Category Archives: Antifa

Almost 100 Antifa sitzpinklers showed up to harass attendees of a pro-life vigil on the campus of the University of North Texas.

The local Antifa ambergris advertised their fascist interruption plan on Twitter and invited their tin-fisted legions to join in the fun. They even told them what color to wear in the tweet.

Fascists are organizing in your area. Tonight the young conservatives have invited groyper influencers & white nationalists such as Lance Johnston to a pro life vigil in supporting christo-fascist abortion legislation.

Attendees at the vigil, held by the schools chapter of Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT), shouted Christ is king and the fascist daisy-boys responded with F*** your God! They also brought megaphones and musical instruments to drown out the vigil.

They harassed us, they were throwing things at us, Kelly Neidert, chairwoman of the UNT chapter of YCT told Fox News. They were chanting things. They brought all sorts of instruments that they were playing to drown out whatever we were saying. They brought their megaphones, they brought whistles.

Several of the low-T Antifa members tried to pick fights. Some followed YCT members back to their cars and harassed them further.

I think they just really hate anybody who doesnt agree with everything that they believe, Neidert relayed to Fox News. And they just really dont know how to cope with other people who have different beliefs. So they want to silence us and say what were doing is wrong because they just dont understand that some people believe differently.

Neidert is apparently infamous on her campus. She told Fox News she is frequently recognized and flipped the bird by leftists. She even fears for her own safety.

Last year, the YCT crew encouraged conservatives to come out on National Coming Out Day, when people are encouraged to embrace their inner LGBT selves and come out to the world.

The commies REALLY hated Neirdert for that move. Last year they broke out the big guns and had witches threaten her with misfortune, not physical harm. They even summoned the dark lord, Satan himself, to teach Neidert a lesson.

FARCE-O-RAMA! For those wishing to use bedeviling hexes against conservatives, there is now a book of commie spells!

RELATED: Antifa: 5 Things You Need to Know About the Commie Anarchists

Antifa must be getting bored. This is not the first time theyve attacked friendly Christians. A group of Antifa gals, armed with bear mace and paintball guns, jumped a bunch of pro-life demonstrators outside a Planned Parenthood office in Salem, Oregon. No witches, warlocks, or imps were seen.

Original post:

'F Your God!': Antifa Attacks Praying Pro-LifersAgain ...

American News Oct 23, 2021 5:54 PM EST

Antifa accused the conservative students holding the pro-life vigil of supporting "christo-fascist abortion legislation" in an online advertisement promoting the far-left counter protest.

Custom made fan favorite Jerseys starting at $24.99

On Monday night in Denton, Texas, a pro-life vigil was underway when it was crashed by hundreds of Antifa protestors, who attempted to drown the event out.

In the video, the pro-life activists who gathered for the event were chanting "Christ is King," to which the Antifa counter protestors started shouting "F*ck your God."

The pro-life prayer vigil was led on campus Monday by the local Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) chapter at the University of North Texas (UNT).

According to Fox News, Kelly Neidert, founder of the YCT chapter at UNT, stated: "They harassed us, they were throwing things at us," she said. "They were chanting things. They brought all sorts of instruments that they were playing to drown out whatever we were saying. They brought their megaphones; they brought whistles."

Neidert said that several Antifa activists tried to pick fights with the pro-life students, told the group to kill themselves, and followed the conservatives to their cars to harass them further. Neidert said that she and her fellow demonstrators were caught off-guard by the size of the massive opposition.

An online advertisement emblazoned with the three-arrow insignia of Antifa was circulated on social media to rally comrades to outnumber the dozen of pro-life activists. "Fascists are organizing in your area," the release read on Twitter, directed to members of Antifa in the area of the university. "Tonight the young conservatives have invited groyper influencers & white nationalists such as Lance Johnston to a pro life 'vigil' in supporting christo-fascist abortion legislation."

? Alerta ? UNT: fascists are organizing in your area. Tonight the young conservatives have invited groyper influencers & white nationalists such as Lance Johnston to a pro life "vigil" in supporting christo-fascist abortion legislation. pic.twitter.com/S9ULlDzKPo

"A few hundred students with opposing views gathered on campus Monday evening to exercise their free speech rights. The gathering ended without incident," UNT spokesperson Leigh Anne Gullett told Fox News in a press statement.

Texans have been extremely divided over the new state abortion law, since dubbed the "Heartbeat Law," which places severe restrictions on abortions.

Neidert noted that some of the Antifa instigators also expressed hatred for Republican Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott who recently signed the controversial law banning abortion in the state after the detection of a fetal heartbeat.

Were independent and cant be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Visit link:

Antifa crashes Texas college's pro-life prayer vigil: 'F ...

The events of Jan. 6 will resonate for decades, and maybe longer. The violent attempt by Donald Trumps supporters to prevent members of Congress at the Capitol from certifying the victory of Joe Biden in last Novembers presidential election has no precedent in American history.

Unfortunately, not only will the wounds of that day not heal any time soon, it now looks close to certain that each Jan. 6 going forward, the wounds will be reopened when Trump admirers treat the day as an anniversary to celebrate. Every Jan. 6, most of the media, Democratic officeholders and the Mitt Romney-Liz Cheney branch of the Republican Party will lament the terrible events at the Capitol. But every Jan. 6, Fox News, other Trump-friendly media organizations and millions of MAGA stans will treat the day as akin to the Boston Tea Party the day (some) Americans declared war on tyranny.

Initially, Trump didnt frame the events of that day so tidily. He conceded there was mayhem but said the violent rioters were Antifa members wearing Trump gear. He did so even though House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield told him in a Jan. 6 phone call that it was your people rampaging in the Capitol not Antifa.

But the Antifa spin was quickly refuted by the backgrounds of those being prosecuted for participating in the insurrection. Not one of the 700 people arrested for their actions have been linked to Antifa. Many were documented Trump fans.

When the Antifa conspiracy theory was demolished, Trump, his followers and some GOP lawmakers had to come up with another way to frame Jan. 6.

The first was to pretend that what tens of millions of Americans saw in real time didnt happen. In a March appearance on Fox News, Trump called Jan. 6 a lovefest, describing a scene in which supporters were hugging and kissing the police. The same month, in a radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, depicted rioters as well-meaning, innocent Americans: Those are people that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement [and] would never do anything to break the law.

But when that didnt go well, in July, Trump praised the Jan. 6 rioters as patriots who acted as part of a noble revolution to save a nation that had lost its way. Yes, he went there.

If you think this is alarmism over empty rhetoric and are reassured that GOP candidate Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governors race this week after keeping Trump at a firm distance, I invite you to read The Washington Posts massive multimedia presentation on the lead-up to the riot, the events of Jan. 6 and the subsequent fallout. It captures the sense of righteousness and abiding anger of those who sincerely believe Trump is the victim of a Deep State-media-Democratic conspiracy.

Some GOP officials, knowing that they were putting their careers at risk, have had the guts to push back. I get it that you think youre responding to what you think is the will of your constituents, Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan told the Post. But at the end of the day, youve got to be honest with them. When someone says the Earth is flat, youve got to vehemently disagree with them because you know its not flat.

But far more elected Republicans went along with or kept silent about the bizarre claims of Trump and his followers, including McCarthy and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. And many continued to echo and act on Trumps claim that he was the victim of a massive plot to deny him victory. Nineteen states adopted 33 new laws intended to make it harder for Americans to vote.

It has to be noted that these are complicated times. The Russian analyst who was the primary source for the error-ridden 2016 Steele dossier linking Trump to Russian operatives a document widely treated as fact or close to it by many journalists and MSNBC hosts was arrested this week for lying to the FBI about the dossier. This strongly strengthens the view of Republicans and prominent progressive journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi that Russiagate was deeply exaggerated by many with an anti-Trump animus. Trump fans with a nonexistent case the 2020 election was stolen have reason to wonder why a weak case the 2016 election was stolen was taken so seriously. A backlash was inevitable.

What I did not anticipate was a backlash so intense that actual, open attempts to steal elections by manipulating voting results or invalidating legal counts probably will be made next year by elected Republicans in Trump strongholds.

Heres hoping Im wrong. Yet that may not be the worst of it. Trumps decision to celebrate Jan. 6 will legitimize and encourage political violence by his admirers against individuals and institutions targeted by the former president.

Remember what happened that day at the Capitol Trump supporters chanted that they wanted to lynch Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Then hold on.

A nightmare is coming.

Reed is deputy editor of the editorial and opinion section. Column archive: sdut.us/chrisreed. Twitter: @calwhine. Email: chris.reed@sduniontribune.com.

Read more:

Trump, his fans to treat Jan. 6 as anniversary to celebrate - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Teachers must speak up for students, future

I have been a teacher in Santa Maria for 25 years. Why is there no public response to the farce that has become the politics of public education? The speakers of the national unions cannot represent us. It is time for teachers to speak up.

When Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers shares a link to a Washington Post article that claims parents have no right to shape their kids school curriculum, we must speak up.

When educators and media pundits claim no CRT is being taught in public schools, we must speak up. The Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum for K-12 adopted by the California Board of Education in March 2021 is a CRT promulgation (Chap. 3; pg. 31-32).

When staff distribute a dictionary with 21 words to describe types of gender and 10 new pronouns, we must speak up. Speak up for truth. Every person on our campus is welcome and valued and must be treated with dignity and respect because they are people.

When districts implement mask mandates, we must speak up. Individuals can choose to wear a mask. Parents have a right to mask their children. No one has a right to force others to do so.

When people are being coerced into making health decisions that go against their judgement or are not based on discussions with their doctors, we must speak up.

When people try to erase history in the name of righting past wrongs, we must speak up.

Too many in public education have lost their way. There is no education without truth.

In Janus vs. AFSCME, the Supreme Court affirmed the First Amendment and declared teachers are not required to be part of a teachers union to keep their jobs. If the unions dont represent you, its time to leave the union. That is one way we can speak up. We must speak up for the students who need us, the parents who trust us and the future that awaits us all.

Kerry Millhorn

Nipomo

How dare the State of California want to take away our right to catch COVID! It has already taken away our right to get, suffer from, and potentially die from mumps, measles, whooping cough, diptheria, tuberculosis, and polio by insisting we vaccinate our children before they go to school. What can the state be thinking?

Betty Gunn

Santa Maria

This goes out to the people responsible for all the students who are asked to exercise in this horrible air quality environment. I see kids running for track class, and just heard the football game going on at the Neighbor Bowl last night (which was way too loud by the way); and they are even doing band practice outdoors.

Come on, use common sense, watch out for your kids' health and keep them out of this smoke and heavy particulate matter that we call "air" these days!

Eileen Eberhart

Hanford

In a recent commentary, chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner, Byron York appears to take umbrage at some circles calling the Jan. 6 Capitol riot an armed insurrection. He then asks, How many rioters were armed? And what weapons did they have? What were the arms in the armed insurrection?

He argues, Of the 670 (defendants with federal charges against them), I counted 82 who face weapons-related charges. Thats about 12% of the total. And of course, the number of people charged with anything, 670, is far smaller than the number who were on the Capitol grounds that day.

Mr. York wants us to believe that 82 people with weapons arent enough to create an armed insurrection and that 670 defendants charged is insignificant compared to the total number of rioters on Jan. 6. Really.

He lists the variety of weapons used by the 82 defendants as: A helmet. A baton. A crutch. A walking stick. Handgun. Pepper Spray. Flagpole. Knife. Baseball bat. Crowd control barrier. Police shield. Hockey stick. Desk drawer.

Mr. York then points out that guns are the most serious and that of the 670, (only) five suspects are charged with possessing firearms. But none are charged with using them during the riot.

He then offers excuses for each having a gun during the riot while vilifying, scapegoating, and throwing shade at Capitol Police Lt. Micheal Byrd by pointing out, The only shot that was fired during that time was by Capitol Police Lt. Micheal Byrd, who shot and killed rioter Ashli Babbitt as she tried to force her way into an area near the chamber.

No mention of Lt. Micheal Byrd being exonerated and his heroics in protecting members of Congress from kidnapping or death at the hands of armed insurrectionists.

Mr. York also scapegoats antifa remarking, Some weapons were clearly brought in anticipation of a fight. Some rioters thought they would be battling antifa. As if the intent to kill members of antifa makes having weapons seem reasonable during the riot.

Finally Mr. York concludes, what happened on Jan. 6 was a riot But a look at the Justice Department prosecutions simply does not make the case it was an armed insurrection.

Mr. York seems to want to minimize and offer excuses for riot attendees on Jan. 6. Anybody that saw footage of the Jan. 6 riot knows it wasnt peaceful and that plenty of people had weapons and were using them to injure, maim, kill and threaten our elected members of Congress.

I find it shameful and disgusting that Mr. York is not demanding all involved in crimes during the armed insurrection on Jan. 6 be held accountable. Instead he is making the semantics of labeling the riot as an armed insurrection seem more important than finding out the truth about what occurred, holding those involved accountable, and administering justice.

Nelson Sagisi

Santa Maria

See the rest here:

Letters to the Editor: Teachers must speak up for students, future; What is the state thinking?; No exercise in bad air; Playing with semantics -...

Police were powerless in Portland last week as Antifa anarchists caused another $500,000 worth of damage in their latest rampage.

The estimate, cited as a minimum by the Portland Police Bureau, came as a consequence of police powers being stripped before an annual demonstration was held in the name of Antifa comrade Sean Kealiher, who was killed by an SUV outside an anarchist bar in 2019.

Im concerned about the brazen criminal acts that took place downtown last night, Police Chief Chuck Lovell said in a Wednesday statement. I want to assure those who were victimized that investigations are underway, and we will do whatever we can to identify and arrest those who were responsible.

No arrests have yet been made after about 100 activists attacked 35 locations including banks, retail stores, coffee shops, and government buildings.

Police were blocked from deploying crowd control measures such as pepper spray and rubber bullets due to legislation passed earlier this year.

The reason that we did not intervene goes back to what we talked about last month with House Bill 2928 and the restrictions placed on us in a crowd control environment, Portland Police Lt. Jake Jensen told residents on Thursday at a neighborhood meeting, as reported by KOIN.

While the law allows an exception during a riot, the damage was done before police managed to make the required formal declaration.

The damage that ensued was premeditated by Kealihers mother, a prison abolitionist who organized the night of rage out of protest over her sons death two years ago. Kealiher was a young Antifa activist-turned-martyr who promoted domestic terrorism cloaked in so-called social justice.

This is not a peaceful event, Laura Kealiher wrote on Twitter ahead of the demonstrations, revealed in screenshots captured by The Post Millennials Andy Ng. Peace police will be kicked out period.

No arrests were made in Kealihers case, the exact circumstances of which remain unknown. According to The Intercept, an argument erupted between Kealiher and a group of his friends and another group outside the Cider Riot, a since-closed bar popular among Antifa activists. The opposing group eventually piled into an SUV, and after briefly turning away returned to hit Kealiher and ram the building. One of Kealihers friends pulled out a licensed handgun and started blasting the car as the driver started to reverse, fleeing the scene on foot with the rest of the passengers.

The police later recovered the vehicle but made no charges. Kealiher was rushed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead after his friends chose not to call the authorities.

Portlands disarming of police is by no means unique at a time of surging crime. Major cities from Minneapolis to Seattle opted to defund police, which led to massive spikes in emergency calls, causing jurisdictions now to reconsider the left-wing solution to community law enforcement.

Lawmakers in Oregon, however, have governed with such a cudgel against opposing values across the rest of the states conservative population that its ignited a movement among its rural counties to demand annexation to join Idaho.

More here:

Police Powerless In Portland As Antifa Destroy $500K More In Property - The Federalist

A West Chester man who admitted to participating in the Jan. 6 riot in Washington pleaded guilty Friday to demonstrating inside the Capitol building.

Gary Wickersham, 81, one of the oldest people arrested for participating in the riot, entered the plea during a remote hearing before U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. The plea, negotiated with federal prosecutors, spared him from more serious charges, including disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds and unauthorized entry into a restricted area.

Wickersham is one of nearly 650 defendants accused of participating in the riot, which occurred after a rally organized by then-President Donald Trump. More than 55 are from Pennsylvania, and nearly a quarter of them have pleaded guilty. Their ranks include a Doylestown woman who recorded herself saying she wanted to shoot House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the friggin brain.

In court filings, FBI agents said they identified Wickersham, an Army veteran, when a friend of his showed them text messages Wickersham sent about his time in the Capitol. The texts were later corroborated by security footage from Washington, as well as photos posted on social media, that show him confronting two officers during the riot.

Wickersham, when interviewed by the agents, admitted participating. He said he traveled by bus to Trumps rally, and then marched toward the Capitol, where he said a mob was cursing, screaming, knocking cops away, breaking down windows and doors, according to court documents.

In his recounting to police, Wickersham blamed antifa for starting the riot, and accused Democrats of purposefully limiting security at the building in an attempt to lure Trumps supporters inside for the sake of arresting them.

He said he followed the group inside and described to agents in detail the path he took through the building.

The judge deferred Wickershams sentencing until December.

Follow this link:

He blamed antifa, but an 81-year-old West Chester man still pleaded guilty to a Capitol riot charge - The Philadelphia Inquirer

Labor standards around the country are under question as never before. After surviving a pandemic, many workers are now very in touch with what kinds of working conditions they are willing to endure.

Under a living wage is one of the conditions people are no longer willing to endure at their place of employment. And employers who are offering poverty wages are beginning to look defensive and obsolete.

One such company is Viahart, a toy company hosted through Amazon and CEO'd by one Molson Hart. Hart's most recent post regarding seeking short-term labor to help unload trucks at poverty wages caught the attention of the internet for its brazen arrogance.

@Molson_Hart Lol. Shocking that someone wouldnt want to unload 35,000 pounds in exchange for 4 iced coffees an hour

@Molson_Hart But $14 is probably good enough. You didnt earn that money; the people in your company earned that https://t.co/SusDR72KEO

@Molson_Hart Here's some helpful info. Hopefully it will lead to a better understanding of your undue entitlement t https://t.co/5TlWA1Kxb9

@Molson_Hart The cheapest 1-bedroom Apt in Texas costs $700/month. Health insurance (which you dont offer) average https://t.co/G1tmQJuZTY

Though $14 per hour is greater than the minimum wage of many states, even the federal government's recent proposal to hike the minimum wage to $15 per hour was not enough to survive in any state in the union, according to recent studies.

I could get like 3 vanilla sweet cream cold brews with $14 an hour. No thanks. Pay better. https://t.co/robArdrNZP

I remember working for $14/hour and only getting a decent paycheck because I worked 70 plus hours a week. No one sh https://t.co/73pejCsZwj

Absolutely hilarious watching this guy get dunked on https://t.co/up0dGaBLHH

So riddle me this you little twerp if YOU don't wanna do it on a CEO-salary how the FUCK do you expect people to wa https://t.co/uLq4M20Jab

how is it wild that $14 isnt enough?? in all of america, you CANNOT live comfortably off of $14 an hr. you need be https://t.co/taAlNK2kWq

Hart has gone viral before, for breaking down a friend's wages who made over $1 million per year, and then trying to justify why that wasn't a lot of money.

The median household income in the United States was $67,521 in 2020, a 2.9% decrease from the median income in 2019, and which is a mere 6% of $1 million.

@Molson_Hart $14 is a lot of money but $400k isnt https://t.co/oUQFVeCKWC

Hart's lack of touch with reality for most American workers has earned him the unbridled contempt of many.

As someone who works in a retail warehouse, $14 part time doesn't even begin to cut it. Lifting heavy items and rep https://t.co/aSII9V1oq6

guy who pays $16,000+ for a 24/7 nanny and has plenty of spending money left over thinks that $14/hour is too much https://t.co/lcHWaQ9xtg

this reeks of daddy paid my way through business school and I havent worked a minimum wage job and paid for adult https://t.co/05mNoxkUD6

do you have a humiliation fetish because between this shit and the "400k isn't a lot of money" tweet it's starting https://t.co/MP1XoDeoFs

Hart's continued neglect of the average American's living conditions shows no signs of abating. His immediate follow-up was to complain about how people were interpreting his tweet, rather than to take accountability.

And either way, he is stuck with a team of two people unloading 35,000 lbs. Karma.

Continued here:

Toy Company CEO Dragged After Complaining He Can't Find Anybody Who Will Work For $14/Hour - Comic Sands

WASHINGTON, D.C. (WCBD) Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) on Thursday voted to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection.

Mace was one of only nine republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, which asks the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against Bannon, who is closely tied to former president Donald Trump.

Congress is an important check on the other branches of government. One critical function for the U.S. Congress to carry out this important check and balance is its ability to provide broad oversight, conduct investigations, and make use of its subpoena power, Mace said.

She continued, saying executive privilege protects the advice given to the President. That protection can be invoked when called before Congress. When Congress issues a subpoena, that individual must appear before Congress and invoke that privilege.

However, critics argue that since Bannon did not actually work in the White House on January 6, he is not covered by executive privilege.

It is now up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to decide whether to prosecute.

Read Maces full statement below:

Congress is an important check on the other branches of government. One critical function for the U.S. Congress to carry out this important check and balance is its ability to provide broad oversight, conduct investigations, and make use of its subpoena power. When Republicans take the majority next year, we will want this same tool in our toolbox to release the spigot, investigating the crises facing our nation: the southern border, the botched exit from Afghanistan, and Antifa, for starters. We will need the same subpoena power upheld today.

Executive privilege protects the advice given to the President. That protection can be invoked when called before Congress. When Congress issues a subpoena, that individual must appear before Congress and invoke that privilege.

I swore an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is what guides my actions each and every day, and every single vote.

Lastly, I want us to imagine the positive impact on our country if Congress invested the same amount of time, energy and effort into investigating violent acts and domestic terrorism within groups such as Antifa or Black Lives Matter. Wed all be better and safer for it.

See the original post here:

Rep. Nancy Mace comments on voting to hold Steve Bannon in contempt - WCBD News 2

Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that the Justice Department "will apply the facts and the law and make a decision" when considering a criminal contempt referral for Steve Bannon which the House voted to approve on Thursday.Garland appeared before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday ahead of the full House vote on a criminal contempt resolution for Bannon. The move will put before the department a decision on whether to prosecute the adviser to former President Donald Trump for his refusal to cooperate in the House's Jan. 6 insurrection investigation.Video above: Garland's opening remarks in front of the House Judiciary Committee"The Department of Justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, we'll apply the facts and the law and make a decision, consistent with the principles of prosecution," Garland said, when asked about referrals approved by the House related to its Jan. 6 probe.In addition to the Bannon contempt referral, lawmakers sought to question Garland about the department's broader response to the Capitol attack, as it has charged more than 600 people who allegedly participated in the mob.An opening statement submitted by Garland for the hearing called the Capitol breach an "intolerable assault, not only on the Capitol and the brave law enforcement personnel who sought to protect it, but also on a fundamental element of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power." "I have great confidence in the prosecutors who are undertaking these cases. They are doing exactly what they are expected to do: make careful determinations about the facts and the applicable law in each individual case," the statement reads.Democrats repeatedly praised the department for its "important work of bringing those responsible for the violence of Jan. 6 to justice," as Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler put it.Video above: Garland on charging Steve Bannon with contempt"I ask only that you continue to follow the facts and the law where they lead because although you have rightly brought hundreds of charges against those who physically trespassed in the Capitol, the evidence suggests that you will soon have some hard decisions to make about those who organized and incited the attack in the first place," the New York Democrat said.Still there were some indications from some Democratic concerns, particularly from Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal. She asked Garland about the pace of the prosecutions as well as reports that Garland was concerned that jailing Jan. 6 defendants would further radicalize them.Garland said that the time the prosecutions have taken is "is really not long at all," given the challenges of tracking down the defendants, the amount of discovery in the cases, and the way the pandemic affects courtroom operations.He said he recalled a "different context" than what was reported about his comments about radicalization in jail. He also addressed the critiques from some judges about how harshly the DOJ was treating the Jan. 6 defendants."There are some judges that are criticizing the kind of charges we're bringing being not harsh enough, but there are other judges who are criticizing the same charges as being too harsh," Garland said. "As I've mentioned before this comes with the territory of being a prosecutor."Garland defends school board threats memo attacked by RepublicansRepublicans at the hearing zeroed in on a memo issued by the department earlier this month laying out steps it was taking to address threats against local school board officials, which conservatives have mischaracterized as the DOJ spying on parents exercising their First Amendment rights to protest school policies like mask mandates.Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the committee, claimed the FBI's move to facilitate lines of communication to report threats amounted to the FBI creating a "snitch line on parents."Video above: Garland defends the investigation into violent threats against local school boardsGarland defended the memo and said that "we are not investigating peaceful protest or parent involvement at school board meetings."We are only concerned about violence, threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, staff, people like your mother a teacher, that is what we're worried about," Garland said. "We are worried about that across the board we're worried about threats against members of Congress, we're worried about threats against police."Nadler offered a rebuttal to Republicans' criticisms in his opening remarks, telling Garland he was "absolutely right to ask the FBI and federal prosecutors to meet with local law enforcement agencies and set up dedicated lines of communication, so that we can confront this spike in violence head on."Democratic skepticism of DOJ move to shield Trump from defamation suitBut Garland has not entirely escaped Democratic skepticism. Earlier this year, the committee's majority questioned the department's move to keep alive a Trump-era effort to shield the former president from a defamation lawsuit.Rep. Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, asked Garland directly about the decision.Video above: Garland stands by representing Trump in defamation lawsuit"Sometimes being the attorney general and sometimes being the judge, that means taking positions with respect to the law that are required by the law, but which you would not take as a private citizen," Garland said. "In this circumstance, the Justice Department's briefing is not about whether this was defamation or it wasn't defamation, it was solely on the question on the application of the tort claims act."As both the congressional and Justice Department investigations into the Capitol breach roll along, Republicans have sought to focus attention on DOJ's handling of antifa-related violence, which some GOP lawmakers have equated to the attack on Congress's election certification vote. They've also critiqued legal guidance put out by the department related to restrictive state election rules.Garland's prepared opening statement laid out the work the department has done "reinvigorating civil rights enforcement" as he highlighted the department's focus on voting rights in particular a subject that could cause a clash with the committee's Republicans who have defended restrictive election laws that have been passed recently by states."We are scrutinizing new laws that seek to curb voter access, and where we see violations, we will not hesitate to act," Garland's prepared opening statement said. "We are also scrutinizing current laws and practices to determine whether they discriminate against Black voters and other voters of color."Garland, a former appellate judge, has in the past pledged his commitment to keep partisanship out of the department's decisions."I have grown pretty immune to any kind of pressure, other than the pressure to do what I think is the right thing, given the facts and the law," Garland said during his February Senate confirmation hearing. "That is what I intend to do as the attorney general, I don't care who pressures me in whatever direction."

Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that the Justice Department "will apply the facts and the law and make a decision" when considering a criminal contempt referral for Steve Bannon which the House voted to approve on Thursday.

Garland appeared before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday ahead of the full House vote on a criminal contempt resolution for Bannon. The move will put before the department a decision on whether to prosecute the adviser to former President Donald Trump for his refusal to cooperate in the House's Jan. 6 insurrection investigation.

Video above: Garland's opening remarks in front of the House Judiciary Committee

"The Department of Justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, we'll apply the facts and the law and make a decision, consistent with the principles of prosecution," Garland said, when asked about referrals approved by the House related to its Jan. 6 probe.

In addition to the Bannon contempt referral, lawmakers sought to question Garland about the department's broader response to the Capitol attack, as it has charged more than 600 people who allegedly participated in the mob.

An opening statement submitted by Garland for the hearing called the Capitol breach an "intolerable assault, not only on the Capitol and the brave law enforcement personnel who sought to protect it, but also on a fundamental element of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power."

"I have great confidence in the prosecutors who are undertaking these cases. They are doing exactly what they are expected to do: make careful determinations about the facts and the applicable law in each individual case," the statement reads.

Democrats repeatedly praised the department for its "important work of bringing those responsible for the violence of Jan. 6 to justice," as Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler put it.

Video above: Garland on charging Steve Bannon with contempt

"I ask only that you continue to follow the facts and the law where they lead because although you have rightly brought hundreds of charges against those who physically trespassed in the Capitol, the evidence suggests that you will soon have some hard decisions to make about those who organized and incited the attack in the first place," the New York Democrat said.

Still there were some indications from some Democratic concerns, particularly from Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal. She asked Garland about the pace of the prosecutions as well as reports that Garland was concerned that jailing Jan. 6 defendants would further radicalize them.

Garland said that the time the prosecutions have taken is "is really not long at all," given the challenges of tracking down the defendants, the amount of discovery in the cases, and the way the pandemic affects courtroom operations.

He said he recalled a "different context" than what was reported about his comments about radicalization in jail. He also addressed the critiques from some judges about how harshly the DOJ was treating the Jan. 6 defendants.

"There are some judges that are criticizing the kind of charges we're bringing being not harsh enough, but there are other judges who are criticizing the same charges as being too harsh," Garland said. "As I've mentioned before this comes with the territory of being a prosecutor."

Republicans at the hearing zeroed in on a memo issued by the department earlier this month laying out steps it was taking to address threats against local school board officials, which conservatives have mischaracterized as the DOJ spying on parents exercising their First Amendment rights to protest school policies like mask mandates.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the committee, claimed the FBI's move to facilitate lines of communication to report threats amounted to the FBI creating a "snitch line on parents."

Video above: Garland defends the investigation into violent threats against local school boards

Garland defended the memo and said that "we are not investigating peaceful protest or parent involvement at school board meetings.

"We are only concerned about violence, threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, staff, people like your mother a teacher, that is what we're worried about," Garland said. "We are worried about that across the board we're worried about threats against members of Congress, we're worried about threats against police."

Nadler offered a rebuttal to Republicans' criticisms in his opening remarks, telling Garland he was "absolutely right to ask the FBI and federal prosecutors to meet with local law enforcement agencies and set up dedicated lines of communication, so that we can confront this spike in violence head on."

But Garland has not entirely escaped Democratic skepticism. Earlier this year, the committee's majority questioned the department's move to keep alive a Trump-era effort to shield the former president from a defamation lawsuit.

Rep. Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, asked Garland directly about the decision.

Video above: Garland stands by representing Trump in defamation lawsuit

"Sometimes being the attorney general and sometimes being the judge, that means taking positions with respect to the law that are required by the law, but which you would not take as a private citizen," Garland said. "In this circumstance, the Justice Department's briefing is not about whether this was defamation or it wasn't defamation, it was solely on the question on the application of the tort claims act."

As both the congressional and Justice Department investigations into the Capitol breach roll along, Republicans have sought to focus attention on DOJ's handling of antifa-related violence, which some GOP lawmakers have equated to the attack on Congress's election certification vote. They've also critiqued legal guidance put out by the department related to restrictive state election rules.

Garland's prepared opening statement laid out the work the department has done "reinvigorating civil rights enforcement" as he highlighted the department's focus on voting rights in particular a subject that could cause a clash with the committee's Republicans who have defended restrictive election laws that have been passed recently by states.

"We are scrutinizing new laws that seek to curb voter access, and where we see violations, we will not hesitate to act," Garland's prepared opening statement said. "We are also scrutinizing current laws and practices to determine whether they discriminate against Black voters and other voters of color."

Garland, a former appellate judge, has in the past pledged his commitment to keep partisanship out of the department's decisions.

"I have grown pretty immune to any kind of pressure, other than the pressure to do what I think is the right thing, given the facts and the law," Garland said during his February Senate confirmation hearing. "That is what I intend to do as the attorney general, I don't care who pressures me in whatever direction."

Read more:

Garland addresses Bannon, jailed Jan. 6 rioters and school board threats - WAPT Jackson

A man who participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol and joined the Army after January 6 has been arrested for his actions on that day.

Specialist James Mault was taken into custody on the morning of Thursday, October 7 at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina, according to a spokesman for Fort Bragg.

Mault joined the Army in May and was serving as a combat engineer at the time of his arrest. He had previously served in the Army as a Patriot operator before he left active duty as a sergeant in 2016. From 2016 to March 2020, he was a combat engineer in the New York Army National Guard.

He's the sixth service member who was currently a member of the military when arrested, but he is the only one who wasn't in enlisted at the time of his participation in January 6 rioting. Of the other five, one was on active duty and the other four were in the Reserve or Guard.

"The Army was unaware of any involvement Spc. Mault may have had in the incidents on January 6 or of any information disqualifying him at the time of his enlistment," Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Gabriel Ramirez told CBS News in a statement.

Ramirez also said the Army focuses on identifying and screening out applicants with a history of extremist and criminal activity before they join the Army by conducting identification and criminal background checks, sex offender queries, local police and court document checks and sending fingerprints to the FBI.

"The Army will continue to work with the FBI and other entities with inputs into the pre-screening process to obtain relevant information to inform Army enlistment decisions," Ramirez said.

But the FBI was aware months earlier of Mault's alleged involvement in the Capitol attack FBI special agents had interviewed him on January 18. According to the charging documents, Mault admitted he had attended the rally with five friends and told investigators he had worn his work hard had "because he was aware of ANTIFA attacking Trump supporters after events in Washington." He said he thought the hat would offer some protection. The FBI said there is no indication that ANTIFA was involved in the January 6 attack.

Story continues

Mault is being charged with multiple violent crimes as a result of his alleged participation in the January 6 riot.

Prosecutors say he and codefendant Cody Mattice assaulted officers after spraying them with chemicals.

Mault denied assaulting anyone or damaging property during the attack, investigators said, but the videos they collected from that day tell a different story.

FILE: James Mault, seen in hard hat at Capitol on January 6, 2021. / Credit: Government exhibit

Investigators said that Capitol security cameras and open-source videos collected from January 6 show Mault and Mattice pushed to the front of the mob on the Capitol's south side entrance, pointing canisters at law enforcement and spraying them with the contents.

Charging documents allege that, when confronted by investigators weeks after the riot, "Mault described being caught up in the crowd and the mass of people pushed him closer and closer to the Capitol Building," adding he "claimed to have no choice but to move forward because of the press of people behind him. Mault ended up right next to an entrance to the Capitol Building but denied entering the Capitol Building."

Screengrab of James Mault, seen in hard hat at top of screen on January 6, 2021 at U.S. Capitol. / Credit: Government exhibit

In total, CBS News has confirmed 69 current or former service members have been arrested in relation to the Capitol riot.

UK member of Parliament dies after stabbing attack

Checking in on Englands pubs, post-pandemic

California police use Twitter tell victim's story and solve a decades-old cold case

See the original post here:

Army soldier who enlisted after his participation in Jan 6 riot arrested - Yahoo News