'Striking legal question': State court debates whether cops who rioted on Jan. 6 can hide

ALSO READ: Trumpism has reached its tipping point — even this hardcore conservative knows it

'Striking legal question': State court debates whether cops who rioted on Jan. 6 can hide
Capitol rioters on Jan. 6, 2021. (Shutterstock)

Justices on the Washington Supreme Court must decide whether police officers who attended former President Donald Trump's Jan. 6 "Stop the Steal" rally have a right to anonymity, according to a new report.

Six Seattle Police department officers — two of them fired months after the historic Capitol riots in 2021— who attended the riots are at the heart of a new case covered Wednesday by Law & Crime's Brandi Buchman.

"A striking legal question came before justices," she writes. "Must their names — and those results — be revealed to the public?"

Per the report, married former officers Caitlin Everett and Alexander Everett were in the area where rioters were scaling the walls and local police scrambled to fend them off.

"The SPD police chief in 2021, Adrian Diaz, ordered all officers to come forward if they were at the Capitol or attended any related events so they could present themselves for formal scrutiny by the Office of Police Accountability, or OPA," writes Buchman.

"Diaz resoundingly declared it 'absurd' of the couple to suggest that the evidence [Office of Police Accountability] amassed did not show them trespassing directly in a zone where 'they should not be amidst what was already a violent, criminal riot.'"

"It does not appear that any criminal federal charges have been filed against the couple at this time," noted the report. "As for the four other officers, who are all currently on active duty, OPA investigators determined in a final report that three did not violate department policy while a fourth officer’s conduct was deemed inconclusive."

A former law student named Sam Sueoka made public records requests to reveal the officers' identities and more information about them, which prompted the officers to tell courts that they should have a constitutional right to keep that information private.

Lower courts ruled against them, but an appeals court found OPA should consider whether these requests violate the officers' rights — namely, because they were not charged with a crime, but the disclosure of their identities could cause people to associate them with the January 6 rioters, causing harm to their reputations.

A number of people who were arrested for involvement in the Jan. 6 attack are current or former law enforcement, including a former FBI special agent who called for Capitol Police to be killed.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

Trump makes Karoline Leavitt look foolish with 'nonsensical' election comment: analysis

An attempt by Karoline Leavitt to explain away an outlandish Donald Trump comment has backfired and made her look foolish, a political commentator has suggested.

The White House Press Secretary had been asked to explain what the president meant when he called for the Republican Party to "nationalize the voting" in 15 states. The specific states were not mentioned by Trump, who made the comment in a speech broadcast on the former United States Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Dan Bongino's podcast.

Trump's claim that the Republican Party should "nationalize" the elections had been walked back by Leavitt, who suggested it is the president's way of referring to Congress passing the SAVE Act. This was then rebuked by Trump, who confirmed he had been talking about voting in specific states, rather than across the country.

CNN analyst Aaron Blake wrote, "She [Leavitt] claimed Trump was instead referring to Congress passing the SAVE Act, a bill that aims to combat noncitizen voting in federal elections – something that is already illegal and that experts say rarely happens.

"That was nonsensical, of course. The SAVE Act would add federal requirements to register to vote, sure, but Trump was talking about taking over the voting in a specific number of places (15) – not passing a law that would apply to the whole country.

"And sure enough, Trump on Tuesday made clear that he meant what he said. Asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins what he meant by nationalize the election, he made no mention of the SAVE Act and doubled down on the idea of the federal government asserting a more expansive form of control."

Trump would pass comment again on the 15 states, saying that if a state cannot run an election it should be up to "the people behind me" to do something about it, referring to the Republicans standing behind him in the Oval Office at the time.

Blake added, "It’s the kind of contradiction that would be a scandal in any other administration. Trump’s top spokesperson said he meant one thing, and that turned out not to be true. If nothing else, it’s a huge mark against a spokesperson’s credibility. After all, their job is to quite literally speak for the president."

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Dems seize 'rare leverage' as Trump stumbles over 'obstacle' to his enrichment scheme

The cryptocurrency industry has been coasting toward favorable regulation thanks to a degree of bipartisan support on Capitol Hill — but that consensus appears to be grinding to a halt as Democrats start asking questions about just how much President Donald Trump's family is personally benefitting from all this, reported Politico.

"Even as the White House presses Congress to pass the industry-friendly legislation, the Trump family’s growing crypto businesses are emerging as an unavoidable obstacle after news that an Abu Dhabi royal backed a $500-million investment in a Trump-linked venture called World Liberty Financial," said the report. That foreign deal "is hardening Democrats’ resolve to include ethics guardrails in the bill and setting up a major standoff."

Even before that reporting, alarms were raised about World Liberty Financial and its potential to allow the Trump family to solicit foreign bribes.

Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to pass the legislation without Democratic support, so "it’s giving lawmakers on the left a rare point of leverage to address long-festering ethics concerns about the Trump family’s business dealings," the report noted.

Democratic lawmakers involved with these talks have laid out these objections clearly, with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) saying “The Trump administration has demonstrated the grossest, most egregious corruption from the White House we have ever seen,” and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) saying the ethics language must not “treat the president differently than any other federal employee.”

This comes at the same time Democrats are infuriated that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shut down federal efforts at his department to investigate crypto scams.

Expert highlights 'worst-case scenario' after major international nuclear treaty expires

A former US State Department employee has outlined what a "worst-case scenario" would look like following the expiry of the New START deal.

The treaty was a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the US and Russia, which expired today (February 5). Donald Trump claimed that, should the deal expire, the administration would move to put another one into effect, though details of this have not yet been confirmed.

Russia, who suspended its participation in the New START deal in 2023, confirmed they would still abide by the numerical limits imposed by the deal. Rose Gottemoeller, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security at the US State Department, has sounded the alarm on what could be the worst-case scenario for the deal's expiration.

She told CNN that no longer imposing a numerical limit on Russia's weapons of mass destruction "leaves us in the dust while we're still trying to get organized and the Chinese are building up steadily again."

Gottemoeller added a year-long extension could be of benefit to the US, though there is much work to be done when it comes to "plan and prepare" a new deal.

She added, "They have active warhead production lines as well as active production lines for other related components for their missile systems that they would be able to upload rapidly. We know they have that industrial capacity available, and we do not have it."

Matthew Kroenig, vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, disagreed and suggested the treaty is not as powerful a deterrent as the US nuclear arsenal itself.

He said, "In theory, it is nice to have limitations, but the main goal of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear war, not to have treaties."

Trump was flippant when asked about the treaty last month, saying, "If it expires, it expires. We'll do a better agreement."

Copyright © 2026 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com , for support contact support@rawstory.com .

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}