A private intelligence company issued a dire warning on Dec. 24 about Donald Trump supporters plotting a violent insurrection on Jan. 6.
SITE Intelligence Group sent the bulletin, which described in detail the plans being discussed on pro-Trump online forums, to law enforcement agencies and other subscribers more than a week before the riot, which undercuts arguments that authorities failed to respond appropriately because they were unaware of the threat, reported Politico.
“The intelligence was there,” said Ryan Shapiro, the executive director of Property of the People. “The agencies had it, Capitol police leadership had it, yet they approached this obvious threat from the far right with a startling degree of nonchalance. Contrast this with the hypervigilant, militaristic state responses to peaceful protests by Black Lives Matter and other progressive groups. Jan. 6 wasn’t an intelligence failure. It was a political failure by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement.”
Rita Katz, the founder and executive director of SITE, told the website that the response was the most “profound failure to act” she has seen in decades of sharing information with the U.S. government.
“A potpourri of communities overtly strategized to storm the Capitol building and arrest — if not outright kill — public officials and carry out a coup,” Katz said.
“Law enforcement officials were alerting their superiors and other agencies to the threats SITE had identified — many of which ended up manifesting that day, just as they were written,” Katz added. “These warnings were distributed by the FBI and other agencies well before Jan. 6.”
Image via Shutterstock
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Watch: Garland Destroys GOP Congressman’s False Suggestion His School Board Memo Calls Parents Terrorists
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland Thursday morning was forced to respond to repeated Republican false claims about his memo directing the DOJ to hold “discussions” with local leaders about threats of violence made against school board members, and several times had to push back hard against false accusations made by GOP Congressmen.
Franklin Graham, Stephen Miller, and countless others on the right for weeks have been falsely claiming that Garland has ordered DOJ to investigate parents merely for opposing school board decisions, mostly on mask mandates and what they claim is “critical race theory.”
U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) on Wednesday during a Judiciary Committee hearing falsely suggested Garland was calling parents’ challenging school boards domestic terrorists.
“One example of a so-called terrorist incident was a parent, merely questioning whether school board members had earned their high school diplomas. Now that might have been rude, but does that seem like an act of domestic terrorism that you or your Justice Department ought to be investigating?” Chabot asked.
“Absolutely not,” Garland replied. “And I want to be clear the Justice Department supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish, about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in the schools. That is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does it use the words ‘domestic terrorism’ or ‘Patriot Act.’ Like you, I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.”
As NCRM has previously reported, school board members and educators in at least nine states this year have been targeted with threats, death threats, and often racist death threats, including in Virginia, Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Vermont, according to local news reports.
Ironically, it was Congressman Chabot who, a decade ago, was legitimately accused of violating the First Amendment when his staffers directed local police to confiscate video cameras at the Congressman’s town hall event, held in a public school.
Chabot, ruffled and rebuffed by Garland’s response, decided to end the inquiry there.
“Thank you I’m nearly out of time.”
Garland: That is not what the memorandum is about at all nor does it use the word domestic terrorism or patriot act pic.twitter.com/6vJqDDPcBf
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 21, 2021
Flustered Jim Jordan Just Can’t Seem to Remember When or How Many Times He Talked to Trump on Jan. 6
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), speaking before the House Rules Committee Wednesday appeared flustered and agitated when asked if he had talked to Donald Trump on January 6.
Jordan began by delivering a rambling, angry, lie-filled speech revealing he is far more angry about the investigation into the attack on American democracy than the actual attack on democracy.
The fast-talking Ohio GOP Congressman spewed a cornucopia of right wing talking points, including attacking the Biden administration in his remarks as the “worst administration in history.”
But his tune changed when he was asked questions.
“If you could just, for the record, was it before, during or after the attack –” Jordan was asked by Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA).
“I talked to the president after the attack,” Jordan interrupted.
“So not before or during?” McGovern asked to confirm.
“Right,” Jordan agreed.
“Okay, and you –” McGovern continued before being interrupted by Jordan.
“And I have been clear about that. But here, let me ask you a question, you brought up January 6 –” Jordan continued, attempting to flip control of the questioning.
He was not successful.
“But, but my understanding is that you said to a reporter from Politico that you spoke to him during, so, it’s now after the attack?”
“During? No, I didn’t speak to the president during the attack,” Jordan insisted.
“So you admitted to speaking to the former president on January 6 the same day you voted to overturn the election,” McGovern concluded.
In July Jordan told Rolling Stone he talked to Trump on January 6 “countless times” but refused to reveal the content or time of those calls. He also told Spectrum News:
“Uhh, I’d have to go— I spoke with him that day after … I think after?” he stammered. “I don’t know if I spoke with him in the morning or not. I just don’t know. I don’t know when those conversations happened. I know that I spoke with him all the time.”
Ohio’s @Jim_Jordan confirms to me:
“I spoke with [Trump] on Jan. 6th.”
Before, during or after attack?
“I spoke with him that day, after? I think after. I don’t know if I spoke with him in the morning or not. I just don’t know…I don’t know when those conversations happened.” pic.twitter.com/h4fbuMYtk0
— Taylor Popielarz (@TaylorPopielarz) July 28, 2021
A simple review of his telephone records would make determining when he spoke to Trump much easier.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who previously said he didn’t know if he spoke with President Trump before, during, or after the 1/6 insurrection:
“No, I did not speak to the president during the attack.” pic.twitter.com/42VsgmY0t5
— The Recount (@therecount) October 20, 2021
‘Coup Memo’ Think Tank Encouraging ‘Secession-by-Sheriff’ With Latest Project: Report
A right-wing Claremont Institute is undermining law and order and encouraging secession one county at a time.
The think tank, where coup memo author John Eastman remains a member in good standing, is weaponizing “patriotic law enforcement officers” with its new “Sheriff’s Fellowship” that ties together conservative anger over Black Lives Matter protests, COVID-19 lockdowns and Donald Trump’s election loss to bring so-called “Constitutional Sheriffs” into the mainstream, reported The Bulwark’s Charlie Sykes.
“Our nation’s conservative movement needs a countervailing network of uncorrupted law enforcement officials,” the think tank announced. [We need sheriffs] “not beholden to bureaucratic masters, and whose geographic boundaries, jurisdictional latitude, and — most important — direct connection and responsibility to citizens, places them on the frontlines of the defense of civilization.”
The plan sounds a lot like the Constitutional Sheriffs movement, which has infiltrated law enforcement agencies around the country with specious claims borrowed from the sovereign citizen movement that places the county sheriff as the “highest legitimate law enforcement” in the U.S. and claims they have authority to determine which laws are constitutional.
“Think of it as militias with badges, guns, and formal law enforcement powers,” Sykes wrote. “Or, if you like, secession-by-sheriff.”
Trump and his administration encouraged the sheriffs’ movement and openly backed leading figures such as Arizona’s Joe Arpaio and Wisconsin’s David Clarke, and former attorney general Jeff Sessions praised the “Anglo-Saxon heritage” of the office — which the Claremont Institute also did in a recent fundraising letter.
“The current revolution against the American regime, involving as it does both crime and political malfeasance, requires a coordinated response from patriotic law enforcement officers,” the letter reads. “Sheriffs are appropriate for this response. Since their beginnings as ‘shire-reeves’ (‘county watchmen’) centuries ago in England, sheriffs have been intimately connected with, and answerable to, the people of their “shires” and therefore the first layer of protection, and last line of defense, for the people’s rights.”
Another Arizona sheriff, Pinal County’s Mark Lamb, has emerged as a leading figure among militia-minded right-wing sheriffs who are loyal to Trump and supportive of the Jan. 6 insurrection.
“If Claremont gets its way, there will be sheriffs like Joe Arpaio, David Clarke, and Mark Lamb all across the country,” Sykes wrote. “You are not worried nearly enough about what that might mean.”
- COMMENTARY2 days ago
‘Pig’ Donald Trump Slammed After Attacking Colin Powell for Being Treated ‘So Beautifully’ in Death
- 'HIRED ACTOR'3 days ago
Psaki Again Destroys Doocy So Bad Some Are Asking if He Is a ‘Deep State’ Actor or a ‘Plant’ to Make Her Look Good
- News2 days ago
Trump Refuses to Answer Questions in Deposition Over Lawsuit That His Security Team Assaulted Protesters: Report
- 'DEMASCULATE'3 days ago
Watch: Madison Cawthorn Urges Mothers of Young Boys to ‘Raise Them to Be a Monster’
- 'REMARKABLY THIN'3 days ago
‘Flaccid Little Cry Baby’: Legal Experts Weigh in on Trump’s ‘Not Very Strong’ Lawsuit to Block Jan. 6 Committee
- RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM1 day ago
Indicted Congressman Is ‘Longtime’ Member of Secretive Religious Org Tied to Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill: Report
- BREAKING NEWS2 days ago
FBI Raiding DC Home of Manafort Associate and Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska: Reports
- CRIME2 days ago
Josh Duggar Dealt Another Blow as Judge Refuses to Suppress Video Evidence in His Child Porn Case