ Hitlerian response to Jan. 6

RealClearInvestigations: Naming the Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt

ABOUT TIME: RealClearInvestigations: Naming the Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt.

For the past six months, as Congress has proposed legislation to reform police departments across the country, the Capitol Police has stiff-armed government watchdogs, journalists and even lawyers for Babbitt, who have sought the identity of the officer and additional details about the shooting. The USCP still refuses to release his name, in stark contrast to recent high-profile police shootings around the nation.

In February, USCP issued a press release promising to “share additional information once the investigation is complete.” But Justice Department investigators closed their probe in April, clearing the officer of criminal wrongdoing in Babbitt’s death, which the medical examiner ruled a homicide. And last month, the D.C. Police — which shares jurisdiction with the Capitol Police and has led the investigation into Babbitt’s shooting — concluded its own internal review of the shooting without making any findings, according to spokeswoman Kristen Metzger.Still, USCP continues “stonewalling the public,” according to the head of the police union. . . .

Now a new name has surfaced in the Babbitt imbroglio — Lt. Michael L. Byrd — and while USCP Communications Director Eva Malecki won’t confirm he is the shooter, in this case she isn’t denying it.

In a little-noticed exchange, Byrd was cited by the acting House sergeant at arms during a brief discussion of the officer who shot Babbitt at a Feb. 25 House hearing. Both C-SPAN and CNN removed his name from transcripts, but CQ Transcripts — which, according to its website, provides “the complete word from Capitol Hill; exactly as it was spoken” — recorded the Capitol official, Timothy Blodgett, referring to the cop as “Officer Byrd.” His name is clearly audible in the videotape of the hearing (at around 39:20).

Byrd appears to match the description of the shooter, who video footage shows is an African American dressed that day in a business suit. Jewelry, including a beaded bracelet and lapel pin, also match up with photos of Byrd.

In addition, Byrd’s resume lines up with what is known about the experience and position of the officer involved in the shooting — a veteran USCP officer who holds the rank of lieutenant and is the commander of the House Chamber Section of the Capitol Police.

Following the shooting, Byrd’s Internet footprint was scrubbed, including his social media and personal photos.

Source: ABOUT TIME: RealClearInvestigations: Naming the Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Unarmed Jan. 6 R…

I Know Who Killed Ashli Babbitt – But You Don’t

The identity of the Capitol Police officer who shot the MAGA rioter on camera on January 6 has remained one of the most closely guarded secrets in America.

But I know who it is.

I know his name, his age, his rank, his family status and his service record.

I know all this because DailyMail.com journalists did their job and found out, as I am sure have journalists from other news organizations.

Although I’m equally sure that many prestigious left-leaning news organizations – who ought to know better – have probably not even bothered.

Nobody has reported the information yet because there has been enormous pressure put on the media from the Capitol Police and the officer’s legal team not to do so for fear it would endanger his life.

That is a perfectly legitimate concern.

Emotions are still running scarily high about what happened that day.

But given the scale of global attention this shooting attracted, and the overwhelming public interest in the dreadful events of January 6, how tenable is this ongoing wall of silence?

Particularly as the National Commission into the riot is coming soon.

It seems increasingly outrageous to me that you, the public, have no idea who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt.

It doesn’t matter whether you support the action of the rioters that day, or, like me, you found it a shocking and reprehensible act of insurrection aimed at the very heartbeat of US democracy fueled by a woefully reckless President Trump.

What matters is that justice is seen to be done, and that means every salient detail from what occurred is made public.

As I write this, even Ashli Babbitt’s own family don’t know for sure who killed her or been told the details of the investigation that cleared the officer’s actions.

How can that be right?

….

When DailyMail.com asked for confirmation of his identity, Thomas DiBiase, General Counsel for the Capitol Police, wrote back requesting that we ‘refrain’ from naming the officer involved ‘until the conclusion of the ongoing investigation,’ citing ‘threats a number of Capitol Police officers have received in connection with the events of January 6th.’

That investigation was concluded in April when the officer’s actions were deemed lawful by the Department of Justice, which said there was no evidence to support a criminal prosecution.

In that announcement, the department still did not identify him and have continued not to do so.

But other officers who have shot people this year, either with justification or not, have been identified publicly.

In April, Officer Nicholas Reardon was named within a day of fatally firing four shots at knife-wielding 16-year-old Ma’khia Bryant as she charged at two women in Columbus, Ohio.

Also in April, Kim Potter was named as the officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.

And Eric Stillman was identified as the Chicago cop who fatally shot 13-year-old Adam Toledo during a foot chase in March.

By stark contrast, the U.S. Capitol Police have not even held a single briefing on Babbitt’s death.

Her attorney Terrell Roberts told DailyMail.com: ‘In every case I’ve known of a police shooting, the officers have been named. I don’t know of one where they haven’t been named. ‘These police officers are regarded as public officials. They’re acting for the government and there should be public accountability. The public has a right to know.’

He called the decision not to reveal the officer’s identity as ‘a blatant double-standard’ that impedes the family’s attempts to find out more about Babbitt’s death and said: ‘I don’t know, but I think one of the reasons they are hiding his identity they don’t have a good reason for this shooting. If Ashli Babbitt had been brandishing a firearm and she was shot, the officer would be identified by now and pinning a medal on him. So, I don’t think we have an explanation for the shooting and that’s why they have not identified him.’

Source: I Know Who Killed Ashli Babbitt – But You Don’t

20 Questions for Nancy Pelosi About January 6

Additionally, here are just a few questions Pelosi’s inquisition should answer:

1) Why were requests made by USCP, a federal agency under the purview of Congress, for extra security ahead of January 6 denied?

2) Why did law enforcement including USCP and D.C. Metro Police show up wearing full riot gear including gas masks and batons?

3) Who authorized police to attack the peaceful crowd with flashbangs, sting balls, and tear gas around 1:00 p.m.?

4) Have any police officers been charged with assault?

5) Who seeded the lie that Brian Sicknick was killed in the line of duty and who told the New York Times he was murdered by a Trump mob with a fire extinguisher?

6) Did any FBI agents or informants infiltrate groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters before January 6?

7) Who were the officers caught on tape allowing protesters into the building?

8) Who opened the doors on the upper west terrace at approximately 2:30 p.m. at the direction of an unknown USCP officer?

9) How much damage did the building sustain? The architect of the Capitol originally claimed $30 million in damages. But in court filings, the government claims the building only sustained about $1.5 million in damages.

10) On January 7, Pelosi called the Capitol riot an “armed insurrection?” How many people have been charged with carrying a firearm into the building?

11) Why was Pelosi’s son-in-law reporting from the scene that day?

12) How many Americans have been charged with sedition?

13) How many Americans remain incarcerated under pre-trial detention orders awaiting delayed trials that won’t start until next year?

14) Who authorized the opening of the “pod” in the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility jail to house January 6 defendants specifically?

15) Are there reports of mental and physical abuse of January 6 detainees by D.C. prison guards, including solitary confinement conditions for months on end and lack of access to defense lawyers?

16) How much money is being spent on the various investigations into January 6?

17) Should social media companies including Facebook and Twitter be criminally charged for allowing protesters to organize the “insurrection” on their platforms?

18) Who are the anonymous “proud members of the United State Capitol Police” threatening to withhold security from members of Congress who did not support a commission?

19) How many “white supremacists” have been identified by law enforcement?

20) Who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?

It’s unlikely, of course, that Pelosi’s truth-seeking mission will result in anything more than reheated political spin, recriminations, and fuel for nonstop media attention. But Americans, and Republican leaders including Donald Trump, should keep asking legitimate questions and demanding truthful answers.

Source: 20 Questions for Nancy Pelosi About January 6

What the January 6th surveillance tapes show

I think we already knew some of this, but here’s further video confirmation [emphasis mine]:

…[N]ewly-obtained video shows United States Capitol Police officers speaking with several January 6 protestors—including Jacob Chansley, the so-called “Q shaman”—inside the Capitol that afternoon.

One officer, identified in the video and confirmed by charging documents as Officer Keith Robishaw, appears to tell Chansely’s group they won’t stop them from entering the building. “We’re not against . . . you need to show us . . . no attacking, no assault, remain calm,” Robishaw warns. Chansley and another protestor instruct the crowd to act peacefully. “This has to be peaceful,” Chansley yelled. “We have the right to peacefully assemble.”…

The video directly contradicts what government prosecutors allege in a complaint filed January 8 against Chansley: “Robishaw and other officers calmed the protestors somewhat and directed them to leave the area from the same way they had entered. Chansley approached Officer Robishaw and screamed, among other things, that this was their house, and that they were there to take the Capitol, and to get Congressional leaders.”

Chansley later is seen entering the Senate chambers with a police officer behind him; he led several protesters in prayer and sat in Vice President Mike Pence’s chair…

Chansley is not charged with assaulting an officer; he faces several counts for trespassing and disorderly conduct. He has been incarcerated since January, denied bail awaiting trial. He has no criminal record.

Ace writes:

This is why the DOJ absolutely refuses to release thousands of hours of surveillance video — they claim because it’s “too sensitive” and would compromise “national security.”

The actual truth is because the video shows Capitol Police allowing protesters to enter the Capitol, and you can’t make a trespassing charge stick when the agents of the state are giving permission to enter.

Now, that doesn’t excuse the relatively few — like 15-20 people — who were attacking cops. No cop gave permission to be attacked, and anyway, you can’t assent to assault.

But this does mean the 400 people being held without trial, in solitary confinement, for political “crimes,” including mere trespassing, cannot be convicted of that crime and should be released at once.

But they won’t be. The government has been taken over by Marxists at war with America and the American people.

But Chansley has served his purpose. Most people think he was some dangerous person trying to overthrow the government violently, along with many thousands of others that day, and that he stands in for the many millions of Trump supporters. Incarcerating a lot of them would be good for the nation, right? The narrative is set.

Years ago – many years ago – I would have thought that releasing information like this video would make a difference in that narrative. Years ago, that notion might even have been correct. Now I no longer think it will make any difference at all except to further anger those of us on the right who care.

I hope I’m wrong. I really really hope I’m wrong.

Source: What the January 6th surveillance tapes show

JULIE KELLY: The Feds’ Nonexistent Case Against Alleged Sicknick Assailants

JULIE KELLY: The Feds’ Nonexistent Case Against Alleged Sicknick Assailants:

The cause of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick’s untimely death on January 7 is finally settled, but the prosecution of his alleged attackers rages on.

After months of dishonest accounts about what happened to Sicknick—first that he was bludgeoned to death by “insurrectionists” with a fire extinguisher and then that he died of an allergic reaction to bear spray—the D.C. Medical Examiner’s office confirmed the 42-year-old died of a stroke; the chemical sprayed in his direction during the chaos outside the Capitol on January 6 did not contribute to his death.

….

The sketchy photographic evidence against Tanios and Khater included in charging documents isn’t the government’s only problem. Law enforcement doesn’t know for certain if they used the spray at all. Under questioning by Tanios’ lawyer last month, FBI Special Agent Riley Palmertree could not confirm that either man pulled the trigger on the bear spray can:

Attorney: Did Khater use the bear spray that day?

Agent: Not that I know of, but that’s for further investigation—the investigation is still going on regarding the bear sprays.

Attorney: OK. So it’s your understanding that Khater used the smaller canister of OC spray with the black handle that was sort of like on a keychain or could be a keychain?

Agent: That’s according to my investigation, which is still going on.

Attorney: You don’t have any reason to believe that the bear spray was deployed that day at all, do you?

Agent: I have the bear spray cans myself and I haven’t submitted them for analysis, so that’s what I would need to do. That’s a very serious thing that I have to be sure on in a scientific way the best I can.

In a separate filing, Julian Khater’s lawyers argued their client and Tanios were sprayed by others in the crowd, perhaps police officers, and never used the bear spray. The government even admitted in its affidavit that Khater at one point yelled out, “they just sprayed me.” Therefore, it’s a strong possibility the officers, including Sicknick who reportedly told family members he was hit by pepper spray during the protest, were sprayed by something other than the bear repellent.

Source: JULIE KELLY: The Feds’ Nonexistent Case Against Alleged Sicknick Assailants….

Official cause of Officer Sicknick’s death finally announced – and it’s about as you suspected

No, Officer Sicknick didn’t die from a fire extinguisher to the head, thrown by Trump supporters on January 6th. Nor did he die from an allergic reaction to bear spray wielded by those same protestors. Here’s the actual story as announced by the medical examiner – which conforms to what for quite some time has seemed the most likely cause of his death to anyone paying attention to the facts:

Francisco Diaz, the chief medical examiner for Washington, D.C., told the Washington Post that Sicknick died on Jan. 7 after suffering two strokes and that he did not suffer an allergic reaction to any chemical irritants.

The medical examiner’s office told the Washington Examiner that Sicknick’s “cause of death” was “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis” — a stroke — and the “manner of death” was “natural.” The office said Sicknick was sprayed with a chemical substance around 2:20 p.m. on Jan. 6, collapsed at the Capitol around 10 p.m. that evening, and was transported by emergency services to a local hospital. He died around 9:30 p.m. on Jan. 7, the office added.

But the political damage was done by the Times reporting the lies about Sicknick’s death, and those lies almost immediately getting halfway around the world. I bet a lot of people will never read Officer Sicknick’s actual cause of death, and will instead continue to believe the lies.

And that’s the purpose of the lies in the first place.

….

The WaPo story from yesterday that announced Diaz’s findings also says this:

The ruling, released Monday, likely will make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in the officer’s death.

Yes indeed, it’s often “difficult to pursue homicide charges” when no homicide has occurred. But where there’s a will, there’s a way – as we’ve seen in the Chauvin trial, for example.

….

[NOTE: Glenn Greenwald, who has written a lot about the Sicknick case, has an excellent article about yesterday’s announcement, in which he states this:

It was crucial for liberal sectors of the media to invent and disseminate a harrowing lie about how Officer Brian Sicknick died. That is because he is the only one they could claim was killed by pro-Trump protesters at the January 6 riot at the Capitol…

…[C]able outlets and other media platforms repeated this lie over and over in the most emotionally manipulative way possible…

As I detailed over and over when examining this story, there were so many reasons to doubt this storyline from the start. Nobody on the record claimed it happened. The autopsy found no blunt trauma to the head. Sicknick’s own family kept urging the press to stop spreading this story because he called them the night of January 6 and told them he was fine — obviously inconsistent with the media’s claim that he died by having his skull bashed in — and his own mother kept saying that she believed he died of a stroke.

But the gruesome story of Sicknick’s “murder” was too valuable to allow any questioning. It was weaponized over and over to depict the pro-Trump mob not as just violent but barbaric and murderous, because if Sicknick weren’t murdered by them, then nobody was.

Much more at the link, including the fact that Greenwald had been derisively labeled by MSM reporters as a “Sicknick truther.” They will not be saying any mea culpas about that, either, nor about the other lies they promulgated. They will just move on to the next one.]

Source: Official cause of Officer Sicknick’s death finally announced – and it’s about as you suspected

GLENN GREENWALD ON WHAT THE TRUTH ABOUT OFFICER SICKNICK’S DEATH SAYS ABOUT THE MEDIA

They never cared in the slightest about Officer Brian Sicknick. They had just spent months glorifying a protest movement whose core view is that police officers are inherently racist and abusive. He had just become their toy, to be played with and exploited in order to depict the January 6 protest as a murderous orgy carried out by savages so primitive and inhuman that they were willing to fatally bash in the skull of a helpless person or spray them with deadly gases until they choked to death on their own lung fluids.

He’s right of course. If you support BLM then you necessarily support the routine verbal abuse of police officers as racists akin to the Klan. So it was very curious that a police officer would suddenly become the hero of this same group of progressives apart from the politics of doing so. In fact, you may recall people were simultaneously claiming Sicknick was a victim of the mob and that the same Capitol Hill police had treated BLM protesters unfairly. He was both a victim (where needed) and a perpetrator.

Source: GLENN GREENWALD ON WHAT THE TRUTH ABOUT OFFICER SICKNICK’S DEATH SAYS ABOUT THE MEDIA