One Man’s Flourish Is Another Man’s Seditious Conspiracy: DOJ’s Typo and the Brandon Straka Plea Deal

The government released their sentencing memo for Brandon Straka yesterday. It confirms that the propagandist got a ridiculously light plea deal because he “cooperated” with the government. But, particularly because of what must be a typo in the government filing, it raises more questions about the fairness of the prosecution for the first purveyor of the Big Lie to be sentenced in January 6 than it provides answers.

As I’ve laid out repeatedly, Straka was a speaker on January 5 and was slated to speak again on January 6 at one of the rallies that provided the excuse to bring more bodies to the Capitol. He also played a central role in riling up a mob at Michigan’s vote count at TCF Center in November 2020. In other words, he was instrumental in the effort to sow violence by leading people to believe false claims about the election.

As described in the sentencing memo, that’s precisely what Straka did at the East side of the Capitol, too.

Straka pleaded guilty to one count of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D), Disorderly Conduct in the Capitol Grounds. As explained herein, a four-month home detention sentence is appropriate in this case because: (1) the defendant has a significant public profile, which he utilized to promote his activity on January 6, (2) the defendant learned of the breach of the U.S. Capitol Building and went to join the rioters; (3) upon arriving at the U.S. Capitol, the defendant encouraged others to  storm the U.S. Capitol; (4) the defendant recorded video of the rioters entering the U.S. Capitol; (5) the defendant encouraged rioters to take an officer’s protective shield from the officer’s possession, and (6) the defendant took to social media and encouraged rioters who remained at the U.S. Capitol to “hold the line” even after he had left Capitol grounds on January 6.


Here, Straka’s participation in a riot that actually succeeded in halting the Congressional certification combined with his celebration and endorsement of the unauthorized entry of the U.S. Capitol and violent conduct of the rioters to his hundreds of thousands of followers, his act of encouraging rioters to take a U.S. Capitol Police officer’s shield, and the need for deterrence renders a four-month home detention sentence both necessary and appropriate in this case.

Straka was originally charged with civil disorder and trespassing, but not the obstruction of the vote count that he was clearly part of. In October, he got a plea deal to plead only to the lesser of the two trespassing statutes, eliminating a felony civil disorder charge. As I previously noted, his plea agreement included the standard cooperation paragraph that usually suggests someone has not yet cooperated.

But DOJ, in their sentencing memo, claims he did, and even included a sealed filing describing the substance of the cooperation, as they would in support of a 5.1K letter that more formalized cooperators get.

7 The government will supplement this filing with a sealed addendum that will provide this Court with information related to Brandon Straka’s interviews.

But even the memo’s description of Straka’s initial “cooperative” interviews, the ones he did before getting that sweet plea deal, make it clear that, at least at the beginning, he was bullshitting them.

Straka was arrested on January 25, 2021. Straka voluntarily agreed to be interviewed by FBI. Straka’s initial interview occurred on February 17, 2021. Straka recounted what occurred on January 6. Straka denied seeing any police officers as he walked to the U.S. Capitol. He also denied seeing any barriers or signage indicating that the U.S. Capitol was closed. Straka denied removing the posts out of fear of getting arrested. Instead, he explained that he removed the videos because he felt “ashamed.” He denied knowing that people were “attacking, hurting, and killing people.”

Straka described seeing people “clustered” and “packed in” near the entrance to the U.S. Capitol. He admitted to video recording the event and later posting and removing the videos from Twitter. He also admitted knowing that the rioters were entering the U.S. Capitol without authorization and with the intent to interfere with Congress. Straka provided additional information to the FBI regarding the events leading up to and during January 6. After this initial interview, the FBI met with Straka a second time on March 25, 2021 with follow-up questions. Straka was cooperative during the interviews.

Indeed, later parts of the memorandum debunk claims Straka made in that interview, completely undermining the description of these as cooperative interviews.

Straka stood at the entrance of the East Rotunda Doors as rioters attempted to enter despite the presence of officers near the door. Alarms from inside the U.S. Capitol can be heard in the background as Straka approaches the doorway’s entrance: a loud, high-pitched, continuous beeping, similar to a smoke alarm. If Straka was unaware that his and the rioters’ presence was not authorized, he should have known it when he heard the sound of the alarms. Additionally, as Straka approached the doorway, he was met by the smell of tear gas that had been deployed by officers inside of the U.S. Capitol.

The memorandum also clearly shows that any remorse Straka has expressed was self-serving.

Straka has indicated that his decision to attend the U.S. Capitol breach was “stupid and a tragic decision.” In his interview with FBI, Straka stated that he did not know that violence and death would occur that day. He then expressed shame for participating in the event. Yet, it is worth pointing out that Straka believes that “the consequences for his actions this far have been quite extreme and disproportionate given his involvement.” Straka also believes that he is misunderstood. He has also expressed concern about how his business has been affected. ECF 28 ¶¶ 23-25. These statements indicate that Straka does not understand the gravamen of his conduct and that of the rioters on January 6.

And the memorandum obscures the chronology of Straka’s actions from the day and relies on his word for at least one key detail which the FBI could have (and did, for other insurrectionists) confirmed via more investigation. Straka went to Trump’s speech at the Ellipse. Videos show that he left the speech with Mike Flynn just as the speech was ending, walking unimpeded through the VIP section. Straka claims he took the Metro to the Capitol and arrived between 2 and 2:20, which given that everybody else was walking, is likely only possible if he killed a half hour somewhere before hopping the Metro, presumably getting on at Metro Center or Federal Triangle and getting off at Capitol South. That detail is critical, because it’s how Straka sustains a claim that:

  • He only learned of the assault on the Capitol as he was already traveling over there and not before
  • He arrived at the Capitol between the time he learned of the assault and when his speech was canceled (2:00 to 2:20)
  • He learned his speech was canceled at 2:33

Here’s how it looks in the sentencing memorandum, separated by several pages.

The next day, January 6, 2021, Straka attended the “Rally to Save America” on the White House Ellipse and then planned to travel to an area near the U.S. Capitol Building where he was going to give another speech. See ECF 1, p. 2 at ¶ 3 Straka used the Metro to travel to the U.S. Capitol. Id. While traveling to the U.S. Capitol, he received alerts on his telephone stating that former Vice President Mike Pence was “not going to object to certifying Joe Biden.” Id. Straka continued to make his way to the U.S. Capitol. Id. While walking, Straka learned that the U.S. Capitol had been breached. Id. Straka estimated that he got off of the Metro sometime between 2:00 p.m. and 2:20 p.m. before making his way to the U.S. Capitol grounds. See ECF 28, at ¶ 18.


At 2:33 pm on January 6, 2021, Michael Coudrey, the national coordinator for Stop the Steal, sent a message to a group chat telling those in the chat that the event that Straka was scheduled to speak at would be delayed because “They stormed the capital[sic].” Joshua Kaplan and Joaquin Sapien, New Details Suggest Sernior Trump Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic, ProPublica (June 25, 2021) available at
/new-detailssuggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-rally-could-get-chaotic (last visited December 16, 2021). Straka responded, “I just got gassed! Never felt so fucking alive in my life!!!” Id. Later, as law enforcement was still working to clear rioters from Capitol grounds, Straka encouraged them to continue fighting:

It’s still totally inexplicable. Even if Straka didn’t have knowledge he was traveling into an active riot in advance (a really sketchy claim), he still marched right up the steps of the East side of the Capitol encouraging violent entry, and then stuck around for hours encouraging rioters to keep going. DOJ could have checked the timing of his story by — as they did with other Jan 6 defendants — checking for Metro card purchases, swipes, or surveillance video in the Metro. Instead, they seem to have taken his word for the chronology.

Thus far, then, it looks like Straka successfully bullshitted DOJ for a sweet plea deal.

That treatment is all the more problematic given the discomfort regarding Straka’s incitement in different places in the sentencing memo. In describing his January 5 speech at the Stop the Steal rally, DOJ dismissed his call to “revolution” as “flourishes.”

During his five-minute long speech, Straka again used common rhetorical flourishes, referring to the rally attendees as “patriots,” and referenced a “revolution” multiple times. Id. at 32:27-37:18 Straka directed the attendees to “fight back.” Id.

But in the sentencing memo, DOJ called the same kind of speech on social media before that, often on key days in the developing conspiracy, speech that “could reasonably have been interpreted by some readers as a call for more than just a figurative struggle.”

Following the election, Straka stoked the passions of his followers, frequently telling the “Patriots” that it was time to “rise up” as part of a “civil war.” Many of these messages contain rhetorical flourishes that are common in political speech. However, some of Straka’s references to concrete planning and action could reasonably have been interpreted by some readers as a call for more than just a figurative struggle. In early December 2020, Straka sent out messages informing them that they “could not allow” a presidential transition and encouraging his followers to prepare for a civil war

That is, DOJ admits in its sentencing memo that Straka was stoking violence during the entire transition period.

Thus it happened that, on the very same day DOJ rolled out a seditious conspiracy indictment against Stewart Rhodes for, in part, warning on November 5, “we aren’t getting through this without a civil war,” and then warning on December 11 that if Joe Biden were to assume the Presidency, “it will be a bloody and desperate fight,” DOJ made a case that a guy who, in the same weeks, was also calling for civil war, should get just home confinement.

To be sure, there’s no evidence Straka engaged in military training or purchased weapons. But if Stewie’s incitement counts as sedition, then surely Straka’s counts as obstruction of the peaceful transfer of power.

Which brings us back to DOJ’s claims about Straka’s cooperation and that sealed addendum. According to the memo, as written, Straka had three interviews: one on February 17, 2021, another on March 25, 2021, and a third on — it claims — January 5, 2022.

On January 5, 2022, Straka met with prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office and the FBI a third time. The purpose of the interview was for the government to ask Straka follo-up [sic] questions. Consistent with his previous interviews, Straka was cooperative. The interviews were conducted in anticipation of the plea agreement that defendant would later enter.7

Except that makes no sense. He signed his statement of offense on September 14, 2021 and pled guilty in October. A January 5, 2022 interview couldn’t have “anticipat[ed] the plea agreement” he entered three months earlier. [Update: I’ve gotten clarification that the reference “the interviews” was meant to refer to the series of interviews. It still doesn’t make sense, but may reflect a late-date addition without correction of the antecedent.]

Moreover, DOJ offers no public explanation for details in this motion for a continuance, which the government attempted to seal after the fact, an attempt Judge Dabney Friedrich refused. It reveals that Straka told the government something new in December, and also that something unexpected came up in the Presentence report.

On December 8, 2021, the defendant provided counsel for the government with information that may impact the government’s sentencing recommendation. Additionally, the government is requesting additional time to investigate information provided in the Final PreSentence Report. Because the government’s sentencing recommendation may be impacted based on the newly discovered information, the government and defendant request a 30-day continuance of this case so that the information can be properly evaluated.

Given the timing of that continuance, it might explain a third meeting with Straka on January 5 — nine days ago. But that would suggest that the information wasn’t provided before Straka got this sweet plea deal.

There are any of a number of things going on. Perhaps it’s true that Straka provided useful information early in the investigation and in consideration for that got a sweet plea deal, as happened with Jacob Riles. Perhaps it’s true that Straka was more honest in those early interviews than portrayed in this memorandum.

Or, as seems more likely given the record and the rhetorical contortions AUSA Brittany Reed made in this sentencing memo, FBI let Straka bullshit them and based on that, he scored a ridiculous plea deal, and only after that, his presentence report disclosed things that FBI should have found last spring.

It may be that the belated discovery in December, in the end, makes the plea deal worth it. If Straka is willing to share honest details of how months of incitement led up to that attempted breach on the East steps; if Straka has provided details of what Mike Flynn was up to after Trump’s speech; if Straka belatedly confessed that there was a concerted plan to converge on the top of the East steps, then Straka’s preferential treatment may be worth it.

But DOJ really needs to provide more transparency on what went down, one that doesn’t include an obvious typo obscuring the timeline. If Paul Hodgkins has to serve eight months for obstruction because he wandered onto the Senate of floor and Jenny Cudd only got to plead from obstruction down to the more serious trespassing charge because she repeated the calls for civil war that people like Straka were making on January 5, then equity demands a far better explanation for Straka’s preferential treatment here.

As noted, Straka’s is the first sentencing for one of the organizer-inciters who will need to be held to account if DOJ wants to really pursue the people who master-minded this insurrection. If FBI screwed up (or tried to protect Straka), then DOJ needs to come clean on that and make it clear how they’ll avoid such problems in the future.

Presenting two inexplicable timelines is not the way to do that.

Update: Fixed reference to presentence report. And included clarification regarding “typo.”

88 replies
  1. Alan says:

    Would be nice to know what’s going on at some point, but for now the DOJ is probably trying to keep the info they get and their sources away from the remaining suspects, right?

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, I’d be happy if they fixed the timeline.

      Hell, I’d be THRILLED if they said, “Straka thought he had gotten away with a fast one on us, but based on the cooperation requirement, we were able to squeeze the information we wanted out of him in a post-plea interview on Jan 5.”

      • Tech Support says:

        IIRC, you’ve made prior observations about how the language DOJ has used in plea agreements has created allowances for additional sentencing enhancements to be applied. Would the reason then for that sort of thing be available as an “insurance policy” for the DOJ in case of bad faith plea negotiations?

        If that’s the case, it would be interesting to know if there is evidence that the Straka case led the DOJ to make course corrections in how they have handled plea negotiations, because it doesn’t seem like there were any allowances in Straka’s deal for that sort of thing.

        Also, if it’s true that they were able to secure post-plea cooperation, what would the leverage have been? Charges for lying to the FBI? Grounds to blow up the plea agreement? Both?

  2. JohnForde says:

    “equity demands a far better explanation for Straka’s preferential treatment here.” -EW
    But do we need that explanation now?
    Or is it concealing some incredibly valuable evidence for prosecutors in other cases?

  3. punaise says:

    Our local rag, the San Francisco Chronicle, barely mentioned the seditious conspiracy arrests – running an AP article at the bottom of page 6.

    • P J Evans says:

      SFGate has it in the Nation/World section, which is at the bottom of the page (along with “Tahoe” and a couple of others.

      • punaise says:

        Well at least it doesn’t get lost among the Macy’s, JC Penney and tire store ads. (Ouch, unkind: newspapers are dying because of lost ad revenue). I may be one of the last hold-outs who actually gets the dead tree version delivered to the doorstep.

        • timbo says:

          I still get one local SF BA news rag. But, frankly, there really is no good newspapers left in the SF Bay Area region that I’m aware of. Every now and then there’s some glimmer of the old glory of the SF Chronicle and the SJ Mercury News but, basically they’ve all basically become local rags without much coverage of national or international issues. And rarely anything about political scandals on the front page. I mean, you’d think that the newspapers would be interested in going after political corruption but that really doesn’t seem to be their focus any longer at all.

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          I was still doing the dead tree version of the Chronicle, until they ‘retired’ Willie Brown. I realized that I was really only reading the paper for him and the sports section and I decided to cut my loses.

      • Civil Discourse says:

        SF Gate frequently bashes both Gov Newsom and VP Harris.

        They also seem to enjoy printing Covid misinformation.

        \_(* } *)_/

  4. JohnForde says:

    Mmmmm….”belatedly confessed that there was a concerted plan to converge on the top of the East steps”

  5. Rugger9 says:

    Is this a question about which DoJ attorneys that were assigned to the team? We still have several burrowed GQP types (Bushie and MAGA) in other parts of the executive branch (like the BLS dude that keeps understating the economic numbers to be used by Faux before revising them later). We know that there are apparently Hillary-haters still in SDNY. Otherwise it would appear that Straka is a significant source for other defendants. How connected is he? Very.

    What will be interesting is the blowback upon Straka from the others. I will be digging way back into history here, all the way back to 1071 after the Battle of Manzikert that involved the Byzantines and Seljuk Turks. The Turkish commander had captured the Emperor and asked what he would do if the roles were reversed. The Emperor replied that he’d kill the Turk, whereupon the Turk told the Emperor that he would send him back to Constantinople which he did. The Emperor was killed shortly afterward.

    The point is to show that the people who will feel betrayed by the ones cooperating will bide their time cleaning their guns until they can settle scores. We know the MAGA types are crazy enough to do this (we had one driving to DC from out West busted with a bunch of loaded guns). That might be terrorizing for witnesses but if DoJ can pierce the Mob, MAGA would use a lot of the same tools.

  6. Al Lemming says:

    Sometimes I wonder if the DOJ is complicit in downplaying what happened on Jan. 6. Or, do they have unprepared, incompetent, gullible investigators and prosecutors that have no attention to detail and are just collecting a paycheck. This was a freaking attack on democracy and this inefficient, inconsistent crap goes on? Does one hand know what the other is doing?

  7. harpie says:

    Was STRAKA traveling by himself on the Metro?
    Did he have a security detail?
    When did he part with FLYNN?
    Is he the “Brandon” NORDEAN asks BIGGS about in the 1/6 AM near the Capitol?:

    [2:19] XX:XX AM? [Standing near the Capitol] NORDEAN to BIGGS:
    “You know, I haven’t seen BRANDON, yet. I don’t know where BRANDON’s at.”

    The JOE BIGGS MOVIE [link and breakdown]:

  8. WilliamOckham says:

    I’m going to assume that “in anticipation of the plea agreement that defendant would later enter” isn’t a typo. Is there any explanation that would accord with the sentencing memo?

    Here’s the only scenario I came up with. The government abrogated the plea agreement in December. Straka came in for the January interview and proffered something juicy enough that the government came up with a new plea agreement that matched his old one. And filed the new one under seal.

    Could that be possible?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If it’s not, then the DoJ is not presenting itself well to the federal courts, who are likely to bite it in the ass if there’s much more of this. They, too, want more transparency and consistent treatment of defendants.

      • bmaz says:

        Meh, courts take each defendant separately, and sentence accordingly. I swear, all this crap about wanting more consistency is bunk hyped up by the media. There are sentencing guidelines and a lot of room within the parameters of deducted guidelines. Again, when a plea is rejected, or sentences above or inexplicably below guidelines, get back to me on that. In the meantime, it is fine.

  9. JohnForde says:

    WO, I am shocked by your question.
    All these years I have been reading you I assumed you are a law professor.

  10. cavilrest says:

    think i’ve got my name right or close. apology if not.

    just chiming in to note that it is “Metro Center” station, and to suggest taking metro from the area of the ellipse to the area of the capitol makes little sense unless there is terrible haste and the train is well-timed. why wouldn’t one walk with the excited and exciting crowd? but if the speech ended circa 1:10 (per wikipedia chronology), his arrival window does not indicate such haste. he had time to do something else for a while and then skip the 16-or-so-block hike. i’d definitely have requested corroborating (or otherwise) surveillance footage from wmata.

    thanks hosts & commenters: your information and perspectives (and rants and songs) are cherished.

    • Leoghann says:

      Perhaps he had some cleaning he needed to drop off, or was wearing new pumps he didn’t want to stain. (Actually I am wondering about that too, specifically if he needed to meet with someone quickly.)

    • emptywheel says:

      Thanks for the correct. That I didn’t notice the typo makes me realize it has been years since I’ve not traveled to DC as long as I have–since early 2020.

      That logic on the Metro is precisely my point. It doesn’t save you much time. Yes, Straka did believe he was speaking on the far side of the Capitol, which might explain it. But that then raises questions about timing.

  11. dwfreeman says:

    One of the issues that fails to get much attention but played a key role in all aspects of Jan. 6 events, was the illegal march that Trump ordered that day from the podium. It was never widely advertised. Why? Well, for one IT WASN’T AUTHORIZED by permit or security. Nobody had planned for it. It just happened.

    In fact, the announcement of it was by varying sources a complete surprise including rally organizers. if known at all when Trump directed his audience at the Ellipse to follow him to the Capitol via Pennsylvania Avenue, people went there as if lemmings to a tourist uprising. What are you gonna do after they send you to a revolution of your own creation?

    Up with We the People! And I’ll be there with you, Trump promised. Of course, he wasn’t.

    You don’t even have to analyze this assertion to know Trump’s intention was false because any movement by the president requires advance notice and planning. So, his invitation had double meaning for those who were actually engaged in whatever planning aim was signaled by moving the MAGAt forces to the Capitol complex. Reading the Oathkeeper indictment you recognize this.

    New York videographer Sandi Bachom is a fantastic witness. Go watch her stuff (Sandi, she chronicled all the militia folks for weeks on end. She offers an unvarnished video look at the buildup to Jan. 6, the incredible coordination that linked the trail of failed lawsuits to MAGAt and militia forces on the ground to push and disguise phony election fraud charges with projected claims of vote rigging that the GOP was itself engaged in with coordinated efforts to appoint alternate illegal sets of electors to give Trump a second term despite a 7 million popular vote differential.

    Trump’s order to move was a signal to the other groups assembled elsewhere near the Ellipse that they would soon be called into action. The rules of engagement for standby DCNG were set on Monday, Dec. 4. Crowd control intelligence reports indicated no unusual threats and a normal First Amendment security posture that could be dealt with without law enforcement worry.

    This was like the Titanic pretending as a state of the art ship, it was invincible to North Atlantic icebergs unless their collision resulted in filling five successive ship bottom compartments, which, of course,happened, just as Trump ran into a legal iceberg in his VP and Congress which fucked up his quest to retain power by any and all means possible. That force of law sunk Trump’s effort to overthrow our democracy with a little help from his friends. Don’t think a march to the Capitol was a small thing. It was huge.

  12. viget says:

    It’s been a minute….

    Off to greener pastures but with 18 USC 1874 on the table at last and Rhodes in the barrel, now we are finally getting somewhere. EW was right to focus on all the preamble on order to understand where we are now; I see that. I eagerly anticipate more drops of wisdom here.

    Oh, and my $0.02? This is deliberate obfuscation by DOJ to prevent co-conspirators from knowing who ratted on whom and when and why. I think they recently threatened him on the 5th with a plea deal renege and a butt load of 1001 charges for those obvious lies he told early on. Plus probably some new stuff as well.

    I think he’s probably the source for many of the juicy new details in the OK superseder as harpie kind of intimates. Or maybe he was wearing a wire, who knows?

    • jeco says:

      Yes, I’m with viget too, DOJ has to protect their snitches, esp with a long, drawn out process. If this progresses up the food chain towards the big tamale the physical risks to perceived snitches will grow. What would the mob do to protect their capo, expect the same from these curs.

  13. harpie says:

    Marcy on twitter, correcting Harry Littman:
    6:42 AM · Jan 15, 2022

    The prior Oath Keeper indictments and the Proud Boys one have ALSO cited conduct before.

    And the one overt Proud Boy cooperator was leveraged bc of very similar post-Jan 6 activities.

    One of the most interesting parts of these conspiracies, IMO, is how they’re leaving gaps at the prior MAGA marches and January 5, which were key moments of coordination BETWEEN the conspiracies.

    Just want to say: HOORAY for DoJ “leaving GAPS”!

    The MAGA Marches were on 11/14/20 and 12/12/20.
    There were other similar events around the country as well.

  14. RWood says:

    While I certainly welcome this news I can’t help but hear the clock getting louder.

    I’m not the only one. This from Khardori at Politico:

    “Time is also not on the Justice Department’s side, which is another reason to be skeptical of the notion that prosecutors are aggressively pursuing Trump through the Jan. 6 prosecutions — much less that they will ever charge him. If Republicans take back one or both houses of Congress, they are likely to make the department’s investigation as difficult as possible through oversight hearings and media appearances. And if Trump announces a bid for reelection in 2024, it is hard to envision that the department under Garland would ever seriously consider charging him, since it will look like an effort to steer the election to Biden.”

    297 days until election day. Despite the reassurances here, I still worry that the pace is not fast enough.

    • bmaz says:

      Yes yes, the “pace” of supposedly inert federal investigations and prosecutions should be run by some jerk at Politico and clackers on the internet.

      It is hilarious that, early on, people who frequented this blog complained of the radicalization and politicizing of the DOJ, and now they fervently advocate for just that. It is kind of jarring.

      • BobCon says:

        Khardori’s argument is one of those unstable conventional wisdom bits that fall apart as soon as you see how many overt and barely hidden hypotheticals it contains.

        He’s assuming, for example, that there won’t be any evidence to back up prosecution in order to sustain his claim that it will be seen as political. He’s assuming that charges of politicization won’t be made if Garland doesn’t back prosecution.

        He’s assuming that the GOP’s actions, somehow, aren’t seen as dastardly politicization and only hurt the Democrats because, well, that’s how Politico swings.

        He’s basically making the same mistake people have made all along with Trump — that he somehow is a blustering, harmless guy who never really does anything wrong, so don’t even bother looking or thinking.

    • jeco says:

      If it takes too long to prosecute failed coup attempts or if these prosecutions are considered too political then coups would be de-facto legal now. GOP has taken ownership of trump’s failed coup and is fighting like hell to cover it up. If the investigation reaches the Organizer-in-Chief then all hell truly will break loose.

  15. Diogenes says:

    Dont worry, Garland will prosecute those masterminds behind Fort Sumter anyday now.

    Gotta make sure the case is *airtight*

  16. Tracy Lynn says:

    I find it chilling that these Stop the Steal leaders were riling up crowds of “normies,” telling them to go to the Capitol, expecting that they would be met by counter protesters/antifa crowds once they got there and that there would be the violence. They were planning to use those normies as cannon fodder.

  17. gmoke says:

    Reading Joan Didion’s Political Fictions and came across what may be a useful quote for the TV lawyers in her piece on the Starr investigation, “Clinton Agonistes”:

    “Perhaps because not all of the experts, authorities, and spokespersons driving this news had extensive experience with the kind of city-side beat on which it is taken for granted that the D. A.’s office will leak the cases they doubt they can make, selective prosecutorial hints had become embedded in the ongoing story as fact.”

    Under Garland, that dog hasn’t barked and may be a good sign that, for the cases DOJ has, it thinks it can make them all without needing to leak to gain public traction and attention.

  18. greenbird says:

    apologies, again, for messy formatting.

    vacate 12/22 sentencing with 30-day continuance; new deadline for PL sentencing memo
    33 Dec 17, 2021 MOTION to Continue
    (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reed, Brittany) (Entered: 12/17/2021)
    Main Document Continue pdf

    MIN: Dec 21, 2021 MINUTE ORDER granting the parties’ 33 Joint Motion
    to Continue the Sentencing Hearing and Vacate Sentencing Related Deadlines.
    The sentencing hearing is set for January 20, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.
    Sentencing memoranda and supporting video evidence shall be submitted
    on or before January 13, 2022.
    So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on December 21, 2021. (lcdlf2)

    Doc 34 wo ist? [SEALED?]

    MIN: Dec 23, 2021 MINUTE ORDER. Before the Court is the government’s 34 Sealed Motion
    for Leave to File Document Under Seal.
    The Court sees no sensitive information in the 33 Motion to Continue Sentencing.
    The government is directed to file another motion [Doc 35 ?] providing additional information for its request to seal the 33 Motion to Continue.
    So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on December 23, 2021. (lcdlf2)

    MIN: Dec 23, 2021 .Order
    Doc 35: wo ist? [SEALED?]

    (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reed, Brittany) (Entered: 01/13/2022)

  19. WilliamOckham says:

    I have a theory that typos in court filings create alternate realities in which the typos become real. Imagine the universe in which this is true:
    Defendant [Straka] was on the Capitol grounds for only 15 minuets

    (From Straka’s response to the Gov’t Sentencing Memo)

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      15 is really not so many for such a slow, stately dance.

      Were typos in court filings a thing before the kraken team got crackin’? I’ve never read court records before, nor do I much now, but when I do, I seem always to see typos, some indicating stunning sloppiness.

Comments are closed.