All posts tagged "merrick garland"

Don't blame liberals — or reporters — for politicizing the court

By Joshua Boston, Associate Professor of Political Science, Bowling Green State University, and Christopher Krewson, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brigham Young University.

The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled on politically controversial issues. From elections to civil rights, from abortion to free speech, the justices frequently weigh in on the country’s most debated problems.

And because of the court’s influence over national policy, political parties and interest groups battle fiercely over who gets appointed to the high court.

The public typically finds out about the court — including its significant decisions and the politics surrounding appointments — from the news media. While elected officeholders and candidates make direct appeals to their voters, the justices and Supreme Court nominees are different — they largely rely on the news to disseminate information about the court, giving the public at least a cursory understanding.

Recently, something has changed in newspaper coverage of the Supreme Court. As scholars of judicial politics, political institutions and political behavior, we set out to understand precisely how media coverage of the court has changed over the past 40 years. Specifically, we analyzed the content of every article referencing the Supreme Court in five major newspapers from 1980 to 2023.

Of course, people get their news from a variety of sources, but we have no reason to believe the trends we uncovered in our research of traditional newspapers do not apply broadly. Research indicates that alternative media sources largely follow the lead of traditional beat reporters.

What we found: Politics has a much stronger presence in articles today than in years past, with a notable increase beginning in 2016.

When public goodwill prevailed

Not many cases have been more important in the past quarter-century or, from a partisan perspective, more contentious than Bush v. Gore — the December 2000 ruling that stopped a ballot recount, resulting in then-Texas Governor George W. Bush defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore and winning the presidential election.

Bush v. Gore is particularly interesting to us because nine unelected, life-tenured justices functionally decided an election.

Surprisingly, the court’s public support didn’t suffer, ostensibly because the court had built up a sufficient store of public goodwill.

One reason public support remained steady following Bush v. Gore might be newspaper coverage. Although the court’s decision reflected the justices’ ideologies, with the more conservative members effectively voting to end the recount and its more liberal members voting in favor of the recount, newspapers largely ignored the role of politics in the decision.

For example, the New York Times case coverage indicated the justices’ names and their votes but mentioned neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings. The words “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal” and “conservative” — what we call political frames — do not appear in the Dec. 13, 2000, story about the decision.

This epitomizes court-related newspaper articles from the 1980s to the early 2000s, when reporters treated the court as a nonpolitical institution. According to our research, court-related news articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal hardly used political frames during that time.

Instead, newspapers perpetuated a dominant belief among the public that Supreme Court decisions were based almost completely on legal principles rather than political preferences. This belief, in turn, bolstered support for the court.

Recent newspaper coverage reveals a starkly different pattern.

A contemporary political court

It would be nearly impossible to read contemporary articles about the Supreme Court without getting the impression that it is just as political as Congress and the presidency.

Analyzing our data from 1980 to 2023, the average number of political frames per article tripled. To be sure, politics has always played a role in the court’s decisions. Now, newspapers are making that clear. The question is when this change occurred.

Across the five major newspapers, reporting about the court has gradually become more political over time. That isn’t surprising: America has been gradually polarizing since the 1980s as well, and the changes in news media coverage reflect that polarization.

Take February of 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died. Of course, justices have died while serving on the court before. But Scalia was a conservative icon, and his death could have swung the court to the center or the left.

How the politics of naming his successor played out after Scalia’s death was unprecedented.

President Barack Obama’s nomination effort to put Merrick Garland on the court were stonewalled. The Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the Senate would not consider any nomination until after the presidential election, nine months from Scalia’s death.

Republican candidate Donald Trump, seeing an opening, promised to fill the vacancy with a conservative justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The court and the 2016 election became inseparable.

Scalia vacancy changed everything

February 2016 brought about an abrupt and lasting change in newspaper coverage. The day before Scalia’s death, a typical article referencing the court used 3.22 political frames.

The day after, 10.48.

We see an uptick in political frames if we consider annual changes as well. In 2015, newspapers averaged 3.50 political frames per article about the Supreme Court. Then, in 2016, 5.30.

Using a variety of statistical methods to identify enduring framing shifts, we consistently find February 2016 as the moment newspapers shifted to higher levels of political framing of the court. We find the number of political frames in newspapers remained elevated through 2023.

How stories frame something shapes how people think about it.

If an article frames a court decision as “originalist” — an analytical approach that says constitutional texts should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they became law — then readers might think of the court as legalistic.

But if the newspaper were to frame the decision as “conservative,” then readers might think of the court as ideological.

We found in our study that when people read an article about a court decision using political frames, court approval declines. That’s because most people desire a legal court rather than a political one. No wonder polls today find the court with precariously low public support.

We do not necessarily hold journalists responsible for the court’s dramatic decline in public support. The bigger issue may be the court rather than reporters. If the court acts politically, and the justices behave ideologically, then reporters are doing their job: writing accurate stories.

That poses yet another problem. Before Trump’s three court appointments, the bench was known for its relative balance. Sometimes decisions were liberal; other times, conservative.

In June 2013, the court provided protections to same-sex marriages. Two days earlier, the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. A liberal win, a conservative win — that’s what we might expect from a legal institution.

Today the court is different. For most salient issues, the court supports conservative policies.

Given, first, the media’s willingness to emphasize the court’s politics, and second, the justices’ ideologically consistent decisions across critical issues, it is unlikely that the news media retreats from political framing anytime soon.

If that’s the case, the court may need to adjust to its low public approval.

Right-wing influencer's conviction for trying to trick Black voters thrown out

A right-wing social media influencer who was sentenced to seven months in federal prison for trying to trick Black and Brown Americans out of voting in the 2016 presidential election has been exonerated.

Douglass Mackey, who went by the online persona of "Ricky Vaughn," wrote in all caps on X Wednesday, "The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out my conviction for lack of evidence. The case has ben remanded to the district court with orders to immediately dismiss."

Mackey was convicted of election interference after tweeting in Nov. 2016 about "limiting black turnout," then posting an image "that featured an African American woman standing in front of an 'African Americans for Hillary' sign," according to the DOJ indictment. "The image included the following text: 'Avoid the Line. Vote from Home. Text 'Hillary' to 59925. Vote for Hillary and be a part of history.'"

A second image Mackey tweeted shortly thereafter depicted "a woman seated at a conference room typing a message on her cell phone. This deceptive image was written in Spanish and mimicked a font used by the Clinton campaign in authentic ads. The image also included a copy of the Clinton campaign’s logo and the 'ImWithHer' hashtag," according to the DOJ under Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Mackey's prison sentence was suspended in 2023 pending appeal.

In its decision, the appeals court wrote, "the mere fact that Mackey posted the memes, even assuming that he did so with the intent to injure other citizens in the exercise of their right to vote, is not enough, standing alone, to prove a violation of Section 241. The government was obligated to show that Mackey knowingly entered into an agreement with other people to pursue that objective."

Mackey also posted Wednesday, "Now we sue," and "I can finally get my guns back."

'Loyalty to a tyrant': Liz Cheney issues Senate warning over Jan. 6 report

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), whom Donald Trump has threatened to jail over her role in the Jan. 6 investigation into his alleged election subversion, touted the release of the J6 report and questioned whether Republicans would give their "loyalty to a tyrant" by blindly supporting the president-elect.

The DOJ released special counsel Jack Smith's report shortly before 1 a.m. Tuesday, after Trump fought tooth-and-nail to prevent it from going public.

In the report, Smith concluded that "If Donald Trump hadn’t won the presidential election in November, the Justice Department would have had ample evidence to convict him at trial of trying to obstruct the 2020 election results," according to The Washington Post.

Cheney posted on social media Tuesday morning, "The Special Counsel’s 1/6 Report, made public last night, confirms the unavoidable facts of 1/6 yet again. DOJ’s exhaustive and independent investigation reached the same essential conclusions as the Select Committee. All this DOJ evidence must be preserved."

ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife

Cheney then questioned Republicans as they hold confirmation hearings on Trump's most controversial nominees, including Kash Patel for FBI director, Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, and Pete Hegseth for defense secretary.

"But most important now, as the Senate considers confirming Trump’s Justice Department nominees: if those nominees cooperated with Trump’s deceit to overturn the 2020 election, they cannot now be entrusted with the responsibility to preserve the rule of law and protect our Republic," Cheney wrote. "As our framers knew, our institutions only hold when those in office are not compromised by personal loyalty to a tyrant. So this question is now paramount for Republicans: Will you faithfully perform the duties the framers assigned to you and do what the Constitution requires? Or do you lack the courage?"

According to a CNN analyst, the J6 report cited "many instances" where "Trump knew the election was not stolen in 2020, that there was not widespread fraud that could have delivered him a victory, and that he continued to lie to his supporters."

Trump responded on social media to the report's release, writing, "Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report' based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were," Trump posted shortly after the report's release.

Cheney, a Republican, was the vice chairwoman of the J6 Select Committee investigating Trump's alleged involvement in election subversion, which led to his second impeachment. Trump was ultimately acquitted by Senate Republicans.

CNN's Elie Honig breaks down how Trump could still 'gum things up' over J6 report

President-elect Donald Trump could still "gum things up" to prevent the Department of Justice from releasing Jack Smith's final report on Trump's efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election, according to CNN legal analyst Elie Honig.

Honig told CNN's Dana Bash on Monday that Trump will have to rely on delay tactics because he has "no legal basis" for any court to step in and deny the report's release.

"What the Trump team would essentially be asking to do here is to prohibit DOJ from releasing the January 6th special report. That's separate...from the classified documents report. There is simply no legal basis on which a court can stop DOJ from releasing that," Honig said.

"Donald Trump really can't show any ongoing prejudice here because he's already been dismissed from these two cases," Honig continued. "That's actually why the classified documents decision to hold that one back and to keep that one just for Congress is a different case, because there's still two defendants live in that case."

ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife

Trump's co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliviera, filed an emergency motion that was denied Monday by Judge Aileen Cannon. Judge Cannon set a hearing date of Friday on whether to authorize the release of that final report.

But she ruled that Smith's report into the election interference case that was being handled in D.C. — but which was dismissed — can be released — though more complaints may be received.

According to CNN, "Trump’s lawyers are arguing the separate volume on election subversion should not be released as well, alleging Cannon’s ruling disqualifying Smith in the documents case ended his authority to release that aspect of his report as well."

Honig concluded that he did think the J6 report would ultimately be released to the public, "but, again, it's all about managing the calendar and the clock here," he said.

"If Donald Trump can hold this thing off another week, almost to the moment when he can become the next president, then his DOJ can choose not to release it. So, just to sum up, I don't think he has any legal basis to get a court to stop it but if he can gum things up for another seven days, then it becomes his DOJ, and I'm sure they will not release it."

Watch the clip below via CNN.

‘Getting Jeffrey Dahmer for littering’: Gaetz, MTG want more Biden family pain

WASHINGTON — House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden all but unraveled, but you wouldn’t know that from talking to House Republicans this week.

They’re out for Biden family blood more than ever.

The GOP’s cheering of a damning verdict for presidential son Hunter Biden — found guilty of lying on a federal firearm form and illegally owning a gun — have proven short-lived.

ALSO READ: ‘Journalistic dystopian nightmare’: Inside a Tennessee college media meltdown

On Capitol Hill, the mood amongst Republicans is mostly anger as the party overflows with complaints about “a two-tiered” system of justice — even after the president’s son was successfully prosecuted by the same Department of Justice they decry for its pursuit of former President Donald Trump.

“No one's taking it seriously, because the Department of Justice, if they were actually a real justice system, they would have charged him for FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act]. They would be charging him for human sex trafficking,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) told Raw Story while walking to the Capitol to vote Wednesday.

MTG’s far from alone.

On Wednesday, three powerful Republican committee chairs sent the Department of Justice criminal referrals for Hunter and James Biden, the president’s brother.

ALSO READ: 8 ways convicted felon Donald Trump doesn't become president

The two Bidens made false statements to their committees that "implicate Joe Biden’s knowledge and role in his family’s influence peddling schemes and appear to be a calculated effort to shield Joe Biden from the impeachment inquiry," wrote Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY), Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-MO).

Those criminal referrals were sent to Special Counsel David Weiss and Attorney General Merrick Garland on the same day House Republicans voted to hold Garland in contempt for turning over a transcript of President Biden’s interview with the special prosecutor while withholding audio of it.

In the wake of the Hunter Biden guilty verdict, Republicans now say Department of Justice lawyers are complicit in a cover up.

“I think it's just an attempt to try to say, ‘Oh, we're not a two-tier justice system,’” Greene said. “And they [don’t] want to prosecute BLM rioters, Antifa and all these other people that caused $2 billion in damage.”

It’s more than just a different system of justice: the “deep state” is now in the driver’s seat at the DOJ, according to many in the GOP.

“The Hunter Biden trial was a veneer. There wasn't a sincere prosecution,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told Raw Story.

While House Republicans voted along party lines to launch a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden at the end of last year, the effort has gone nowhere in the GOP-controlled House.

That’s in part because their star witness, retired Russian figure skater Alexander Smirnov, went from being an FBI informant to being charged with lying and creating false documents about President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

While on a private fundraising call last year, Gaetz dismissed the Biden impeachment effort — “I don’t believe that we are endeavoring upon a legitimate impeachment of Joe Biden” — since then he’s been raising alarms about bribes the Oversight Committee has failed to link to the president.

ALSO READ: ‘MIA MTG’: Why Marjorie Taylor Greene has no publicly listed district offices

Even though his committee has failed to make the case that Biden corruption is a family affair leading all the way to the White House, Gaetz dismisses the Hunter Biden gun case as “dumb.” He says DOJ lawyers need to do more — and broaden their investigation.

“I identify strongly with the statement from the Trump campaign that it was a distraction from the real Biden crimes. These guys are moving around millions of dollars in Chinese bribe money, and what we got him on was lying on a gun form? It’d be like getting Jeffrey Dahmer for littering,” Gaetz said, referencing the convicted serial killer.

Dumb or not, many Republicans are now watching to see whether Hunter Biden gets any jail time for his first time, non-violent felony conviction.

“Well, I think they considered the facts and found him guilty. It’ll be interesting to see what his consequences are,” Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) told Raw Story. “If you’re on drugs, should you really have a gun? It’s either a law or it’s not a law. If they don’t believe in it, it’s like anything else, you gotta change it.”

While Norman’s closely watching the case against the first son, he, too, accuses the Department of Justice of playing politics even after the special prosecutor won a conviction this week.

“I do think it's a smokescreen,” Norman said. “I mean, look at what Hunter Biden’s gotten by with. $8 million in art sales. I don’t think he’s an artist.”

President Biden has said he will not pardon Hunter Biden.

“I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal," President Biden said. "Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today. So many families who have had loved ones battle addiction understand the feeling of pride seeing someone you love come out the other side and be so strong and resilient in recovery."

President Biden also reaffirmed his loyalty to his family.

"Jill and I will always be there for Hunter and the rest of our family with our love and support,” Biden said. “Nothing will ever change that."

'Shameful': Lawmaker slams GOP's 'smokescreen' contempt vote against Merrick Garland

The House GOP's vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress was a politically motivated sham, assistant Democratic leader Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) told MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Wednesday evening.

The contempt referral, which is expected to go nowhere because the Justice Department itself has the final say on whether to bring charges, stems from the GOP's demands for raw footage of President Joe Biden's interview with former special counsel Robert Hur in the classified documents case — a demand that Neguse slammed as completely frivolous.

"The scandal machine has basically run out of fuel and now, out of desperation, Republicans are demanding Attorney General Merrick Garland release the audiotape of President Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Hur," said Hayes. "Even though Republicans already have the entire transcript of that interview. Today, they voted to hold the attorney general in contempt ... Congressman, what was this all about?"

"Unfortunately, it is a sad state of affairs in Washington, D.C. as extreme House Republicans have once again found a way to weaponize what are very constitutional and serious tools that the Congress has at its disposal," said Neguse.

ALSO READ: ‘Glaring crisis’: Postal service blasted for poor policing amid crime wave

"In this case, as you articulated, they pursued a baseless contempt resolution against the attorney general," said Neguse. "By way of background, as many of your viewers already know, the attorney general fully complied with the requests made by the Congress. The Department of Justice produced over 90,000 pages of documents with respect to this inquiry — more, by the way, Chris, than the entire Department of Justice provided during the course of the Trump administration — and also produced the transcript itself of the president's conversation with the special counsel. The pretextual reasons House Republicans offered for purposes of the audio were clearly a smokescreen for what was a political exercise. They wanted audiotapes to use them for a campaign commercial. And the attorney general cited a number of reasons why, ultimately, that tape could not be provided. The president invoked executive privilege, and Republicans in the House, of course, know that to be the case, but they proceeded anyway."

"Unfortunately, I think it is shameful and disgraceful, and we will have to see what comes next in the clown show that they have perpetrated on the American people right now," he added.

Watch the video below or at the link here.

Joe Neguse slams GOP contempt referral for Merrick Garlandwww.youtube.com

'Irony': MAGA senator roasted for saying Garland should face consequences for law-breaking

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) leapt onto Fox News Wednesday to defend the House GOP's vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, which is expected to go nowhere because the Justice Department will have the final say in whether to bring any charges.

"Why was it important that Garland be held in contempt?" asked Fox anchor Laura Ingraham, to which Vance replied, "If you break the law, you actually have to suffer some consequences for it."

Vance, a close ally of former President Donald Trump and a short-lister to be nominated as his vice presidential candidate, did not elaborate on what law he believes Garland broke.

ALSO READ: ‘Journalistic dystopian nightmare’: Inside a Tennessee college media meltdown

The contempt vote was over Garland's refusal to turn over executive privileged raw voice recordings of special counsel Robert Hur's interview with President Joe Biden, which is already available to House committees as a transcript.

Vance's remarks earned a deluge of criticism from commenters on social media.

"Vance needs to look in the mirror. He is just a talking puppet," wrote the account @jemzkov2002.

"Unless you break it 34 times, then those cancel each other out," wrote Houston-based attorney Chris Jackson — a reference to Trump's felony conviction in New York for falsifying business records.

"Memo to Donald Trump: If you break the law, you actually have to suffer some consequences for it. Signed, JD Vance," wrote the account @JoelKlebanoff.

"According to J.D. Vance’s logic, [House Judiciary Chair] Jim Jordan broke the law, has defied a Congressional subpoena for 762 days and should suffer consequences," wrote Jordan's Democratic challenger Tamie Wilson.

"Behold," wrote the account @__Arthur_Dent__. "The San Francisco Hedge Fund Manager, turned Coal Miner cosplayer, turned Lawyer cosplayer."

"So the top law enforcement official in the country is being held in contempt by a criminal syndicate," wrote the account @StadiumMainSt. "You can’t make this sh-t up."

"They’re not even trying to provide an explanation," wrote the account @MarkKlapper.

"At this point, irony is basically a withering skeleton six feet under the ground," wrote the account @rustle_john.

Watch the video below or at the link here.

'Morally bankrupt': GOP panned over 'imbecilic' contempt vote against attorney general

House Republicans voted Wednesday to criminally refer Attorney General Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress despite some reports earlier in the week that they were struggling to get the votes to do so.

The contempt referral, which will not lead to anything because Garland himself leads the agency to which the referral is given, is in response to the Biden administration's refusal to hand over raw footage of special counsel Robert Hur's interview with President Joe Biden in the classified documents investigation. They already have the full transcript of the interview, and House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) has admitted to donors it's a stunt to try to gain campaign fodder rather than an actual investigation.

Commenters on social media, both experts and laypeople alike, slammed the GOP over what they considered a waste of the House's time and energy on a political statement.

"Why is the GOP, including those who blew off 1/6 Committee subpoenas, trying to hold AG Garland in contempt after he provided overwhelming compliance with their requests?" asked Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). "Do they think impeachable offenses lurk in the background noise of audiotapes they have transcripts for?"

ALSO READ: 'Most powerful thing': Witness details Trump's last moments before 'shocking' verdict

"Contempt vote for Garland by the way based on not turning over the audio of the Robert Hur interview with Biden when they have the transcript. It is imbecilic and going exactly nowhere," wrote former federal prosecutor Harry Litman, adding, "The morally bankrupt and completely perverse House of Representatives just voted to hold Merrick Garland in contempt on completely spurious grounds. I would say shame on them, but they are shameless."

"The GOP house is an abomination for our democracy. They are showing us just how awful they govern. Vote them out," wrote the account @MatoulaMikos.

"They want the audio so they can cut sentences and phrases out of context to try to prove POTUS is old and senile," wrote the account @Tesscatbird. "Transcripts just don’t cut it- they want ads of Biden stumbling over his words. It’s disgraceful."

"Want audio tapes so they can use out of context vocals by cherry picking and creating an alternative meaning. Have full written transcript, no easy to manipulate," wrote the account @bspence5. "Another sad day on capitol hill."

"They just want to use the audio in misleading political ads to reinforce the false impression that Biden is cognitively impaired," wrote Jeff Browndyke, an associate professor at Duke Medical School. "Meanwhile, Trump routinely spews verbal nonsense and demonstrates dysexecutive behaviors suggestive of possible frontotemporal dementia, but, you know...let's give the morbidly obese man with poor impulse control access to the nuclear codes."

GOP leaders may scrap vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt: report

House Republicans' planned vote to refer Attorney General Merrick Garland for criminal contempt of Congress may be on the brink of being pulled, Axios reported Tuesday evening.

"Canceling the vote would be a letdown for conservatives who have pounded the table for the vote — and showcases the weakness of Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) thin House majority," reported Juliegrace Brufke, Stephen Neukam, and Andrew Solender. "The vote is in danger of being pulled off the schedule because Republican sponsors don't have the votes, two House GOP lawmakers and multiple sources told Axios. A vote was expected this week."

Republican hardliners sought the contempt holding for Garland's refusal to hand over raw audio recordings of former special counsel Robert Hur's interview with President Joe Biden in the classified documents investigation.

ALSO READ: ‘That's the Kool-Aid’: Republicans triple down on Trump the morning after guilty verdict

Garland declined to turn them over to the House Oversight Committee because Biden asserted executive privilege over the recordings, as it was widely understood there was no actual investigative purpose and the GOP was simply fishing for raw footage to try to use in campaign attack ads — something Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) admitted outright in a fundraising appeal.

The Hur report ultimately concluded without issuing any criminal charges for Biden, determining that the classified documents found in his personal papers at his office and home were in error, unlike the alleged deliberate theft and retention of documents by former Trump at Mar-a-Lago, for which he is now charged.

"Republicans are worried that the contempt vote failing could hurt their legal chances of obtaining the tapes in court, one senior House Republican said," the report continued, noting that moderate Republicans "had raised concerns about holding Garland in contempt, which is a tough vote for many of them in politically divided districts to take ahead of the November elections."

Secret letter: FBI must accelerate arrest of violent J6ers or risk time expiring

Federal law enforcement is running out of time to arrest all those who participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to members of the loosely organized “sedition hunters” community who have helped the FBI identify hundreds of people involved in the insurrection.

“There’s a 50-50 chance that if you went to J6 and committed a crime, you’re not going to get arrested,” one sedition hunter, who worked directly with the FBI, told Raw Story.

Raw Story is identifying her by her handle on X — @MsTerryMete — because of her concern about retaliation and violence from Jan. 6 offenders. She also worries that she could face retaliation from the federal government if Donald Trump becomes president again.

MsTerryMete’s warning is echoed by other members of the sedition hunters community, who have compiled a list of profiles of those suspected of committing crimes at the Capitol — some identified, others not — who have yet to be arrested. The sedition hunters, whose work is profiled in NBC reporter Ryan J. Reilly’s book of the same name, created hundreds of individual dossiers for suspected J6ers using extensive photographic and video documentation.

ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances

A representative of the sedition hunters community sent a letter to top federal law enforcement officials on Tuesday evening that warns: “It appears that the department and the FBI are not on pace to arrest an alarmingly large percentage” of those “who committed crimes at the Capitol on January 6 but have not been charged yet.”

The letter, which Raw Story has read in draft form, is addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

The author of the letter, one of the founders of the Sedition Hunters group, said the presidential election this year factored, at least in part, in the timing of the letter. This sedition hunter, like MsTerryMete, also spoke to Raw Story on condition of anonymity when confirming the letter.

“These people have already committed political violence once, and for the more violent offenders to remain un-arrested and face no accountability is a concern to me because it’s an election year — and what’s to stop them from committing political violence again this year?” the author of the letter said. “You combine that with the dramatic increase in threats against elected officials, election workers, judges and the FBI itself, what that means is these people feel empowered and emboldened to act beyond the law because there’s been no consequences for them.”

Patricia Hartman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, told Raw Story that she would not comment on a letter that her office had not received.

The office of Attorney General Merrick Garland could not be reached for comment.

Since Donald Trump ceremonially launched his 2024 presidential election campaign in Waco, Texas — near the site of a violent FBI standoff with the Branch Davidian cult that is a touchstone for the far-right movement — the former president has put the Jan. 6 defendants at the center of his bid for a second term.

He regularly opens rallies with a recording of jailed Jan. 6 rioters singing the National Anthem and has called them “hostages.” And Trump, who himself faces 88 charges spanning four criminal indictments, regularly demonizes the Department of Justice, including lambasting the “thugs and criminals who are corrupting our justice system” at his Waco campaign kickoff.

Members of the sedition hunters community say they’ve observed about 3,900 people committing crimes at the Capitol on Jan. 6 — a figure that includes people who breached the Capitol and those who engaged in violence on the grounds.

The figure does not include people who were on the Capitol grounds — itself a federal crime — but otherwise didn’t violate any laws. To date, the FBI has arrested upward of 1,375 people, leaving roughly 2,500 yet to be held accountable, by sedition hunters’ tally.

ALSO READ: Inside the neo-Nazi hate network grooming children for a race war

Along with people who illegally entered the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, violent insurrectionists — those who injured police officers, brandished weapons, destroyed property and the like — are the primary focus of federal prosecutors, U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves said in a press conference in January.

The number of overtly violent offenders who have yet to be arrested is about 540, according to the sedition hunters letter.

According to numbers publicly reported by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, about 626 people have been charged with assaulting law enforcement and media, or entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Based on those numbers, the arrest rate for violent offenders would need to pick up the pace from about 16 per month to 26 per month in order to meet the deadline before the statute of limitations runs out on Jan. 6, 2026.

The author of the letter to Garland and Graves told Raw Story that after taking a break from Jan. 6 research during the warm months last year, they were concerned to find that the arrest rate had slackened rather than quickened.

“This winter, when I came back, I noticed a significant difference in the DOJ and FBI’s arrest rate — a significant decline,” they said, “and it’s obvious they’re not going to get all the people who committed crimes at the Capitol at the current arrest rate."

Identified as participating in the Capitol riot — but not charged

Individuals who took part in the attack on the U.S. Capitol — and have yet to be charged — have gone on to threaten a federal prosecutor, commit assault and armed robbery and even commit a fatal stabbing and hack a man to death with a machete.

A Pennsylvania man nicknamed “#LeadPipeGuy” by sedition hunters has been classified as an “AFO” — an FBI acronym for someone suspected of assaulting a federal officer — and appears on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

A entry on the Capitol Terrorist Attack website — a repository for Jan. 6 offender profiles compiled by a group of volunteers — describes #LeadPipeGuy as throwing a lead pipe at police on Jan. 6. He’s also seen stealing an officer’s shield.

As early as May 2021, one researcher speculated that #LeadPipeGuy had been identified to the FBI by sedition hunters. Another complained two years later that #LeadPipeGuy was among “violent people” who assaulted officers on Jan. 6, and had yet to be arrested.

Nine days later, the man was taken into custody, but not for anything he did on Jan. 6. On May 25, 2023, police arrested #LeadPipeGuy — real name: Joshua Atwood of Burgettstown, Pa. — for armed robbery and malicious assault following a weeks-long manhunt after he allegedly robbed and stabbed a restaurant owner whom he believed owed him money.

But to this day, Atwood has not been charged for his actions at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Atwood could not be reached for comment for this story.

Gabrielle Millenbruck is accused by sedition hunters of body-slamming a police line at the West Plaza of the Capitol where police faced off against rioters. Sedition Hunters’ leader publicly identified Millenbruck in February 2022 as the rioter they dubbed #CapitolCousinIt.

To date, Millenbruck, who works as a realtor in Kirkwood, Mo. — an affluent suburb of St. Louis — has not been arrested.

Reached by phone at a publicly listed number for her real estate service, a woman who answered acknowledged that she was Millenbruck, then abruptly hung up after being asked about her alleged participation in the Capitol riot.

In another example, a woman who was one of the first suspects added to the FBI’s Most Wanted List has yet to be arrested — despite admitting to the FBI that she led rioters into the Capitol with a megaphone and took a baseball from then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.

A photo of the woman with long, wavy brown hair tucked under a red “Keep America Great” hat is featured as “Photograph #9” on the FBI’ Most Wanted List and comes with a request to call the agency to help “identify individuals involved in the riots at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

Megan Dawn Paradise sits at a desk in then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office on Jan. 6, 2021. Courtesy FBI

It didn’t take long for the FBI to track down the suspect.

Megan Dawn Paradise met with the FBI at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 18, 2021 — 12 days after the attack. An official FBI record of the interview indicates that Paradise was accompanied by “several attorneys.”

Among them: Danny C. Onorato, a litigator based in Washington, D.C., who specializes in white collar criminal defense and government investigations, and Setara Qassim, a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles who is employed by the law firm of renowned litigator Mark Geragos.

Paradise told FBI agents that she urged Jan. 6 rioters to advance on a police line by shouting into her megaphone: “Let’s go!”

Later, when rioters massed at one of the doors to the Capitol, Paradise told the FBI that people began to back away when a flash-bang went off. She said she “used her megaphone to shout to the crowd to keep going forward and hold the line,” according to the report.

When Paradise reached Pelosi’s Office, she told agents that she sat at a desk and put her feet up on it. She admitted to taking a baseball from a display cube and a Papermate pen from the office.

Later, when she discovered the baseball was signed, Paradise said she became worried that she shouldn’t have taken it. She gave the baseball to a friend that night. The day after the riot, Paradise said, she informed her lawyer that she had taken the baseball, and she asked the friend to turn the baseball over to her lawyer.

Paradise could not be reached for comment. Onorato indicated to Raw Story that he no longer represents her.

Paradise’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, are nearly identical to those of Richard Barnett, a self-avowed “white nationalist” from Arkansas, who was seen in news reports with his feet propped up on Pelosi’s desk while smoking a cigar.

Barnett and Paradise both sat at desks in Pelosi’s office. Similar to Barnett, Paradise admitted to writing in a notebook on the desk: “You’re fired.”

But Barnett became the media poster child of the insurrection thanks in part to a widely circulated photo of him in Pelosi’s office. Paradise remains virtually unknown to the general public.

Barnett — who also stole correspondence from Pelosi’s office and left a note for Pelosi reading, “Hey Nancy, Bigo was here bi-otch” — is currently serving a 54-month sentence at FCI Seagoville in Texas, following his conviction for disorderly conduct, theft of government property and other violations.

Paradise has not been arrested and remains free.

Questions about agents’ commitment to the investigation

The draft version of the sedition hunters letter reviewed by Raw Story also expresses concern “that the identifications of alleged January 6th crimes provided by our community have not been either entered into federal information systems and/or distributed in a timely manner for FBI Field Offices or the Department of Justice.”

The FBI has revoked the security clearance of at least three agents, including, one, Brett Gloss, who reportedly entered the restricted area of the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 in violation of federal law.

Another agent, Marcus Allen, reportedly lost his security clearance after he “expressed sympathy for persons or organizations that advocate, threaten or use force or violence.”

A third, Stephen Friend, refused to take part in a SWAT arrest carried out against a Jan. 6 suspect in Florida. The letter raises concern about whether agents sympathetic to the rioters might be undermining the investigations.

“What efforts have been taken to ensure that all FBI field offices are diligently providing the DOJ with the evidence it needs to prosecute January 6 suspects?” the letter asks.

The author of the letter told Raw Story: “There doesn’t seem to be a prioritization system to arrest the most dangerous J6ers who came armed with weapons and assaulted officers. It’s concerning to me that there are going to be AFOs that have not been arrested.”

FBI headquarters declined to comment for this story.

‘You guys are going to need this information’

MsTerryMete and other sedition hunters have become increasingly alarmed over the past 12 months or so about what the letter describes as “unacceptably slow pace of arrests.”

“I am not the only one in my role experiencing frustrations and backlog,” MsTerryMete wrote in an email to David Sundberg, the assistant director for the FBI Washington Field Office, in May 2023. “The current process between my community and yours is statistically proving to not be efficient or effective. There is room and need for improvement if we are to meet both the goal and the deadline.”

MsTerryMete said she was one of at least three sedition hunters who the FBI paid to provide information by scouring public video for matches with social media accounts to identify people who allegedly committed crimes at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A single mother, MsTerryMete quit her job as a substitute teacher to help the FBI track down Jan. 6 offenders, she told Raw Story.

She said she was promised $500 for each person she identified as assaulting an officer and $250 for each misdemeanor, but she said she only found out later that she wouldn’t get paid until an arrest was made.

From August 2021 through May 2023, she said, she made only $7,000 or $8,000, part of which she shared with other Jan. 6 researchers and part of which went to expenses such as a subscription to PimEyes, a facial recognition program.

By May 2023, MsTerryMete was fed up, and she dumped her designated FBI handler. She asked Sundberg for a new handler. Short of that, she offered to just hand off information about the hundreds of Jan. 6 attack suspects she had backlogged.

“Since I no longer have a handler (and I hope the old ones will be crediting me for my past work), I will need someone to work with to process the additional 220 IDs my community has been sitting on, waiting for your community to catch up,” MsTerryMete wrote to Sundberg.

“Hopefully, someone will be reaching out to be me soon, otherwise I’ll just start sending you all the evidence files,” she added.

MsTerryMete’s three emails to Sundberg in May 2023 went unreturned, she said.

The FBI Washington Field Office did not directly address a question from Raw Story about MsTerryMete’s efforts to speak with Sundberg.

ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president

But in a statement to Raw Story, the FBI Washington Field Office said the agency “remains committed to working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and law enforcement partners across the nation to identify, investigate, and prosecute those responsible for the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“While it may appear no overt law enforcement action is being taken on some tips that have been submitted, tipsters should rest assured that the FBI is working diligently behind the scenes to follow all investigative leads to verify tips from the public and bring these criminals to justice,” the statement continues.

By July 2023, MsTerryMete and the leader of the Sedition Hunters team estimated that they had a combined 500 to 600 Jan. 6 suspect identifications backlogged between them.

But no one, from the FBI up to members of Congress, could be bothered, she said.

“Not a single person called me back,” she said. “No one. I couldn’t get the Democrat who represents my district to call me back. I literally bought a burner phone to call them safely and securely. I even called the FBI’s Boston Field Office. I said, ‘I broke with my handler. I still have this information. You guys are going to need this information. I need to transfer this information to you.’ No one called back.”

After receiving an email response from a scheduler for Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) on Sept. 11, 2023. reporting that the congressman wouldn’t be available “to schedule a meeting in the next couple months,” MsTerryMete fired off a follow-up email that brimmed with desperation and sarcasm.

“If January is the only time he has available to discuss the fact that the FBI has no central process to prioritize the remaining arrests of J6ers with 2 years left on the statute and there are currently uncharged violent J6ers roaming his congressional offices, while active naval intelligence officers are doxxing and harassing FBI agents, DOJ attorneys, and sedition hunters… then great… I’ll take it,” she wrote.

Michael Suchecki, Moulton’s press secretary, told Raw Story the congressman does not comment on scheduling matters.

Running out of time?

On Jan. 4 — two days before the third anniversary of the attack on the Capitol — Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, gave an hour-long press conference that was billed as a “progress report” on the investigation.

In many ways, Graves’ presentation showcased the government’s theory of the case writ large. It provided a narrative arc for how the attack was carried out, highlighting the most egregious acts of violence, and inventorying the weapons used by the rioters. The press conference also provided Graves with an occasion to take a victory lap for the crowning achievement of the Jan. 6 investigations — seditious conspiracy convictions obtained against leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, the two militant groups that provided the engine for the attack.

Graves’ press conference opened with a request for “the public’s continued assistance.” The government was particularly interested, Graves said, in “the roughly 80 still unidentified individuals who are believed to have committed acts of violence against law enforcement officers.”

Graves promised: “Today, we will post a list of individuals most wanted by the FBI for violence at the Capitol, calling for any help the public can provide in identifying them.”

“Where is that list?” the draft letter from the sedition hunters asks. “If it was provided on January 4, 2024 it must not have been circulated very publicly because we still have not seen one.”

Asked about the list referenced in Graves’ remarks, Patricia Hartman, the spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, referred Raw Story to the FBI’s Most Wanted List, a working document that the agency has been building since shortly after the Jan. 6 attack.

The FBI Most Wanted list includes 216 profiles suspected of assaults on law enforcement and media who have not been arrested. Sedition hunters claim to have sent the names of at least 19 of those suspects to the FBI, based on a review by Raw Story.

When the U.S. Attorney’s Office issued its annual report on progress made in the Jan. 6 investigation requesting public assistance to identify four of the subjects, sedition hunters reacted with ridicule, noting that they had already provided the names of three of the men to the FBI.

“One of the problems right now is some of the information that we’re providing to the FBI doesn’t appear to be getting acted on in a timely manner,” the sedition hunter responsible for authoring the letter told Raw Story. “That spans from adding profiles to their Most Wanted list to making arrests.”