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

'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.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) fired back at Vice President JD Vance's insult lobbed from the stage of a high-profile conservativhttps://www.rawstory.com/crockett-budget-bill/e conference.

The vice president slammed the Texas Democrat, who's mounting a U.S. Senate challenge for the seat held by Sen. Joh Cornyn (R-TX), from his wide-ranging and racially charged speech at Turning Point USA’s annual America Fest conference in Phoenix.

“Jasmine Crockett!” Vance exclaimed. “Oh, Jasmine Crockett, the record speaks for itself. She wants to be a senator, though her street-girl persona is about as real as her nails!”

Vance’s remarks were met with thunderous applause at the event aimed at young conservatives, but Crockett provided a substantially less positive reaction on social media.

"Imagine commenting on someone’s nails while at the same time ignoring that the only reason you got your political 'dream' job was because your boss incited a violent mob who wanted to hang your predecessor for, oh I don’t know, honoring his oath to the Constitution?!" Crockett posted on her X account. "How about you stop worrying about me, until we are on the Senate floor together & work to stop your boss from bankrupting our country while engaging in the largest corruption scheme we’ve ever seen?!"

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

CBS News cut an upcoming "60 Minutes" report at the last minute on the infamous CECOT prison in El Salvador, setting off an outcry on social media.

The network's flagship news magazine had been scheduled to broadcast a report Sunday on a group of Venezuelan men thought they were being deported back to their country of origin, but instead, they were delivered to CECOT, until the plans were scrapped about two hours before the program was set to air.

"The broadcast lineup for tonight's edition of 60 minutes has been updated," the program posted on its social media accounts. "Our report 'Inside CECOT' will air in a future broadcast."

The decision sparked criticism and raised questions about its newly installed editor-in-chief Bari Weiss immediately.

"Murrow dies again," sighed popular Bluesky account Grudgie the Whale.

"A news program with a legacy built up over 55 years," lamented Bluesky user Skeet Child O' Mine. "All torched by Bari Weiss in under a year."

"I grew up watching 60 Minutes every Sunday with my dad," stated Bluesky user Lee Marvin Oswald. "I continued that tradition with my own family. No more. You have really failed us. What a sad end to such a storied and long-running institution. And for what? Pathetic."

"Bari Weiss going from purported brave defender of free speech and open debate to chief censor of reporting about a federal concentration camp is so grimly hilarious," opined Bluesky user Stephen Judkins.

"Bari Weiss is really bad at her job," posted journalist Dave Itzkoff, "until you realize it's her job to be really bad at her job, in which case she is excellent at her job."

"WOW. They're not going to air their special on CECOT," noted popular Bluesky user Mueller, She Wrote. "I'd like to know who made this decision, and whether the federal government had a hand in it."

"Perhaps we should film a debate between a concentration camp guard and an abandoned toilet over whether CECOT is good," suggested journalist Matt Pearce, alluding to another highly criticized recent decision by CBS News. "Brought to you by Bank of America."

"What changed between now & Friday’s press release about this now delayed (or actually canceled?) @60minutes.bsky.social segment on the CECOT torture prison? Seems very odd," pondered journalist Jennifer Schulze. "Anyone know if 60 Minutes has ever delayed a piece at the last minute before?"

"Bari’s CBS pulled their CECOT report which included interviews with immigrants who were tortured in this concentration camp," said journalist Krystall Ball. "The Trump regime does not want you to know what was done to these people."

Attorney General Pam Bondi was hit with a fact check when she stated her commitment to prosecuting anyone involved with Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sex trafficking network.

President Donald Trump's attorney general responded to threats by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) to hold her in contempt of Congress for failing to release documents related to the late sex offender in violation of a law passed last month, pledging she would ensure others in his network would be prosecuted.

The Department of Justice previously stated we will bring charges against anyone involved in the trafficking and exploitation of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims," Bondi posted. "We reaffirm this commitment, and ask any victim to please come forward with any information pertaining to any individuals who engaged in illicit activity at their expense. We have met with many victims and victims groups, and will continue to do so if more reach out."

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told NBC's “Meet the Press” that he didn’t take the bipartisan lawmakers' threats seriously, and Bondi encouraged anyone with information about the Epstein case to contact her or her deputy.

"Please contact myself, DAG Blanche, or the FBI and we will investigate immediately," she posted. "We believe in the equal standard of justice in this country and will ensure that Justice is served."

However, many social media users pointed out that Bondi's post directly contradicted her position that caused the Epstein matter to explode back into public consciousness over the summer, when the DOJ and FBI announced that no further evidence about the case would be released.

"The Justice Department and the FBI previously stated less than 6 months ago that there was not enough information in these documents to even open a new case into any uncharged individual," pointed out NBC News correspondent Tom Winters.

"Give me a break! You have the documents and many of the pedophiles with the documents," groused X user Dede Watson. "You are involved IN THE COVERUP."

"Madam AG, How many of Epstein’s victims have you and DAG Blanche met with?" asked X user Turnbull. "That’s a rhetorical question because the answer is zero."

"They should have been arrested by now - what is taking so long?"wondered self-described Christian conservative X user Renatta.

"You have all the files, all the names," added X user Margaret Johnson. "Why are you posting on X for victims to come forward?"

"I guess you were never taught 'actions speak louder than words,'" said self-described America-first veteran Christopher Kelley. "You can speak all you want about Justice, but we see exactly what your actions are doing to Justice. You're delaying her... Justice delayed, is Justice denied. I guess you were never taught that one either."

"Thank you, @agpambondi. One thing that @TheJusticeDept could do better — making clear precisely how victims and witnesses can contact the department," offered Tufts economist Ben Badejo. "In some cases, DOJ email addresses are set up and publicly posted for particular matters, presumably in coordination with Victims and Witness Assistance offices. In other case, this does not occur. In some cases, particular FBI email addresses are publicly provided. In other cases, not. It could be helpful for people to be told more often exactly how matters of certain kinds can be brought to the attention of the appropriate offices, and for both @TheJusticeDept and the @fbi to commit resources to enabling this more regularly."

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}