Jonathan Turley On The Byrd Interview

Law prof Jonathan Turley weighs in on the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. This follows the exoneration of the Capitol police lieutenant who shot her and his subsequent interview. The point that Turley makes that is most remarkable is that Byrd, in his interview, demolished the rationale that had been advanced to exonerate him. One wonders--at least I do; Turley doesn't mention this--was he not represented by counsel? How could his lawyers have possibly allowed him to say the things he said--in public, on TV? What does this say about America?

Here's Turley's Twitter advert for his article at The Hill. I reviewed some of the comments and the majority of them were ... pretty wild, from the perspective of this lawyer and retired LE guy. Who knew Lefties were such hard assed--not to say, bloodthirsty--law and order types?

I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed the worst suspicions about the shooting ...

Justified shooting or fair game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt makes shocking admissionHe proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/569827-justified-shooting-or-fair-game-shooter-of-ashlii-babbitt-makes-shocking

...Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window... 

...No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects. Under Byrd's interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.

Turley's article today goes into the specifics of the case from the standpoint of legal principles that have long been "settled". In a way, DoJ's handling of the shooting seems similar to FDA's recent "authorization" of Pfizer's vaccine--or whatever actually happened.

Justified shooting or fair game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt makes shocking admission

...

At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.

The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. ... It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider "the facts and circumstances of each particular case," it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is "an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and ... is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." ...

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. ...

Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared "no further action will be taken" in the case. He proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.

Byrd described how ... their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers."

...

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, "I know that day I saved countless lives." ... No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. ... According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.

Politico reported that Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect him and that he expected to “be treated differently.”

Is Chris Wray Bailing On The Regime?

Has Chris Wray held his finger up to test the political winds, and does he see a GOP Congress coming? Is he looking to ingratiate himself with those he sees as his future masters in Congress?

That could be one way to interpret the latest FBI leak, which totally undercuts DoJ's already struggling inquisition against January 6 Event participants. Via Red State:

According to four current and former law enforcement officials, the FBI has “found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result.” The FBI doesn’t believe that the riot was “centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.”

Obviously this is speculation. Nevertheless, this is not what a prosecutor wants to read in the news. What kind of witnesses will FBI agents make?

Further evidence of regime collapse?

SWC: Signs Of DoJ Desperation In January 6 Case

Shipwreckedcrew has been reporting on what could turn out to be a significant development in the DoJ's prosecutorial pursuit of January 6 Event protesters. You can read the full account at the link, and I'll try to summarize it from a big picture viewpoint, without getting into the procedural weeds too far:

Government Commits Prosecutorial Misconduct to Deny a Jan. 6 Defendant his September Trial Date.

THIS is a sign of desperation from DOJ

Here's the short version.

Defendant Federico Klein was arrested on March 4, 2021. He was indicted on March 19 and charged with both felony and misdemeanor crimes.

Keep in mind that once an indictment is returned, the Speedy Trial Act clock starts running. There are extenuating circumstances to slow that down, but a federal judge's job is to monitor all this and, if need be, insure that DoJ is not abusing the rights of the defendant.

What happened next is that, well, not too much happened at all. Specifically, what didn't happen was that the DoJ didn't provide the defendant with discovery material that it was required to provide.

The day before a scheduled status hearing (July 13) DoJ told the judge (Bates) that they wouldn't be able to provide the material for many months, because of the press of handling so many cases. DoJ was looking at a time frame of some time in 2022.

The judge didn't buy that dog-ate-my-homework excuse and set a trial date of September 12--2021.

All clear? Now follow what happened next.

Briefly Noted: January 6 Event Legal Update

I've been keeping an eye cocked at what's developing in DC. I noted a while ago that the judges appear restless--they don't like what they're seeing with DoJ trying to keep people in prison while preliminary proceedings drag on with no trials in sight. That's not how the system is supposed to work--not all of the Judicial Branch has got the memo about how everything has changed under the new regime, including constitutional rights for criminal defendants.

Yesterday Shipwreckedcrew had an interesting and thorough article on all this at Substack. Before I briefly get to that, however, here are two of his tweets today, basically making fun of Amy Berman Jackson and the sentencing that took place today--because it sets the tone for his article:

shipwreckedcrew:

Big news in J6 Cases today -- Judge Jackson sentences Karl Dresch to time served. Had been charged with a felony and detained pending trial. 

Gov't dismissed felony today and allow petty misdemeanor guilty plea. Max sentence is 6 months. 

Has been detained more than 6 months.

Obama liberal appointee Judge Berman Jackson presiding.  Full of fire and brimstone in her comments about January 6 -- but this is FULL RETREAT by DOJ and the Courts from these cases.

What he means is ... How does 'insurrection' compute to a plea to a petty misdemeanor and a sentence of time served? That's a joke, if you were paying attention to the rhetoric all along, but that's the deal that DoJ agreed to. And Judge Amy--not to be confused wtih Justice Amy--looks a fool, for all her fire breathing comments.

OK, so if you want to get into the legal weeds, here's SWC's article:

What If?

This is obviously speculative. Nevertheless ... it's true that there are connections between personnel in both events. Or plots.

Catch up on what @DarrenJBeattie has been reporting for months re FBI framing Americans as ‘domestic terrorists.’ NB: he also reported that head of FBI field office that set up bogus Whitmer operation is now supervising J6 investigations. https://t.co/EQA7OVZ1HX

— Lee Smith (@LeeSmithDC) July 21, 2021

Was the FBI SAC of Detroit promoted to ADIC of WFO in Oct. 2020 as part of a plan to have him in place to oversee the Jan 6 protest investigations?

If no, what significance is there to the fact he was promoted from Point A to Point B? https://t.co/OseI4uqWHk

— shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 21, 2021

Comments, Ashli Babbitt, January 6 Event

I used to have a sidebar notice stating that all comments here are monitored by me personally. I see that notice is no longer present, although I didn't remove it. Perhaps it somehow fell into the category of things that Blogger no longer enables. Who knows?

In any event, I do actually still read all comments before enabling them. Some comments I don't enable, although I try to err on the side of enabling. I've never enunciated a policy, and don't plan on doing so now. However, a few related categories of comments that I do regularly reject are those that advocate violence, assassination, or the view that one segment of the American population is planning to nuke some other segment. I'm not explaining why I reject those comments, beyond the view that they don't add anything to the blog and may detract. In that connection, I note that the PTA/NAACP woman who got her 15 minutes of fame by shouting "Let them die!" re anti-CRT people has been forced out of the PTA. The NAACP continues to defend her, but will IMO end up regretting that decision.

Regarding Ashli Babbitt. My view is that she's dead--just in case anyone was wondering what my view is. Not long ago I commented in agreement with another commenter who wrote to the effect that, There's a reason Ashli Babbitt's family is suing for wrongful death, and it's not because she's alive and well and in hiding. Obviously, if there are developments in the Ashli Babbitt story I'll try to cover them if I have some perspective to offer. In the meantime, I won't be enabling comments that link to theories about Babbitt's continuing life. As in other areas, I try to err on the side of legitimate and wide ranging commenting, but sometimes have to draw a line.

Regarding the January 6 Event and the witchhunt against participants, you probably are aware that one participant was sentenced yesterday. Here are some Twitter comments that cover various aspects of our currently dysfunctional state of being in America, including the January 6 Event:

Who Is Stewart Rhodes?

Mike Sylwester linked an article and a video in a comment. The links pertain to the January 6 Event and, more specifically, to Person One, aka, Stewart Rhodes. The article appears at Revolver:

Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open

Previously Revolver got itself into some trouble by getting involved in some technical legal conclusions, which they were unprepared to support. This time around it looks like they're being more cautious. Instead of conclusions, they're raising questions--and there are plenty of questions about Stewart Rhodes that need answering.

I won't attempt to offer a summary of everything that's now known about Rhodes. Instead I'll offer some conclusions of my own.

I think it's fair to say that Rhodes was not only the "Kingpin" of the Oath Keepers but he's also the Kingpin of the Zhou regime's entire "insurrection" narrative--Mr. Big. The article links to a government motion that, beginning at page 10, cites the words of Rhodes/Person One extensively. The article also quotes Rhodes' public statements from well before January 6 in which Rhodes appears to be clearly engaging in repeated inflammatory rhetoric that includes suggesting violent confrontations that could lead to an "insurrection":

Law Day #2: Important Critique of Revolver, Tucker

I'm glad I didn't comment on this aspect of the Revolver story about the January 6 Event. Of course there's plenty to be concerned about as regards the role of federal law enforcement, and of the FBI in particular. However, the claim that the use of the term "unindicted co-conspirators" is intended to conceal government agents and informants is, on the authority of experienced prosecutors and defense attorneys, flatly wrong: "Agents & informants are not included in the definition of unindicted co-conspirators ..."

This 👇🏻is how actual practitioners of federal criminal law (left & right) will see it. Agents & informants are not included in the definition of unindicted co-conspirators & it would be improper for prosecutors to try to “hide” them in that category. https://t.co/w4ojUgJeB8

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) June 17, 2021

SWC weighs in on this, too, against Robert Barnes. However, I believe that McAdoo Gordon and McCarthy express this better. SWC seems to suggest--probably in a moment of keyboard carelessness--that government agents and informants are ipso facto unable to be part of the conspiracy

A "co-conspirator" must be part of the agreement to commit the criminal object of the conspiracy.

Someone informing the FBI about the conspiracy-- unless it is entirely after the fact--is actually working AGAINST the conspiratorial agreement.

That, of course, is how it's supposed to work. However, UC agents and informants have been known to go overboard and--contrary to instructions--actually cross the line into advancing the conspiracy in ways that would not have occurred but for their actions. That type of conduct will get the case dismissed. This can get factually very complicated, so I'll leave it at that. That issue may very well come up at trial--if trials are held. But the important issue for purposes of the Revolver article is addressed in the tweet above. The UC agents or informants may or may not have behaved improperly--that's a factual issue that will have to be hashed out later based on what is discovered about their participation. However, we can take it as given that no one labeled as an "unindicted co-conspirator" is in fact a government agent or informant. They will be witnesses.

Tucker Apologizes

Any time Tucker Carlson issues a public apology, that's somewhat noteworthy. He did so last night, and in unequivocal terms, without excuses. You can catch this apology starting around the 10:00 mark, but watch from the beginning for the full context:

Here's the apology:

A lot of us missed this the first time around, and you are due an apology. And we're proffering it on television right now. We didn't see the obvious. If you empower the government to violate civil liberties  in pursuit of a foreign terror organization--and there are foreign terror organizations--it's just a matter of time before ambitious politicians use those same mechanisms to suppress political dissent. And that's what we're seeing now. We should have seen it earlier.

This came on the same day that the FBI repeated its absurd evocation of the QAnon boogeyman--surely a low point for the Bureau. However, in fairness to Tucker I suspect this apology was in the works for some time, rather than a response to an event of the same day.

Which it was, it's welcome.

Was The Military Stand-Down A Good Idea?

Right, so we're talking about the first initiative Lloyd Austin undertook as SecDef, after stepping down from the boards of Raytheon, Nucor, and Tenet Healthcare. Even before purging defense advisory boards of Trump appointees, Austin announced a 60-day stand-down to train service members to "recognize and combat" "extremism" in the military--which is the current euphemism for white conservatives. Or, to be fair, conservatives of any color, because conservativism is a simply a proxy for "whiteness", no matter what color you happen to be. Or so I hear.

Good idea, bad idea? Like so many things in life, that all depends on what you were hoping to accomplish. If the great idea was to transform the enlisted men and women into woke robots, early reports suggest that the stand-down has been a signal failure. It seems the enlisted types--the kind of people who will never be asked to join corporate boards--follow the news and--horrors!--think for themselves. And they're not buying the idea that the January 6 Event was staged by White Supremacists while the months and months of violent BLM and Antifa rioting were actually peaceful--except for a handful of opportunistic criminals, totally unconnected to Leftist ideology. The trainers are doing their best, but it seems the reeducation isn't taking hold.

So, from the standpoint of the Left, the stand-down is looking like a failure, but it may also be turning out--again, from their perspective--to be a Bad Idea to begin with.

Management types will often tell you that getting the little people--worker bee types, or enlisted people in the military--to talk about things can lead to trouble. What often happens is that an Us against Them mentality takes hold--Us being the workers or enlisted people, and Them being management. The lower level types discover that they're not just a lot of isolated individuals. In fact, they learn that many of the doubts and grievances regarding management are shared widely. An Us v. Them dynamic which equates to something like Enlisted v. Officers can lead to big trouble.

So, Zerohedge reported as follows, Defiant US Soldiers From Every Echelon of the Military Openly Questioning Why BLM Riots Weren’t Treated Like Capitol ‘Insurrection’, drawing on an article from Military.com:

Interesting: Semi-Serious Social Science Study On January 6 Event

Victoria Taft wrote this up for PJ Media, but I got it through Zerohedge:

Study Shows Very Few Capitol Hill Rioters Were QAnon Red-Staters With Ties To 'Right-Wing' Groups

The study comes from the prestigious University of Chicago, and includes some interesting information about the people who participated in as well as those who were arrested at the January 6 Event. For example, the researchers were rather impressed with the level of intellectual sophistication of those involved. They also had to come up with a whole new category for people participating in protests: Business Owners! Go figure, eh? At a rally of conservatives we find ... business owners!

Read it all, but here are some highlights. The researchers labored from the usual stereotypical perspectives and narratives. What's interesting is that they found themselves struggling to come to grips with a reality that didn't fit their usual categories and stereotypes:

Things Fall Apart?

We saw how the Second Faux Impeachment quickly fell apart, but even so the Dem's laughable insurrection narrative continues to grind on--undergirded by a massively corrupt FBI and DoJ. However, even as the the FBI continues to conduct grotesquely overwrought "operations" supported by armored vehicles, against women and children, to arrest persons whose only apparent offense is to have been in the Imperial City on the Potomac on January 6, or to have spoken to fellow citizens, even liberal judges have been pushing back against these abuses.

One particularly egregious example of over the top federal behavior was documented yesterday at TGP:

Joshua James is a war hero, a veteran, a Godly man, a provider, and a business owner. Joshua James DID NOT commit any violent crime. He attended the January 6th speech by President Trump at the Ellipse along with a million other Americans.  He volunteered to work security with other members of the Oath Keepers.

The FBI is holding him until trial because he was seen speaking with two other members of the Oath Keepers that day.

James was lured away from his home and then arrested--follow the link for details. Then, the FBI showed up to search his home, where only his wife and 3 year old were present when this rolled up:

UPDATED: Why Do Federal Prosecutors Seem To Have A Problem With The Truth?

Today ultra-liberal DC Judge Beryl Howell released Proud Boy "Insurrection Ringleader" Ethan Nordean from durance vile: Nordean was being held in solitary confinement pending trial. According to Howell--and just ignore the over the top rhetoric from Reuters:

During the court hearing, Howell said federal prosecutors had "backtracked" and failed to substantiate allegations that Nordean was a ringleader of the attack, which left five people dead, including a police officer.

"The dearth of evidence about his directions is significant," Howell said, adding the evidence she heard at Wednesday's hearing suggested Nordean just "went along with this mob."

Howell said other Proud Boys members have been released pending trial, and that she needed to be consistent in her rulings. The Jan. 6 attack by supporters of former President Donald Trump resulted in the deaths of five people.

"What the government said in its original papers was that he directed the Proud Boys with specific plans, telling them to split up into groups and attempt to break in to the Capitol building," Howell said. "That's a far cry from what I heard at the hearing today."

Hmmmm. It's almost as if politics somehow entered into this criminal prosecution. The big insurrection narrative is getting pretty tattered.

UPDATE: In what can be considered a related development, the Bezos WaPo ran an article that clearly appears to be poking fun at the Dem QAnon conspiracy theorists: At the Capitol, a March 4 threat from militant Trump supporters proves a mirage. None of this Deep State conspiracy mongering is going well. Waste of space FBI Director is coming across as a complete toadie, as his minions are forced to admit there were no weapons at the January 6 Event, and now the Proud Boy conspiracy theory is collapsing under the weight of prosecutorial and LE lies. Not the way to regain trust and/or respect.