Puzzling Developments in the January 6 Investigation

As I sometimes do, I’d like to look at some curious developments in a series of January 6 cases.

Adam Honeycutt’s trips to DC

If you read just his arrest affidavit, former bail bondsman Adam Honeycutt is a guy who made the grave mistake of posting a picture of himself holding a broken furniture leg to Facebook during the January 6 riot.

Honeycutt was arrested on misdemeanor trespass charges on February 11, but since then his DC case has been continued, with no indictment, until — with the most recent continuation at a status hearing on Tuesday — January 4, almost a year after the riot.

If you look more closely, however, things get more confusing. As several earlier requests for continuances reveal, Honeycutt made the still graver mistake of having guns and non-legal marijuana in his home when the FBI came to arrest him on his January 6 charges, and then chatting about it as he was being driven to the FBI office.

During the transport, HONEYCUTT made a number of unsolicited statements to TFO Rohermel and SA Grover related to his use of marihuana. HONEYCUTT stated that all of the drugs and guns in the house belonged to him, that he knew it looked bad ot have guns layout out in the open in his residence, that he had a large quantity of ammunition of various calibers in the residence, some of which was for firearms he did not currently possess. HONEYCUTT also stated that it was lucky that agents had executed the warrants that day, because his marihuana supply was almost gone, and if the agents had executed the warrants the following day he would have had more because Fridays are his day for resupplying marihuana. HONEYCUTT stated that there were only a few “roaches” left in the garage, referring to burned marihuana cigarette butts. HONEYCUTT stated that he had been smoking marihuana since he was twelve years old and smokes daily. HONEYCUTT expressed to the agents that he was upset he was out of marihuana and there would not be any for him when he got home.

Honeycutt was as a result also charged under a bullshit draconian war on drugs law that carries a ten year maximum sentence, meaning what otherwise might have been a simple trespassing plea turned into (thus far) 8 months of detention on the Florida Federal charge. Honeycutt pled guilty to that charge in June, but is still awaiting sentencing, which is scheduled for next week.

And there’s a curious detail in his sentencing memo on that charge. He reveals that somewhere along the line, he got transferred to DC, even though by March he was formally released from custody on the DC charge.

Mr. Honeycutt has been in custody continuously since February 24, 2021 and has had the additional hardship of prolonged transports from McClenny to Washington, DC in during the pandemic. While in transit, Mr. Honeycutt was assaulted by another inmate while using the phone at the Grady County Jail in Oklahoma. The inmate struck him on the back of the head causing Mr. Honeycutt to hit his head on the ground and suffer dizziness and a black eye. While he suspected he may have had a concussion, this has never been confirmed medically. Also, while detained at the Baker County Jail, Mr. Honeycutt tested positive for Covid-19 and was placed on restrictive quarantine for 14 days while he recovered.

None of that shows up in his docket, though it may simply reflect a remarkably quick transfer after his initial arrest (and Honeycutt would not be the only January 6 defendant who got in a beat up at the Oklahoma transfer jail).

I don’t condone any of this, least of all the war on drugs treatment of marijuana possession. But it’s the kind of stuff that prosecutors use to coerce cooperation elsewhere. And while it’s not at all clear what went on with Honeycutt, his case will still be pending next year on the anniversary of the riot.

Lonnie Coffman’s Alabama Molotovs

Something similar may be going on with Lonnie Coffman’s Molotov cocktails.

Coffman, you’ll recall, is the guy who was dropped off blocks away from the Capitol on January 6, trying to pick up his GMC pick-up full of Molotov cocktails.

After addressing the explosive devices found in the vicinity of the National Republican Club and the Democratic National Committee Headquarters, the Bomb Squad responded to the location of the Red GMC Sierra Pickup truck. One black handgun was recovered from the right front passenger seat of the vehicle. After locating the black handgun, officers proceeded to search the rest of the pickup truck, including the bed of the truck, which was secured under a fabric top. During the search of the cab of the truck, officers recovered, among other things, one M4 Carbine assault rifle along with rifle magazines loaded with ammunition.

In addition, officers recovered the following items in the bed of the pickup truck in close proximity to one another: (i) eleven mason jars containing an unknown liquid with a golf tee in the top of each jar, (ii) cloth rags, and (iii) lighters. Upon finding these materials, bomb technicians observed that the items appeared to be consistent with components for an explosive or incendiary device known as a “Molotov Cocktail.” Based on this discovery, additional personnel were called to the scene, including the United States Capitol Police Hazardous Materials Team. A preliminary test by the United States Capitol Police Hazardous Material Team determined that the liquid in the mason jars was an igniting substance and that it had a spectrograph profile consistent with gasoline.


At approximately 6:30 p.m., a blue sedan with a female driver and a male front passenger, approached law enforcement officers in the 400 block of First Street, Southeast. Officers made contact with the vehicle, and the male passenger stated that he was trying to get to his vehicle that was parked in the 300 block of First Street, Southeast, which is the location that the Red GMC Sierra 1500 pickup truck had been located and searched. When the officers asked the man to provide a description of the vehicle, the male passenger stated that it was a red pickup truck. The officers then asked what the male passenger’s name was, and he stated that his name was “Lonnie.”

Coffman also has been detained (more justifiably than Honeycutt) since he was arrested. For much of that time, he has been working on a plea agreement, and on September 1, his lawyer reported they were close to one. On September 8, AUSA Michael Friedman said they would be ready for a plea by September 29.

But one day before that happened, the plea hearing was inexplicably vacated until October 26.

Unnoticed until yesterday, it turns out that on September 27 (that is, the day before his plea hearing was vacated), Coffman was charged in Alabama for possessing those Molotov cocktails the week before he drove them to DC. With Coffman’s consent, that case got transferred to DC in an entirely different docket than his January 6 one.

As with Honeycutt, it’s entirely unclear how his Alabama Federal charges are intersecting with his DC ones. Perhaps Coffman got cold feet on his plea last month, so DOJ added the Alabama charges to convince him to plead. But its another reminder that not every part of the January 6 investigation will be visible in the DC docket.

Brandon Straka gets to walk away

Meanwhile, a case that never left the DC docket, that of Brandon Straka, is just as curious.

Straka was first arrested on January 25 on civil disorder, as well as trespass, charges. Since that time, AUSA April Russo has gotten a series of continuances (February, May, August), each one citing efforts to resolve the matter, which is usually code for a plea agreement. A week after the last continuance, DOJ made a plea offer that had to be accepted by September 14. The day after the plea agreement would have expired, Straka was ultimately charged with the less serious of the two trespass charges, and after a tweak, that’s what he pled guilty to on Wednesday.

Straka’s Statement of Offense includes (and Russo made a point of entering it into the record) the incitement of attacks on cops that originally got him charged for civil disorder.

While in the restricted area, knowing he was not authorized to be there, Straka observed the crowd yelling and U.S. Capitol Police trying to prevent people from going into the U.S. Capitol and to manage the unruly crowd. Amongst other things, he engaged in disruptive conduct by participating, along with others, in yelling “go, go, go” to encourage others to enter the U.S. Capitol while the U.S. Capitol Police were making their best efforts to prevent people from doing so. Straka also observed others yelling to take a U.S. Capitol Police Officer’s shield. He recorded a video of what was happening, and in the video, he chimed in with the crowd, saying “take it, take it.” He did this between 2:30 and 2:45 p.m. on January 6 while outside the entrance to the U.S. Capitol in the restricted area on the Capitol Grounds. Straka left the U.S. Capitol Grounds at approximately 3:00 p.m.

But the Statement of Offense doesn’t include any description of his speech from January 5, where he spoke about “revolution.”

My review of STRAKA’s Twitter account on January 11, also found a video he had posted of himself speaking at a “Stop the Steal” rally held at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. on January 5, 2021. As of January 13, STRAKA had removed this video from his Twitter account, but a video of the entire event had been posted to YouTube. The video showed that STRAKA was introduced by name and brought onto stage. STRAKA spoke for about five minutes during which time he repeatedly referred to the attendees as “Patriots” and referenced the “revolution” multiple times. STRAKA told the attendees to “fight back” and ended by saying, “We are sending a message to the Democrats, we are not going away, you’ve got a problem!”

Nor does his Statement of Offense include this language from Straka’s arrest affidavit describing a video in which he admitted that, “The plan was always to go to the Capitol.”

About one minute into the video, STRAKA stated, “I literally just got home…minutes ago from Washington, D.C.” Later in the video, STRAKA stated, “Yesterday, a lot of us got up very, very early. We went to this event in which Donald Trump spoke. The plan was always to go to the Capitol. We were going to march from that event…to the Capitol, and there was going to be another rally. I was one of the speakers slated to speak at the Capitol.” STRAKA later stated that, while riding the metro to the Capitol, he received alerts on his phone stating that Vice President Pence was “not going to object to certifying Joe Biden.” STRAKA stated that he learned on his walk from the metro to the Capitol that people had “breached” the Capitol and that “patriots had entered the Capitol.” STRAKA said that he thought to himself, “Wow, so they’re going to basically storm and try to get into the chamber so that they can demand that we get the investigation that we want.”

Not only was Straka permitted to a plea that may help him avoid all jail time, but DOJ assented to letting him rush the sentencing so he could be done by Christmas, coincidentally on the same day all the status reports for Oath Keeper cooperators are next due.

Baked Alaska — someone as wired into the organizers of this riot as Straka — claimed early on that prosecutors were threatening to charge him with obstruction if he didn’t cooperate.

This plea looks like it could be the flip (heh) side of such an offer, someone who worked his way out of an existing felony charge and any further exposure on obstruction. That said, his plea includes the standard boilerplate language about minimal cooperation (basically, requiring the defendant share the contents of his phone).

If this does reflect cooperation, then it suggests a number of other people exposed to felony prosecution may similarly be cooperating under the guise of misdemeanor plea agreements.

Ryan Samsel’s aborted cooperation

For about the first four months after Ryan Samsel kicked off the entire riot on January 6 by allegedly knocking over a cop, it looked like he might be considering a cooperation agreement. The same prosecutor who filed continuances in Straka’s case, April Russo, was filing continuances in his case (March, May), also citing efforts to resolve the case.

But on March 21, Samsel was brutally assaulted in jail; his attorney claimed at the time that a guard did it, though that has never been officially confirmed. Samsel’s assault set off a feeding frenzy as one after another attorney — first Martin Tankleff, then John Pierce (whose clients include a significant bunch who could incriminate Joe Biggs), and now Stanley Woodward and former Trump vote fraudster Juli Haller — tried to capitalize off a client who might have basis for a big lawsuit against DOJ (Elisabeth Pasqualini did very competent work as Samsel’s first attorney before all this started). The events that transpired after that assault seems to have ended up changing prosecutors’ approach with his case, and in June, DOJ added another prosecutor, Danielle Rosborough, and in August, DOJ finally indicted Samsel on two counts of civil disorder, two counts of assault, obstruction, and trespassing. (Russo remains the sole prosecutor on the case against the woman who was (and may still be) Samsel’s girlfriend on the day of the riot, Raechel Genco.)

All that’s important background to a big scoop from NYT’s Alan Feuer, describing that, when Samsel was originally arrested, he told the FBI that he kicked off that assault after a threat from Joe Biggs.

For months, however, according to three people familiar with the matter, the government has known Mr. Samsel’s account of the exchange: He has told investigators that Mr. Biggs encouraged him to push at the barricades and that when he hesitated, the Proud Boys leader flashed a gun, questioned his manhood and repeated his demand to move upfront and challenge the police.

Mr. Samsel’s version of events was provided to the government in late January, when he was interviewed by the F.B.I., without a lawyer present, shortly after his arrest in Pennsylvania, according to the people familiar with the matter. He has since been charged with several crimes, including assaulting an officer and obstructing Congress’s efforts to certify the election results.


[I]f Mr. Samsel’s account is true, it could serve to bolster arguments that some Proud Boys leaders intentionally incited ordinary people in the crowd — or what they refer to as “normies” — to commit violence during the attack. The government has offered other evidence, drawn from the group’s internal messaging chats, that two Proud Boys leaders from Philadelphia were excited by the prospect of “riling up the normies” on Jan. 6.

As Feuer notes, Biggs’ lawyer Daniel Hull categorically denies this claim. As he also notes, there has been no hint of a weapons charge against Biggs. So it’s quite possible that this allegation was entirely made up out of thin air–or exaggerated in a bid for lenient treatment for Samsel’s own central role in the riot.

But there’s also no sign that DOJ is charging Samsel with lying about these claims.

That is, from the public filings, we can’t discern whether Samsel’s allegation is true or not.

That said, if it’s true, it might explain both the apparent attempt to woo Samsel’s cooperation, but also the urgency surrounding efforts to make sure he doesn’t do so.

The government has flamboyantly obtained cooperation from five different Oath Keepers. But precisely what the government is doing in a slew of other cases remains obscure.

Update: There were three people involved in the assault on the first barricade: Samsel, Paul Johnson, and Stephen Chase Randolph. The latter two are charged together, though Johnson is moving to sever his case from Randolph’s. Here’s the government opposition. Never addressed in it are why Samsel is not only not charged with them, but is before an entirely different judge, who just happens to be the Proud Boy judge.

91 replies
    • Silly but True says:

      That is the most correct U.S. legal spelling. The Controlled Substance Act, itself, spells Controlled Substance DEA #7360 as “marihuana.” It also identifies marihuana by its alternate names, “marijuana,” and “cannabis.”

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Unless it’s a quote – how would you know to spell it with an “h” if you were listening to him – it is a throwback. I’m surprised the gubmint didn’t write, “mary jane.” It would be more accurate of the USG to use cannabis. Ambiguity intended.

    • obsessed says:

      It’s like using “rhumba” for the dance and music genre “rumba” (pronounced “room-ba” in Spanish and “rum-bah” in the context of the bastardized “son” music played as a rhythmic change-of-pace by white jazz bands in the first half of the 20th Century, a dull genre that nevertheless is very interesting in that it was among the first types of North American music to use the straight 8th rhythm feel that later took over rock in the 60s). Spanish is strictly phonetic, with accent marks such that there’s only one correct pronunciation for any given spelling. “H” is always silent is Spanish, and “J” produces something similar to the English “H” sound (exhaling, like “ha ha ha”). In the mongrel monstrosity that is English, H is also used to soften a vowel, changing “room-ba” to “rum-ba”. Another etymological angle on all of this is that marijuana is a colloquial combination of Mary and Jane (María and Juana), hence the J – the feminine version of Juan. But it was also sometimes spelled mariguana in Spanish, apparently relating to the smoking of a dead iguana lizard stuff with pot! That type of soft G produces a very cool gutteral sound that doesn’t exist in English and is very hard for non-native speakers to master. Gui, like guitar, produces a hard G but “gua”, as in guacamole, produces the cool gutteral sound. There’s also güi and in güiro (“gwee-ro”) It’s odd that this guy was so violent even after all that pot-smoking. Here’s how the federal spelling is explained in EW’s home state of Michigan: https://www.michigan.gov/mra/0,9306,7-386-83746-449300–,00.html.

      • MB says:

        Interesting. So “marihuana” is the official spelling used in legal documents (at least in Michigan) and “marijuana” is used colloquially .

        May I say…that’s a really dope distinction…

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Michigan is using a spelling derived from its 1937 “Marihuana Tax Act,” which would tend to make it a throwback. It was based on the fed’s determination that they weren’t quite sure what it was or how to spell it, but were sure that it was baaad and that laws against it and other drugs – whatever their medical claims – could be used against Black Americans.

        The first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the racist Harry Anslinger (a contemporary of J. Edgar Hoover, who held that job for more than three decades (1930-32)), specifically used new drug laws to target and demonize immigrants and people of color. Like Hoover, Anslnger vastly expanded the reach of federal criminal laws during the height of Jim Crow and the early successes of the the civil rights movement.

      • P J Evans says:

        And before that, the Spanish “j” sounds was spelled “x” – I saw a pre-1840 Spanish-English dictionary where the word we know as “baja” is spelled “baxa”.
        (In CA, the most common location for that “gu” is probably “Arguello” or the first part of names “Guada-“.)

      • Alan Charbonneau says:

        Excellent work!
        I learned a bit of that — I attended the “classic seminar” at Oaksterdam University & they brought up the background.

      • Neil says:

        Just to specify that that’s all Mexican/SA type Spanish. Castellano (Spanish) Spanish is different for these sounds. J in castellano normally produces a rasping sound like dragging something across a floor, or clearing your throar, as opposed to the softer mexican affair. Guacamole in castellano has a hybrid sound that is more “gwa” if you will. C followed by i or e in castellano is pronounced as a soft ‘th’ sound that can make the uninitiated think people are lisping. Go to Andalusia and that changes from ‘th’ to an again soft hissing “cee” sound. So science is ciencia, sounds like thienthia in normal castellano but siensia in Andalusia, and by extension, Mexican/SA Spanish.

        Indeed, in castellano, J vs X is pretty interchangeable, but in modern times spellings are more standardized, and J vs X can imply pronunciation changes, sometimes associated with regions of Spain. X is sometimes preferred in Catalunya, for example in Xavi, short form of Xavier/Javier, which would be Javi in standard castellano (with the rasping j-j-j-a) but in Catalunya is often Xavi, said as “Chavi” instead.

        • Leoghann says:

          Counterintuitively, Nicaragua was colonized (see also: exploited) in the east by English planters and their slaves from Jamaica, and in the west by Spaniards, most of whom immigrated directly from Spain, rather from other Spanish colonies to the north and south. So spoken Spanish was much more influenced by the Castillian pronunciations. But somewhere the Castillian lisp got lost. Most Nicaraguans don’t pronounce a leading ‘s’ at all, and barely intonate trailing ones. So a positive answer to a question is “eee.”

      • Leoghann says:

        You’re probably aware that Mexicanos Norteños pronounce things differently. A ‘g’ followed by a ‘u,’ for them, is always silent, so “agua” is pronounced “ah-wah.” A ‘g’ followed by ‘i’ or ‘e’ is pronounced exactly like a ‘j,’ much as in English, except that the sound is different in Spanish. Followed by ‘a’ or ‘o,’ it’s pronounced as a hard ‘g.’ One notable exception is “guitarra,” which carries hard ‘g’ sound. The non-verbalization of ‘h’ is still, for norteños, silent, but it can modify the pronunciation of ‘c.’ And contrary to popular belief, most Mexican people do not pronounce a leading ‘y’ as an English ‘j.’ That’s more of a Caribbean thing.

  1. Rugger9 says:

    Some more stuff to chew on: the Biden WH said it is turning over the documents that DJT wanted kept hidden under “executive privilege” grounds, and Bannon is tempting an inherent contempt test case. I would observe that if Biden’s going to turn stuff over it should be sent over already, and let TFG decide how he will un-ring the bell once Bennie Thompson’s committee gets them.

    Bannon is also claiming attorney-client privilege as well. Don’t they understand there’s a crime/fraud exemption for both?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Hard to see how much, if anything, said to or by Bannon in the last few years legitimately qualifies for EP. Most of this is a delaying tactic, a technique Trump has used for over half a century. The Dems need to cut through his invented red tape, or remain mired in it past the mid-terms.

      • obsessed says:

        How does this relate to the fact that Bannon wasn’t a federal employee at the time? Is that irrelevant since it’s Trump’s “privilege” that’s at stake? Also, how might a SCOTUS-proof law be worded to prevent people like Trump from using the court system to indefinitely delay justice? Zooming out, it seems like Trump has beta-tested our system in every way imaginable and exposed a plethora of nasty bugs.

        • Theodora30 says:

          The members of Dick Cheney’s energy task force weren’t federal employees but Cheney and Bush were able to keep the content of those meetings secret by invoking executive privilege which I still find outrageous.

    • Rayne says:

      I don’t know how many times I’ve had to point to United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). A unanimous SCOTUS said,

      “Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”

      Even Nixon’s lawyer at the time referred to the president’s term of office when he argued before then-Judge Sirica,

      The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.

      Trump is not in office. He’s no longer conducting work necessitating confidentiality between himself and what Sirica defined as “high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in carrying out their duties.” Bannon wasn’t a member of the Executive Branch at the time nor does he have any official duties any longer.

      Not to mention the privilege in question belongs to the president, not to anyone else who may have had communications with the president, and can’t be invoked by others in a roundabout manner.

      • Rugger9 says:

        We’ll see how quickly the criminal referrals go out, and whether the GOP committee members are OK with that. I would suspect by “next week” and “yes” are the answers.

      • Drew says:

        This interview with Neil Eggleston lays out pretty clearly what would be involved in any former president attempting to exert Executive Privilege claims.

        It’s pretty clear that it would be virtually impossible for Trump to prevail since he would have to prove both that Executive Privilege would apply in this instance AND that there was not a compelling need for the information. His case would be weak on the first & laughable on the second. Also, to the extent it could be litigated, it would have to be by Trump and not by Bannon and the Village Idiots. I’m not sure Trump would lay out the coin for a serious pursuit of this.

        But the real thing about it is how quickly the courts will slap down such silly litigation. With Trump’s pollution of the D.C. Circuit & SCOTUS it’s hard to say whether they would go along with the delay, though I don’t even see any of these guys ultimately finding in his favor.

        • Peterr says:

          somewhere at Mar-a-Lago

          Bannon: I tried the ‘executive privilege’ response, and the Democrat lawyers just laughed. They said they’d take it to court.

          Trump: Well, I’m sure you’ve got good lawyers, and they’ll beat these bums like a drum.

          Bannon: See, that’s the thing. It’s not me that has to go to court — it’s you. I can’t make a claim of executive privilege. *You* have to do it.

          *long silence*

          Trump: Well, maybe I can talk to some friends, and they can put up the money for you.

          Bannon: You’re not listening to me. *You* have to go to court and make the claim, not me. I’m not the president and never was ever president.

          Trump: Well . . . maybe they will back down.

          Bannon: Riiiiiight. And maybe I’ll get a pony for Christmas. Look, if you don’t go to court to fight this, I *will* be providing documents and testimony. If you don’t want me to do that, you better get your ass into court, alongside a lawyer a damn sight better than Rudy or Sydney or that fool Lin Wood.

          Trump: Ummm . . .

          Bannon: We had this conversation before. You know what I know, and you know you don’t want that to become public. That’s why you pardoned me before January 20th.

          *looks around Mar-a-Lago, then looks at Trump*

          Nice place you’ve got here. It’d be a shame if you have to leave it.

        • Drew says:

          That should happen. The question is “How quick?” It’s possible for courts to dismiss a facially insufficient suit within a matter of days, but they can also wait around & leave them pending-especially if the judges are sympathetic with the plaintiff’s overall goals.

      • Leoghann says:

        Also of import here is the difference between the President discharging his rightful job of administrating the U. S. Government and his activities in connection with his campaign. Any discussion of the corruption or overthrowing the election would be the latter, certainly not the former.

    • gmoke says:

      “Bannon is also claiming attorney-client privilege as well.”

      According to what I’ve read, Bannon is NOT a lawyer and never has been but why let that stop him?

        • FL Resister says:

          Facts can be inconsequential when around thirty percent of the voting population is willing to go along with the three percent who control 60% of power in the Senate.

          Like former AG Bill Barr, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would rather burn in hell than be proven wrong on earth, so any means to self-righteous ends is permissible: Manipulating beliefs, tropes, and regional populace-controlling levers, they expect to regain power using Trump, his band of miscreants, Republican legislators, and social media to do it.

          In Talk of the Town (The New Yorker, Oct 11), Jelani Cobb uses the phrase “mainstreaming of the absurd” to describe what’s coming out of the Right where Steve Bannon still sits at the wheel of infernal stinking malevolence spewing into our culture.

          On our side we’ve got truth, Jamie Raskin and the team, but we are in need of still more heroes, from all sides of the partisan aisle.
          Is Chuck Shumer up to passing legislation in the Senate or do Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren have to kick him in both sides of the ass?

    • P J Evans says:

      Ted Lieu is proposing a bill instituting hefty fines for people in contempt of Congress.

      For many people, money talks. I introduced legislation with @RepValDemings @RepCicilline @RepJoeNeguse @RepRaskin @RepDean to fine witnesses up to $100,000 for defying congressional subpoenas. We should use the House Inherent Contempt Power to EnforceTheSubpoenas.

  2. Savage Librarian says:

    Judge the Cover by the Book

    Every which way that we look,
    Sinema searches her pocketbook,
    Manchin speaks his gobbledygook,
    a lot like a Trumpist MAGA crook.

    Flip the access,
    Drop the taxes,
    Lose the facts as
    vice now waxes.

    Answering for the Donnybrook,
    where once an evil gallows shook,
    One by one each tenterhook
    falls, as pride goeth on Facebook.

    Flip the access,
    Drop the taxes,
    Lose the facts as
    vice now waxes.

    Picnic barbecue or pressure cook,
    which was it that each goose mistook,
    And how could they possibly overlook
    simpering jowls hiding in a nook?

  3. Alan Charbonneau says:

    “cooperating the guise of misdemeanor plea agreements…” should be “under the guise”

  4. CD54 says:

    Waiting for the Law and Order scene template where the last schmuck takes all the weight and has that confused, demoralized, musical chairs look on his face after everybody else cooperates.

  5. harpie says:

    Via nycsouthpaw:

    12:35 PM · Oct 9, 2021

    EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Documents Show January 6th Rally VIPs

    The House Select Committee on January 6 is in possession of these documents which identify 109 “important guests” invited to the rally and 12 members of the “DC Team” who helped stage the event.

    The January 6 rally VIPs include multiple Republican politicians and a slew of characters from the extended MAGA cinematic universe [LINK]

    • Savage Librarian says:

      I see Timothy Shea is listed as one of the special guests. I wonder if he is the same Shea who Marcy commented about in her 5/7/21 post about Barr. This is what she said at that time:

      “…Barr fired Geoffrey Berman. As Berman described, Barr attempted to bypass succession rules to temporarily put his own flunky in charge of the office, much as he had put Timothy Shea in at DC USA to kill investigations into Roger Stone, Mike Flynn, and (probably) Erik Prince.”

      • subtropolis says:

        One of Bannon’s co-conspirators in the border wall fraud is named Timothy Shea. (He’s not the DoJ guy.)

  6. Tom says:

    I’ve been curious about how the Capitol rioters have been treated in jail, particularly those with no prior criminal record. I’ve wondered whether their status as Insurrectionists might have given them some degree of celebrity status with other inmates, but the experiences of Honeycutt and Samsel that Dr. Wheeler described above suggests that is not the case. I would guess that they are viewed as chumps and suckers for doing jail time after having committed crimes from which they didn’t stand to gain in any personal way. More seasoned inmates will quickly observe how the newbies comport themselves, how they speak, what sort of tattoos they have or don’t have, their level of health and self-care, the state of their teeth, any drug dependencies, their connections to outside family and other supports, and then make an assessment as to their vulnerabilities and how to exploit them.

    • Hoping4Better_Times says:

      Samsel had prior criminal charges on his record. He assaulted and threatened several women.
      What goes around comes around.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Assaulted several women? I’m surprised Trump didn’t pardon him, or give him a Cabinet position. He must not have known–or gotten Samsel confused with all the others like him who showed up that day.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Yeah, bmaz, I should’ve stuck with Cabinet position, which was the first thing that came to mind. He could join a long list.

    • subtropolis says:

      I figure that many of those who were involved that day are not especially humble types, and that could lead to difficult relations with their fellow prisoners.

      The state of their teeth? Can you explain?

      • skua says:

        I understand that question as leading towards the glorification of prison violence which AIUI is, very properly, not tolerated here. As we don’t want people tortured, we don’t want them bashed unlawfully in prison either.

        Not saying you or the poster who originally raised teeth did so with bad intentions but do think you both need to be more carefull when posting around prison violence.

        • Tom says:

          As I see it, if you’re convicted of a crime and receive a custodial sentence, then your punishment consists of losing your freedom and being sent to jail; you’re not sent to jail to be punished. I don’t condone “thump therapy” in any way.

        • skua says:

          I apologise for any implication that you condone prison violence.
          Clearly you don’t.
          However there is a fairly common portrayal of some prisoners being subjected to sexualized violence related to teeth, or more accurately, the lack of teeth.

      • Tom says:

        My comment about inmates judging other inmates’ teeth arose from some of the conversations I used to have, as a child protection worker, with fathers who had been held in custody as a result of their involvement in criminal harassment or domestic violence incidents. The more affluent fathers in jail for the first time would tell me how their cellmates would instantly size them up based on their appearance and their personal items. One such dad told me the first thing his cellmate said to him was, “Say, those are pretty expensive glasses you got there.” Many of the parents I worked with could not afford regular dental care, so if you arrived in jail with a good set of teeth it was a sign you had money. And if you had money, then maybe you had influence and connections on the outside. I didn’t mean to imply that any inmate with a good set of teeth could expect to get a punch in the mouth.

    • Leoghann says:

      Everything that I’ve seen says they’re being held in a separate wing of the DC jail, which has been temporarily dedicated to housing January 6th people. Those few who are still held in jails more local to the place of their arrest may not be in segregation, but the populations of federal jails are a far sight from those in county detention.

  7. subtropolis says:

    Straka’s narrative doesn’t add up. He claims that he was up “very, very early” to attend the rally but then immediately after states that he was riding the metro into DC when the news about Pence came out.

    I’m nearly certain that I saw something in passing last week about Coffman pleading guilty.

    • Leoghann says:

      There were stories that he planned to plead guilty at his hearing on 08 September, but that’s now been put off until 26 October.

  8. Eureka says:

    Kyle Cheney:

    “JUST IN: Jan. 6 defendant Zachary Rehl — one of several Proud Boys leaders charged — reveals in a late Saturday court filing that a close friend’s home was raided by the FBI on Friday. It suggests the FBI probe of Proud Boys leadership is still very active. [screenshot]”
    9:57 PM · Oct 9, 2021

    “REHL’s attorney frames the raid as proof DOJ doesn’t have enough evidence to support the case against Rehl. But it’s not clear why he believes that, and in fact a search warrant would have been signed by a judge based on evidence. [screenshot]”

    “In fact, Rehl’s attorney reveals that he reviewed the search warrant itself — sent in a text message by Rehl’s friend’s girlfriend — and that it was very specific. [screenshot]”

    • Eureka says:

      Moseley states that the search was of Aaron Whallon-Wolkind (name misspelled in filing as “Wollkind”), elsewhere identified as the Vice President of the Philadelphia Proud Boys, herein identified by Moseley as Rehl’s “deputy”.

      Alan Feuer NYT has previously identified Whallon-Wolkind as UCC-1 in the Proud Boys Leadership indictment.

      • Leoghann says:

        That’s definitely a clarifying detail. Thanks for sharing it. Given that he’s been listed as UCC in other indictment(s), makes me wonder if this raid might be a cover for him, and that he may have cooperated considerably. That’s not unheard-of for confidential informants.

Comments are closed.