Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) on Monday said he was willing to support a Democrat-led bill that was passed by the House to create an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol. Romney answered that he “would support the bill” when asked by reporters how he would vote if Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) starts a debate on the House bill, according to multiple congressional reporters. He is the first Republican in the Senate to do so. The Utah senator’s comments come on the same day that Schumer vowed to bring the bill for a vote on the Senate floor. “I will bring to the Senate floor the legislation passed by the House to create an independent commission to investigate and report on the January 6th attack on the Capitol,” Schumer said in a statement on Twitter. Currently, Democrats are short on the 60 votes required to defeat a likely filibuster from Republicans, who have expressed opposition to the bill in its current form.

Black Lives Matter Activist John Sullivan admitted to bringing a megaphone inside the Capitol building on January 6 to “instigate” Trump supporters and incite violence, documents show.

“Sullivan allegedly posted on Twitter support for armed revolution and has also said he attended a number of Black Lives Matter protests last year, posted numerous anti-police and anti-Trump statements. Sullivan says he portrayed himself as a journalist who was just documenting the incident but he was also actively participating… even broke a window,” reported Red Voice Media. 

“I brought my megaphone to instigate shit. I was like, guys we’re going inside, we’re fucking shit up…. I’m gonna make these Trump supporters f—all this shit up…. But I mean you’ll see,” Sullivan said on speakerphone, according to newly released documents. “I have it all, I have everything, everything on camera, everything I just told you, and I mean everything. Trust me when I say my footage is worth like a million of dollars, millions of dollars. I’m holding on to that shit.”

According to the court documents, Sullivan admitted to law enforcement that he had no press credentials despite his previous claims of being a journalist, and that the investigation “has not revealed any connection between the defendant and any journalistic organizations prior to the events of January 6, 2021.”

“I mean, didn’t I kind of make up a background though, on the fly a little bit. I think I made up, uh—what did I say I was? Oh, yeah, I was just a journalist, but I use that all the time. ‘Yeah, I’m just a journalist. I’m here recording. I got my camera on my shoulder.’ Literally, I have my big-ass camera on my shoulder right here and I have my gimbal, so it kind of looks like it. ‘Yeah, I’m just here recording the situation. Yeah. Livestreaming. Look, I have—I have people on my live stream.’ That’s why I pulled it back out,” said Sullivan in a video posted on January 6.

In a livestream posted in December, Sullivan admitted that he doesn’t “consider” himself a journalist. “But as far as like reporting stuff like I am now, I’m an activist too, so like it kinda plays hand in hand. But as far as like being a journalist, it would be cool to be one, I don’t have anything against it,” said Sullivan.

This comes after National File reported that Sullivan, who stormed the Capitol on January 6 disguised in pro-Trump gear and captured video of the Capitol Police shooting of Ashli Babbitt, had $90,000 seized by the federal government.

At the time of Sullivan’s arrest, National File reported, “Despite claiming he only entered the building in a journalistic capacity, the indictment against Sullivan declares otherwise. The 18-page affidavit claims Sullivan allegedly incited violence by exclaiming ‘we gotta get this shit burned’ and ‘it’s our house motherfuckers.’”

Sullivan was previously recorded during an anti-Trump riot in Washington, D.C. In the video, Sullivan pointed at the White House, and said,“We… about to burn this s— down… We gotta rip Trump right out of that office right there.” Sullivan added, “We ain’t about…waiting until the next election. It’s time for revolution.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that it filed a District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DC government for police and medical examiner records concerning the U.S. Capitol Police shooting death of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, including the police and medical examiner investigations (Judicial Watch v. The District of Columbia (No. 2021 CA 001710 B)).

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia after the District of Columbia failed to respond to an April 8, 2021, FOIA request submitted to the Metropolitan Police Department and to an administrative appeal concerning an April 8, 2021 FOIA request to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The request to the police department asks for:

All records, including but not limited to investigative reports, photographs, witness statements, dispatch logs, schematics, ballistics, video footage, and MPD officials’ electronic communications, concerning the January 6, 2021, death of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol Building and its related investigation.

The request to the Chief Medical Examiner asks for:

All records, including but not limited to autopsy reports, toxicology reports, notes, photographs, and OCME officials’ electronic communications, related to the death on Jan. 6, 2021, of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol Building and its related investigation.

Babbitt was shot and killed by an unidentified law enforcement officer as she attempted to climb through a broken interior window in the Capitol Building, located outside the Speaker’s Lobby off the House Floor during the January 6 disturbance. She was unarmed. At the time of the shooting, several officers reportedly can be seen in videos, standing in the crowd of protestors in which Babbitt was present.

“The normal course of action in a police-related shooting is to quickly inform the public of the details – but the lack of transparency in the killing of veteran Ashli Babbitt in the U.S. Capitol is unprecedented and obviously political,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That Judicial Watch must file a lawsuit for basic information after five months of stonewalling is a scandal.”

Judicial Watch has several lawsuits regarding January 6.

Judicial Watch recently sued the Pentagon and the U.S. Park Police for information on deployment of troops and warnings about the January 6 U.S. Capitol disturbance.

In March 2021, Judicial Watch filed suit against the U.S. Department of Defense for records about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January 8, 2021, telephone call with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.

Pressure from a March 2021 Judicial Watch lawsuit helped lead to the disclosure that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes.

In February 2021, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the Capitol Police for emails and video related to the January 6 riot.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues DC for Records about the U.S. Capitol Police Shooting Death of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Read More

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said she is in therapy as a result of the January 6 Capitol riot, or what she described as an “all-out, attempted coup,” pointing figures at the Trump administration and contending it “had a lot of us, especially Latino communities, in a very reactive mode.”

Christopher Grider said he came to Washington on Jan. 6 with no intention of rioting. But he got caught up in the mob of angry supporters of then-President Donald Trump as they surged into the U.S. Capitol, breaking through police barriers and smashing through doors.

It wasn’t his fault, he said, that he ended up inside the building with a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag around his neck as lawmakers ran for their lives.

Grider, 39, a winery owner and former school teacher in Texas is among at least a dozen Capitol riot defendants identified by The Associated Press who have claimed their presence in the building was a result of being “caught up” in the hysteria of the crowd or that they were pushed inside by sheer force.

For some, blaming the mob is part of an attempt to restore reputations tarnished by their presence at an event of such infamy. Others may try to broach the issue at trial or at least during sentencing in bids for leniency.

Social scientists have long observed how individuals can act in ways they never would on their own when they are in crowds of like-minded people who are whipped into a frenzy.

The insurrectionists descended on the nation’s capital that day to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory. Many attended a rally by Trump, who was refusing to concede even though there was no evidence to suggest the election had been rigged and his own administration said it wasn’t.

Hundreds of Trump supporters broke through police barricades and overwhelmed officers, violently shoving their way into the building to chants of “Hang Mike Pence” and “Stop the Steal.” Some came prepared with pepper spray, baseball bats and other weapons. More than 400 people have been charged; it’s the largest prosecution in the Justice Department’s history.

Grider, accused of helping to break a glass door to the House chamber, never planned to storm the building, his lawyer has said in filings and comments to reporters after Grider, was charged with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

“He would never have anticipated finding himself in the situation, but for the president and the rally and the way everything went down,” Brent Mayr told the Houston Chronicle. “We’ve heard ‘mob mentality’ — and he describes it to a T.” Mayr more recently declined to comment further.

Judges typically don’t let defendants assert at trial that outside influences, be it drugs or peer pressure, made them act as they did. Most judges would reject efforts by rioters’ lawyers to use any iteration of a blame-the-crowd defense, legal experts say.

“Even though I’m a criminal defense attorney, it sounds like a desperation move,” said Miami lawyer Joel Hirschhorn, insisting that would-be rioters who traveled long distances to Washington had to understand what they might be getting into. “It’s sort of like, ‘The devil made me do it.’ Come on.” . . .

CNN’s Jim Acosta claimed Saturday that Republicans feared a potential Jan. 6 Commission, saying that the party’s leadership was running scared and referring to former President Donald Trump as “Mussolini of Mar-a-Lago.”

Acosta argued that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom were critical of Trump in the days after the Capitol riot, had both said they would not support the commission to investigate what had happened — and suggested that decision was being driven by fear of one key question.

The question Acosta said Republicans did not want to answer was whether or not members of the party had been in contact with the rioters who ultimately breached the Capitol.

Representative Peter Meijer (R-MI) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Republicans are “playing into” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) hands by rejecting legislation to create a commission to investigate the January 6 incident at the U.S. Capitol.

Consider the following article by The Gateway Pundit. It is compelling information that could dismantle the powerful political narrative around the events of Jan. 6th at the US Capitol.

The narrative Politifact prefers is their own. It is the same narrative that politicians are using to punish the powerless people of the United States, exactly something that journalism in America was designed to expose.

That is until “Journalism” schools became propaganda machines and turned it all around against the citizens, and further weaponized their political powers to shut down political opposition.

This week, led by radical far-left House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with the push by DC to grant politicians more unique powers for themselves to investigate their political opponents, it is especially telling to see Politifact partner with DC and establish itself as the gatekeeper to the truth.

TGP covered the story of a video that had gone viral, which showed evidence that the DC narrative of Jan. 6th, being pushed by numerous media outlets over the last 4 months, was not accurate:

New Video Shows U.S. Capitol Police Gave Protesters OK to Enter on Jan. 6

Then later this past week The Gateway Pundit posted several more video clips of police allowing protesters into the US Capitol on January 6.

HUGE: MORE VIDEO SURFACES of Capitol Police Waving Protesters Inside, Moving Barricades Aside, Standing By as Protesters Walk In

But, Samantha Putterman, of Politifact, with the lowest of possible journalist integrity, reported on the same video writing, “Clip of Capitol police speaking with rioters doesn’t prove mob was given OK to enter building.”

That is what is called an “opinion.” And she is entitled to her opinion, but who gave this very young woman the right to dictate the freedoms of other Americans? That is a mighty responsibility and one she clearly does not respect.  Note that Putterman can not cite any evidence to support her claim. In fact, she is reckless with her power and authority over what Americans are allowed to read.

Putterman wrote:

“Bloggers and social media users are describing the 44-second clip as evidence that pro-Trump rioters were given permission to enter the U.S. Capitol that day, and that the violence depicted in several other photos and videos is the work of Democrats.”

Notice the demeaning language. “Bloggers,” as if anyone else writing about the video, has lower journalistic standards than Putterman and Politifact themselves. Putterman has designated the people in the video as “pro-Trump rioters” without interviewing one person about who they voted for, without looking up anyone’s voter registration, and by labeling the, albeit confusing footage, as with inflammatory language, calling it “riot.”

Putterman can not site anyone she spoke to who was at the event.

That is very convenient for Politifact, who also, according to Putternman’s article, share a special and unique relationship with Facebook to control the content, to misdirect readers, and control the narrative.

“The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.).” Putterman wrote.

Politifact has a great deal of power to deny Americans our Civil Liberties by claiming to be “fact checkers” when in fact, it is clear that they are fundraising on pushing a political agenda. Look at their page. The first thing readers are greeted with is a place to donate.

Consider the name “Politifact,” does that sound like they had politics on their minds?

What is the Poynter Institute that owns Politifact? According to sources: “The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is a non-profit journalism school and research organization.” And they have partners called “Media Wise.”

Media Wise is described at Poytner.com as:

“Our mission at MediaWise is to empower people of all ages to be more critical consumers of content online. We teach people key digital literacy skills to spot misinformation and disinformation so they can make decisions based on facts, not fiction. We believe that when facts prevail, democracy wins.”

Media Wise has “Ambassadors,” and they happen to be employees of far-left leading media groups . . . .

John Sullivan, the Antifa and BLM activist who stormed the Capitol on January 6 while disguised in Trump 2020 gear and captured video of the Capitol Police shooting of Ashli Babbitt has had $90,000 – ostensibly the funds he was paid by mainstream media outlets for his viral footage from the day – seized by the federal government.

Sullivan, who posted videos watermarked with Jayden X on social media, claims he stormed the U.S. Capitol – disguised as a supporter of President Donald Trump – in an effort to “document” the civil unrest. “I wanted to be able to tell a part of history,” Sullivan claimed in January. Speaking to the media, he seemingly acknowledged that Black Lives Matter and Antifa were present during the civil unrest, but claimed that “It’s just recording, solely, and not being active in it.” It was later reported that Sullivan sold his footage of the civil unrest to both CNN and NBC for $35,000 apiece.

Yesterday night, Reuters reported that “U.S. authorities have confiscated roughly $90,000” from Sullivan. “Prosecutors have filed additional criminal charges against the man, John Earle Sullivan, a self-described political activist who is accused of entering the Capitol building and participating in the riot,” Reuters reported. Reuters notes that Sullivan boasted, “my footage is worth like a million of dollars, millions of dollars” and “Sullivan sold that footage to several news outlets for a total of $90,000, according to the seizure warrant. The news outlets were redacted from the warrant.”

At the time of Sullivan’s arrest, National File reported, “Despite claiming he only entered the building in a journalistic capacity, the indictment against Sullivan declares otherwise. The 18-page affidavit claims Sullivan allegedly incited violence by exclaiming ‘we gotta get this shit burned’ and ‘it’s our house motherfuckers.’”

Sullivan was previously recorded during an anti-Trump riot in Washington, D.C. In the video, Sullivan pointed at the White House, and said,“We… about to burn this s— down… We gotta rip Trump right out of that office right there.” Sullivan added, “We ain’t about…waiting until the next election. It’s time for revolution.”

Messages from a Discord server run by Sullivan have since been leaked, and, as reported by National File, they reveal that Sullivan sought to disguise himself as a Trump supporter, apparently to record footage and stoke the flames of civil unrest. “In the days immediately following the January 6 protest, one user in Sullivan’s Discord server wrote, ‘I had to wear a Trump hat and shirtm [sic]’ to be able to infiltrate the crowd unnoticed.” Another activist disagreed, and suggested, “Putting on a Trump hat does not make him blend in. It makes him look like a well known activist who was attempting to instigate ‘antifa violence’ narrative.”

On January 6, 2021, a massive outpouring of supporters of President Donald Trump descended on Washington D.C. for a rally. The president invited his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” at the U.S. Capitol. It did not matter that he did not call for violence, Congress impeached him anyway.

The crowd’s mission was not to burn down the U.S. Capitol or harm members of Congress. For the overwhelming majority of those in attendance, their goal was not to commit violence, but to persuade either Vice President Mike Pence or a majority of the members of Congress to oppose the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results.

Instead of the day being focused on claims of voter fraud and election irregularities, the entire media narrative turned into the “attack on the U.S. Capitol.” The images of some in the crowd battling U.S. Capitol Police officers were aired constantly, as were the photos of some flag waving Trump supporters in the building posing for pictures on the U.S. Senate floor or in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.

No violent actions can be condoned and all who engaged in criminal behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In the aftermath of this security breach, the FBI arrested hundreds of people for various offenses and is continuing to investigate.

While these individuals are being arrested and prosecuted, scores of violent criminals involved in approximately 275 Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots last summer have escaped justice. It seems there is more of an FBI focus on bringing Trump supporters to justice than those criminals who burned, looted, and robbed during a summer of discontent in the wake of George Floyd’s death.