January 6 Defendant Kevin Creek Ends Up with a Single Assault Charge

Yesterday, DOJ charged Kevin Douglas Creek with one count of assault. The charge adds to the evidence that DOJ is letting cooperative defendants plead down without entering into a cooperation agreement.

Creek — a former Marine from Georgia — was first charged with assault of what his arrest affidavit called, “multiple officers,” and civil disorder. One of those alleged assaults included kicking a cop.

As the arrest affidavit describes (and I wrote up here), the first tip against Creek came from a hospital worker who described that he admitted his involvement in the riot when getting treated at a hospital for delayed effects from tear gas.

On January 10, 2021, a complainant reported to the FBI that on January 9, 2021 or January 10, 2021, an individual named Kevin Creek made comments while visiting Northside Forsyth Hospital about his involvement at the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Creek disclosed that he was tear gassed at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Creek discussed running up the stairs of the Capitol building and attempting to get inside. Creek talked about having trouble at the door he ran to because the police were gassing individuals at his door. Creek also mentioned he was bruised from his activity at the Capitol and admitted to a long car ride to get to DC. Creek made general comments regarding always being armed but did not directly say whether he was armed at the Capitol.

Later on, the FBI released Be on the Lookout photos for Creek.

In an FBI interview with counsel on May 21, Creek seemed evasive about how he first learned about the protest and described only partly regretting his conduct at the riot.

Initially, Creek told affiant he was live streaming January 6th and posted the stream and photos on his Facebook account. Creek deleted those photos once he returned home. Creek stated he may have heard about the protest from his twitter account (handle @KevinDCreek) but stated he could not remember for certain.

When asked if Creek regretted his conduct on January 6th, he responded: “50/50”.

Creek was arrested on June 9. After he was jailed for five days, the US Attorney’s Office in Northern Georgia successfully got Creek detained pretrial; the magistrate’s order finding for detention emphasized that he had “assaulted several Capitol Police officers.”

Creek’s attorney moved for release, and Jacob Strain, the AUSA (a detailee from Utah) handling this case agreed, citing (in part) Creek’s, “significant cooperation.”

Based on the defendant’s law-abiding conduct after January 6th, his lack of criminal history, and his significant cooperation with law enforcement, the United States submits its position that conditions can be fashioned to reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance and effectively assure the safety of the community. [my emphasis]

In a hearing, it became clear that DC’s US Attorney’s office was saying Creek should be released while Northern Georgia’s was trying to enforce their District policy that those who assault law enforcement are presumptively detained (Northern Georgia would later try to override the release conditions of one of the few Black January 6 defendants, Antionne Brodnax, who moved into the District).

The thing is, there’s no sign yet of Creek’s, “significant cooperation with law enforcement.” His arrest affidavit makes it clear he went to insurrection with three others, two of whom remained with him until after 4PM.

Travel records obtained from Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority confirm that on January 6, 2021 at 8:15am, Creek’s credit card was used to purchase four metro cards. These metro cards were used to traveled from Rosslyn Station McPherson Sq Station at approximately 8:17 am. At 11:07 am, one metro card was used to return to Rosslyn Station from McPherson Station. The other 3 cards returned from Arch-Navy Memorial Station to Rosslyn Station at 4:37 pm. Arch-Navy Memorial Station is located about .8 miles to the U.S. Capitol.

But I’m not aware of any arrests of other people from the Atlanta area who might have traveled with Creek.

His discovery lists the body worn cameras of three officers, including Daniel Hodges.

In short, from early on, DOJ said he had provided “substantial cooperation,” using the word — substantial — usually reserved for 5K letters after a defendant has successfully completed the terms of cooperation agreement. And now, four months after his arrest, his assaults on “multiple officers” have been charged as a assault, presumably setting up a plea hearing (while I assume it’s just a coincidence, his next scheduled hearing date, December 17, is the same date as the coordinated status date for the Oath Keeper cooperators).

It’s not clear what to make of this charging decision. But the discussion around Creek’s pre-trial release seems to suggest cooperation that may explain similarly situated January 6 defendants are being charged with multiple felonies and Creek will presumably plead to a single count.

But this charging decision will have one other effect: Those, like David Judd, who claim only Portland defendants charged with assaulting cops get charges dismissed will now have to explain why a January 6 defendant who traveled across three states to attend the Trump riot will likewise have his civil disorder charge dropped.

Update: This post has been substantially corrected to reflect that this appears to be a felony. Creek was charged by information, but the charge includes physical contact that makes it a felony.

48 replies
  1. graham firchlis says:

    DC District Chief Judge Beryl Howell is not happy with DOJ plea deals.

    Frustrated at not being able to impose sentences in her view suitable for the whole of thier charged acts due to prosecutor’s “muddled” approach, she had this to say:

    “Everyone participating in the mob contributed to that violence.”


    I concur.

    (Thanks so much for your steadfast work, Dr. Wheeler. Couldn’t keep up without you.)

    • bmaz says:

      Oh bullshit. Judges mouth questions like that all the time, then accept the plea and enter appropriate sentencing, which is exactly what they keep doing in the smaller 1/6 cases. Courts have the right to reject pleas they think inappropriate, and they have NOT been doing any of that. People need to calm down, this is moving along fine.

      My only concern is that I would like to see four year probation terms imposed so that these mopes are still on probation care and control through the 2024 election.

        • bmaz says:

          Five years is the max possible on a federal misdemeanor, but four would get them past the midterms and 2024 Presidential.

            • emptywheel says:

              THis was actually discussed in one of the HOwell sentencings yesterday. Howell noted that if people are having a problem, probation can be extended.

              Tho Reggie Walton did impose a 5-year term on someone.

      • Bobster33 says:

        For me, I don’t want them to have their guns through 2024. I used to have some right wing nut shooting buddies, . . . .

          • RWood says:

            I have to disagree with you there, probation will have zero impact on them. I would even say they will view that “punishment” as more proof that the enemy is weak.

            I have to say that keeping them out of jail to avoid them being radicalized there is also a fool’s errand. They were radicalized just fine prior to any jail time they may have received. Letting them go home to Faux News and their internet chatrooms will just further it along, no matter how big a GPS tracker you might strap to them. Cult members need to be snapped out of it, and forgoing jail time is a missed opportunity to do so.

            Rule One of warfare is ‘Know Your Enemy”. I don’t think that has been accomplished yet, nor do I think those in charge realize they are even in one. While I highly value Marcy’s reporting and the great commentary here, a part of me feels we are just doing a great job of documenting our mistakes for future generations.

            • bmaz says:

              Lol, whatever. Jesus fucking christ, people that seemingly forever have been decrying the “Lock em up” mentality sure are creaming their pants to do it here when less obtrusive means, that work everyday of the week, month and year should be discarded for their little emotional feels on the internet.

              And, by the way, this is NOT “warfare”, it is the criminal justice system and intelligence is more valuable than raw emotion and seething. Keeping them out of jail to avoid being “radicalized”? Seriously? How about fair sentencing with perspective?

              • co says:

                Four years in prison is what seems appropriate to the crime of participating in a violent mob attack on our capitol with the goal of overturning the results of the election. And sends a clear message as well. Sentences are set as deterrents.

                • bmaz says:

                  Four years in prison for a crime that has a maximum sentence of six months? No. And, by the way, sentences have three components: punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.

                  • RWood says:

                    I’ll get blasted her for this, but I’ve had a lot of coffee this morning so I’ll say it anyway.

                    Probation means nothing to the cult member. Perception is worth 100x more than one cult member suffering through probation. I’ve dealt with cult members of all types in both my medical and military careers, so I can say this with great confidence.

                    There seems to be a forest-trees issue here when discussing this. Those that operate within the system and having decades of experience see a justice system working well and even speedy when compared to what those on the outside see. But it’s that perception of the outsiders, the cult members and trumpers who aren’t facing a courtroom, that matters most.

                    There’s also a problem with inflicted damage. The justice system may capture that drunk driver that hit and killed that nice family.

                    That driver may be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced as fast as the system allows. His punishment may fit the crime according to “the formula”. The justice system will have worked as designed.

                    But that family is still dead. The justice system only responds after the damage is done.

                    Deterrence I hear people shout. Maybe. But that does not factor into the decision-making process of a cult member. These are people who are beyond the reach of common sense or reasonable thinking when it comes to the consequences they may face. They fly planes into buildings, they commit grisly murders, they blow themselves up, they run back into burning buildings. All that matters is tribal loyalty and the orders of the leader. Probation to them = no punishment/no reason to stop.

                    The far-right/trump followers do and say outrageous things. The left documents them and tells us to be outraged. They still don’t recognize that they are dealing with one of the largest and most dangerous cults there ever was. But I don’t see any bold moves to counter this behavior BEFORE it is done. The damage is inflicted as soon as it leaves their mouths.

                    And we’re not only failing to stop them, we’re helping them do it better next time. They’ll watch and learn from all this and have a better plan for the next insurrection. There will be full masks on everyone’s face and no cell phones in sight. Cash will be king and burner phones will fly off the shelves.

                    And why not, when probation and house arrest are all they might face? This, after all, is a revolution! One that the Dems don’t know how to fight. One “Let’s go Brandon” is worth more to them than 1,000 probation sentences is for the dems, and none of them even realize it. Why? Because “Let’s go Brandon!” gets out the vote, probation sentences do not.

                    Put this all together and it’ll be a repeat of 2016.

                    • RWood says:


                      Even if every J6 rioter is jailed, it still leaves 74 million trump voters who are actively involved in a psyops campaign being orchestrated by the right. One that has no counter-campaign to answer it on the left. And yes, this is a war by every definition. Just because one doesn’t wish to be involved in a war doesn’t mean they aren’t.

                  • robb rogers says:

                    BMAZ, Your continuous harsh reactions to critiques of our failed justice system
                    …are those of a conservative,
                    in a war, an Instrumental War. Look it up.

                    • Troutwaxer says:

                      To address this without being a jerk, one can look at the Crazed Conservative/Jan 6th thing through two mostly-sane lenses, the legal and the practical. You prefer the legal lens. You’re mostly-interested in courts behaving justly and reasonably and prosecutors who don’t break the rules, over-charge someone or use inappropriate methods to gain evidence. There’s a lot of honor and moral correctness to your position.

                      But there’s also a practical lens, which is that this country has a very important concern: Jan 6th-style attempts to invalidate an election must never happen again, because the second try will doubtless learn the lessons of the first and make a stronger, better effort, possibly even succeeding. Specifically, making sure that attempts to invalidate an election don’t happen in 2024-25 and 2028-29 (plus ’22-23 and ’26-27 if those are in play) is pretty much essential.

                      Now here’s the really important point. The DOJ’s investigation of the Jan 6th events is, as far as I can tell, the LEAST-FORCEFUL, MOST JUST possibility for solving the “practical” problem, and that’s why people want the DOJ to take a harder line and make sure our rioters are still in jail during the next couple presidential elections. It’s also the FAIREST way to solve the problem. Everyone we’d like to keep away from later elections gets a lawyer and a chance to be found innocent.

                      All the alternative strategies I can think of for dealing with a recurrence of the problem are MUCH WORSE than having DOJ aim for 10-20 year sentences right now. If you’ve got a better strategy for solving the practical issues, let’s hear it – I’d be positively delighted to know that such a thing exists! (And don’t just tell me I’m full of bullshit, give me a real strategy that’s more just and less forceful than having DOJ put our seditionists away for a decade.)

                    • bmaz says:

                      Here is the thing: If you are going to advocate and lobby for the Rule Of Law, you have to believe and adhere to it, even when you are personally outraged. We don’t do overly emotional lynch mobs in the US. But, for all the people expressing the former, there are, literally, a shocking amount of commenters here that think the latter is AOKAY. It is not.

                      There are parameters of the various criminal statutes. There are sentencing guidelines. And, then, there is common sense.

                      For instance, so many people are screaming for a sedition/insurrection charge under Chapter 115. But the max sentence for Trump, Stone, Eastman, whoever for “sedition/insurrection” is 10 years. If it is a conspiracy or proved beyond a reasonable doubt conspiracy/attempt to overthrow the government, the max is 20 years.

                      If anybody here thinks either max sentence is within the sentencing guidelines to issue such a max sentence, you are off your rocker. There is zero chance a court would ever sentence above 10 years, and close to zero over than 5 years. Seriously, people need to get a grip.

          • JohnJ says:

            I don’t think a lot of people realize that probation isn’t a just a minor inconvenience. I have known a lot of people on probation and it has a profound effect on their activities. Most of all those on probation realize that real jail is at the whim of their probation officer or one drunken argument away.

            Context: this is FLA. “Arrive on vacation, leave on probation, return on violation”. If you say the first three words on the bus, a whole choir will finish it for you.

            During one of those over reaction periods to someone on probations’ crime, they generally clamped down so hard they violated one guy because his roommate’s dog was unlicensed. By the book, NO conceivable breaking of any law is allowed. In practice, of course, they let a lot slide, but you still have to convince someone with a huge power over your life to do that.

            And, at least here, you have to pay the probation office for your probation.

            Probation isn’t always a non-punishment.

            Let’s not get started on house arrest. The going wisdom is take the jail time, it is shorter and a lot easier.

            • Troutwaxer says:

              Bmaz, maybe you can speak to something, (and my apologies if I’ve asked this before) but once the DOJ has all the cooperation they need to arrest higher-level conspirators should we expect that everyone else – something like 600 people at this point if I understand the math – will be charged (as appropriate) with more crimes, felonies rather than misdemeanors, and have longer sentences requested?

              • bmaz says:

                Welp, I don’t know exactly. Last I checked, about 650 had been charged so far (pretty sure a handful more have been since then). Obviously many more will be going forward, but how many is anybody’s guess. Any body who has pleaded out is almost certainly done and won’t face anything additional. Could those still pending face superseding indictments with additional charges? Yes, that is possible. We shall see.

                • timbo says:

                  Sort of over for those who are getting sentenced now, right? What I mean is that once jury trials begin in earnest for any of the rioters and potential conspirators, etc, won’t some of the folks who think they’re now done be called to testify? And if they don’t testify truthfully then… Well, anyways, there may still be later legal obligation and possible jeopardy for people who are being sentenced after pleading now.

                  • Leoghann says:

                    You already know IANAL, but my understanding is that upon sentencing following a guilty plea, a federal defendant is required to make a sworn, detailed statement of their guilt. If they have provided evidence against another, that at some point has to be sworn and signed as well. So if someone swore to a set of facts, then contradicted them in court, that immediately constitutes perjury. Besides being another serious charge, it would also violate an existing term of probation. Ana Morgan Lloyd’s contradictory statements came in an interview with Laura Ingraham, who is only a court of law in her own mind.

          • Philip Munger says:

            The deterrent effect of probation is proportional to the quality of supervision of the person under such supervision. My seven years (1986-93) working in corrections as an administrator showed me that probation and parole officers can easily make life hell for obstinate, untruthful and evasive subjects. Or not. And bmaz is correct in pointing out that both probationer and probation officer have a responsibility to address rehabilitation.

  2. Rugger9 says:

    Given the wide discretion DoJ has for charging there would hopefully be a reason for the downgrade. As a former Marine he ought to know better about discipline anyway, so if this came to me on an Article 32 hearing (or a CM) I’d throw the book at him. So, has anyone been able to document what DoJ has gotten in exchange for these plea deals?

    It’s not like Judge Howell is alone in noticing the soft touch.

    OT: that WI sheriff promising the big voter fraud reveal whiffed completely yesterday (really, nothing to see there), I suppose Geraldo would tear himself away from Tucker-bashing long enough to whine that such fizzles are his job, dadgummit.

  3. rattle mullet says:

    I think it just represents the traditional race based justice system in America. People of color in round numbers are 30% of the population but are 60%of the prison population. Generally the basically white judicial system obviously gives deference to white suspects. This would be an example of structural racism in our governmental institutions.

    Clearly this was a violent attempt to over throw the results of a free and fair election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. This was lead by Trump and his perverted allies in congress. Why we are treating those involved of the 1/6 failed rebellion like they were simply protesting is ludicrous. This was a concerted and coordinated effort and the republican leaders involved need to be held to account. This is not just interpretation of words of law, it is a failure of law to enforce the law. No one can refute if all involved were people of color the situation of police response at the capital and subsequent judicial actions would be very different than what we are witnessing now. Just go back and look at the police at the capital when BLM gathered to protest.

    • emptywheel says:

      One of the few assault defendants facing least punishment (for extenuating circumstances) is Black. And as suggested, DC USAO made sure that NDGA didn’t impose extra conditions on Broadnax.

    • bmaz says:

      Hi Rattle. Casually bandying about statistics like these is deceptive. For starters, the VAST majority of criminal cases, and resultant incarceration, are via state and local courts. The federal percentage is quite low, as is their effect on minorities (leaving aside immigration cases). Treating the 1/6 cases like they are some kind of stand in for racial inequality is nonsense. It has been my long experience that federal courts are not too bad for minorities, and certainly none of my minority clients have had a huge issue there.

      • Mojo Risin' says:

        When you pretend that things like powder vs rock sentencing guidelines – which packed federal pens twenty years ago – aren’t racism by proxy, you just look silly.

        Does that imply individual AUSAs and judges are all Klansmen that conspire in dark rooms with Leonard Leo? Of course not. But the federal system is the sum of its parts, and ingredient #1 is channeled dixiecrat racism, for 80 of the past 80 years.

        • bmaz says:

          You have been repeatedly warned about spamming and DDOSing our comment sections. You are relentlessly at it again. The people that run this place do not have time for your run on nonsense.

          And, again, you are full of it. “Federal pens” were never full of small time crack arrests twenty years ago. You know how I know? Because I was in all the respective courts before that time, during that time, and after that time. And when you imply that AUSAs and federal judges are possible Klansmen, you are not just an idiot but a cancer to this blog. Same as with them all being “Dixiecrat racism”. You do not know your ass from a hole in the ground. And stop spamming us, we dot not have time for your nonsense. Oh, and by the way, the Equal Act has been in the House several times, but, again, the federal courts are not the real problem here.

        • Rayne says:

          What bmaz said — your comments are excessive in frequency and rarely ever add new content, context, thinking to threads, while stretching the site’s resources. This is your second warning since October 14 to slow your roll.

      • rattlemullet says:


        I fully agree with with your reply and obviously defer to your expertise in law. Thank you for the link to Prison Policy initiative. My statistics are generalized to some degree and do represent state more than federal court racial statistics. I fully agree and recognize that federal courts would apply racial equality more fairly within their realm of jurisprudence than state courts. I was not suggesting that 1/6 be a stand in for racial equality. My point was that the federal armed response of preparation for the two protest were racially bias due to structural racism and that some of that bias carries over to the federal jurisprudence to some degree, especially in todays hyper charged political enviorment. My only experience in law is with construction litigation representing the developers interest when coordinating litigation. In construction litigation I came to realized was that the side who won had the best documented paper trail. Respectfully, thank you for your response and your time to this blog. I follow it to learn.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The Right’s approach to education and the teaching of American history in schools – when cultural tropes are implanted – would teach the history of America’s wars without ever mentioning profiteers or the dead and maimed. It would cover the victory parades.

    CRT is only a recent example. Like the Lost Cause history of the War of Northern Aggression, It’s a made up cause based on a fantasy. The history of oppressed women and the struggles of people of color is taught in many schools, but lightly until college and beyond. CRT itself is not taught in schools; it is taught in some college and graduate programs.

    The anti-CRT crowd look like astro-turf pikers. Liz Cheney’s mom campaigned in Texas for decades for her good white men’s gospel version of American history. Being Texas, the role of Latinx was pretty much limited to the Alamo. It’s why I would put Texas textbooks in the same basket as Texas justice. Anti-CRT campaigns are not about history, they are about the naked pursuit of raw power.

    • Rugger9 says:

      I am not aware of CRT being taught at any public primary or secondary school, does anyone have an example? CRT is something that is more of an academic exercise than a teaching philosophy, but leave it to the GQP to vanquish another straw man. Meanwhile, our courtier press still refuses to do its job to call out the GQP lies as lies, instead looking at the “horse race” angle like middle schoolers speculating about someone’s love life.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        It seems to be taught mostly in graduate school, especially law school, in courses analyzing how race effects laws and their enforcement.

      • Leoghann says:

        In practice, the claims of CRT being taught or advocated in public schools is a dog whistle meaning “why did you hire black people to teach my white child?”. The people who complain about it don’t have a clue what it really is, but their Friends at Fox told them it was everywhere, and it was bad.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      CRT: Chris-tow-for Rufie Toolkit

      Is he a Dylann Roof foe,
      or using Jim burden-of-proof Crow,
      with his pedagogy aloof so
      he maximizes his spoof show?

      Is his twisted mindset brand
      really so hard to understand?
      Maybe it’s lost cause contraband:
      Dixie con-federates’ dreamland?

      Does he claim a cult of persecution,
      despise educational distribution
      of history’s truth and of evolution?
      Does he work to undo the Constitution?

      A template of intelligent design,
      Is that how he likes to wine & whine,
      as he strives to build his storyline,
      where he’s an image of the divine?

      But is he a Dylann Roof foe,
      or using Jim burden-of-proof Crow,
      with his pedagogy aloof so
      he maximizes his spoof show?

  5. klynn says:

    Very OT and IANAL:

    How can SCOTUS determine EPA cannot limit greenhouse gas emissions and yet the US and Canada are in a transboundary air emissions agreement because of the impact of acid rain and emissions?

  6. Leoghann says:

    This is also off-topic, but the federal prosecutors in the Jeff Fortenberry this weekend filed for a protective order, asking that he not be allowed to handle any of the evidence when he isn’t under direct supervision, including not being allowed to take any of it home. They stated that they were concerned he might be able to put together who was testifying against him, which includes at least one undercover informant. The articles I read implied that this just meant that he was untrustworthy (no duh). My first thought was that they must be building several more cases involving acceptance of foreign money and/or laundering same. Does that seem reasonable?

    • P J Evans says:

      From what I’ve read, that particular foreign donor gave to several candidates, and they may be working up cases against the others, also.

      • Leoghann says:

        Thanks. I had only seen a couple of articles Friday or Saturday, just covering the basics. The “untrustworthy” suggestion was in the Daily Beast. Obviously the prosecution and concurring judge consider him untrustworthy, but that’s fast becoming a class trait for Trumpsters in government offices.

  7. Tom S. says:

    Have “culted” political extremists changed all that much in 400 years, or is the reaction to them and the special circumstances that set the threat they pose associated with the intent of the crimes they commit all that has actually changed? The enforcement part goes away if they are successful. In 1870, the UK abolished the reaction to “this sort of thing,” that was the practiced deterrent for hundreds of years. If you can recognize a parallel of King James in 1604 and what replaced him and royals succeeding him, in this hemisphere, the State of “We, the people,” vs “your Majesty,” can we really afford reacting so tepidly to similar intent today as he reacted to? The British royals really, really were intolerant of plots to overthrow them. They’re still here…, did Lincoln overreact early in the rebellion, given that he played the hand he was dealt, especially with regard to geography, the proximity of the threat?

    “On April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia..”

Comments are closed.