Impeach the Lot of Them

Primer: George Washington University has a database on the Capitol Hill Siege, that is searchable. Gotta ask, did they do the same for all the violence and arrests from the militant protests and destruction from 2020?

In keeping with our tradition of providing primary source documents to the research community and the public at large, The Program on Extremism has launched a project to create a central database of court records related to the events of January 6, 2021. This page will be updated as additional individuals are charged with criminal activities and new records are introduced into the criminal justice system.

If you’d like to contribute to offset the costs associated with court record fees and research on this and other projects, you can support the Program’s research here.

'Violence' Becomes 'Unruliness' When It's Sports Fans, Not ...

In part from the Washington Post:

June 1, Harris (who was not yet chosen as Biden’s running mate) tweeted a link to an MFF donation page on ActBlue:

Reuters posted their explanation here of alleged clarity on Kamala Harris.

18 U.S. Code § 2331

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A)

involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i)

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii)

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii)

to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C)

occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

(6) the term “military force” does not include any person that—

(A) has been designated as a—

(i)

foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or

(ii)

specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or

(B)

has been determined by the court to not be a “military force”.

From RedState in part: A young woman suffering from white guilt called a friend of mine to ask what “ActBlue” was? Planning to contribute to Black Lives Matter, she went to their website and clicked on the bright blue “donate” button. She was immediately redirected to ActBlue, which is the activist arm of the Democrat Party.

At the bottom of the page, it clearly states: “ActBlue Charities is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and donations are tax-deductible to the full extent allowed under the law.”

Its website says: “There’s just a 3.95% processing fee on all transactions. That’s the only fee you’ll ever be charged when you use AB Charities.”

In “The Fine Print” section, it states that if a campaign or a committee doesn’t cash an ActBlue check within 60 days or a contribution is refused, the donation “will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue.” Those contributions “will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities.”

Does this fit the definition of domestic terrorism or getting in their face, confronting them, you don’t belong here? We have not covered ANTIFA, but it fits the definition. What U.S. representatives, mayors or governors that have not aggressively stopped the violence and protected civil society? They are few.

After 'antifa' violence, Berkeley debates whether Milo ...

Cuba Re-designated as State Sponsor of Terror

President Obama removed Cuba from the designation and it is expected early into the Biden administration, this action will again be reversed.

The United States has once again designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, accusing it of granting safe haven to terrorists and also providing support for acts of “international terrorism”. The move by the Trump administration comes days before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, who would have liked to start where he and Obama left the US-Cuba relations in 2016. Former President Barack Obama had delisted Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 2015, seeking normalisation of ties with the Communist State.

State Department officials say the decision is not politically motivated and argue Cuba has not met the standards to remain off the list during the Trump administration.

American Enterprise Institute research fellow Ryan Berg affirmed the basis of the Trump administration’s decision.Cuba sees Obama terror promise as healing of historic wound

“Cuba has provided unequivocal support to terrorist and insurgent groups throughout Latin America for many decades, such as Colombia’s ELN and the FARC, to name just a few,” Berg told the Washington Free Beacon. “Today, it also continues to support the consolidated dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, aiding and abetting what the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has declared to be ‘crimes against humanity.'”

Havana has also played a role in helping China expand its influence in the Caribbean. In November, Cuba followed the lead of China in echoing far-left talking points regarding race relations in America at the United Nations, and China covered for Cuba on its record of harboring terrorism. China, meanwhile, has reportedly expanded its surveillance capabilities in the Caribbean, using telecommunications networks to spy on American mobile phones in the region.

The move could affect President-elect Joe Biden’s approach to reengaging with the communist country, a policy out of the Obama administration’s playbook. Biden’s transition team for the Department of Defense included Frank Mora, an Obama administration holdover who advocated lifting sanctions on Havana.

Berg said the Cuba policy favored by Mora and Biden would probably require a reversal of the decision to return Cuba to the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

“A diplomatic opening with a country designated as a ‘state sponsor of terror’ is a difficult lift,” Berg said. “Therefore, one of the first steps to any Cuba opening would likely require a reversal of this decision.” source

Parler Sues Amazon

There are 3 counts in the lawsuit where a jury is demanded for a temporary restraining order such that Parler can restore the network.

Count One: Sherman Act, Section 1

AWS is prohibited from contracting or conspiring to restrain trade or commerce.

Count Two: Breach of Contract

AWS breached its contract with Parler by not providing thirty days’ notice before terminating its account.

Count Three: Tortious Interference with a Contract or Business

Expectancy By terminating Parler’s account, AWS will intentionally interfere with the contracts Parler has with millions of its present users, as well as with the users it is projected to gain this week.

The lawsuit is found here.

Parler received more than three-quarters of a million downloads between last Wednesday, when a mob stormed the United States Capitol, and Sunday, when the app was suspended.

And as of Monday:

Face­book Inc. said Mon­day it is re­mov­ing all con­tent men­tion­ing “stop the steal,” a phrase pop­u­lar among sup­port­ers of Pres­i­dent Trump’s claims about the elec­tion, as part of a raft of emer­gency mea­sures to stem mis­in­for­ma­tion and in­cite­ments to vi­o­lence on its plat­form in the lead up to Pres­i­dent-elect Joe Biden’s in­au­gu­ra­tion. More censorship…Stop the Steal is hardly violent speech in a public forum.

The logical question now is will Twitter and Facebook or Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram come clean about what was planned and coordinated on their platforms? Facebook owns WhatsApp, Telegram is owned by 2 Russians based in Germany and Signal was developed by the Signal Foundation and Signal Messenger LLC Whisper, of which Jack Dorsey invested.

Per Wikipedia with footnotes: Signal was reportedly popularized in the United States during the George Floyd protests. As U.S. protests gained momentum, on June 3, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted a recommendation for users to download Signal Messenger.[70] Heightened awareness of police monitoring led protesters to use the app to communicate. Black Lives Matter organizers had used the app “for several years”.[71][44] During the first week of June, the encrypted messaging app was downloaded over five times more than it had been during the week prior to the death of George Floyd.[71] In June 2020, Signal Foundation announced a new feature that enables users to blur faces in photos, in response to increased federal efforts to monitor protesters.[44][72]

Read that? Dorsey endorsed the protests and encouraged the protestors to use Signal…..blur faces? WTH?

How about this one just a few days ago?

Terror and Big Tech

How many protests were plotted and launched on big tech platforms and yet AWS targets Parler? Oh the irony….maybe just maybe….there should be a counter-suit against big tech or by Parler….

How about we just just exposing facts…this lil website and author is trying…can you help?

ABC reported:

A few weeks ago, several members of President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team set up a Zoom meeting with senior members of the Anti-Defamation League, the group that studies and tracks hate crimes, to hear recommendations for fighting domestic terrorism and right-wing extremism.

The weighty meeting, focused on one of the most complex threats facing America today, was initiated in the simplest of ways: The ADL requested a meeting through a form on Biden’s transition team website.

“I find it remarkable that … [they] are taking substantive time to meet with advocacy organizations like ours,” said ADL senior adviser George Selim, who participated in the meeting.

“What it says is that this issue is a priority for the incoming administration,” added Selim, one of the Department of Homeland Security’s top experts on domestic terrorism until he was sidelined in the early days of the Trump administration.

But even if such threats are a priority for the incoming team, transition officials acknowledge that when they take charge of the federal government in three weeks, the recent promise Biden made to “shut down violence and hate” will face significant challenges.

In fact, as part of its tone in recent years, the Trump administration has “chosen to defy the data” on domestic threats by publicly focusing on left-wing radical groups like Antifa, instead of white supremacists and anti-government ideologues “that the data show are much more prone to pushing people toward violence,” the former Homeland Security official said.

The majority of domestic terrorism investigations are focused on racially-motivated individuals, and white supremacists are “the biggest chunk of that,” Wray, the FBI director, told lawmakers in September. More here.

The progressives all dismiss the destruction and fear across America that began in Minneapolis and went on to major cities across the country by ANTIFA and BLM….that Wendy’s in Atlanta?

Atlanta protests after Wendy's shooting of Rayshard Brooks ...

Remember? The jewel of the south, Atlanta has yet to recover. Was all that coordinated on Facebook or Twitter? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Beware: Patriot Act 2.0 Coming

But there already is domestic terrorism law…meanwhile it was not applied to BLM or ANTIFA as those protests still go on….just a few arrests have been made while people and small business were not only terrorized but hundreds or maybe thousands lost their businesses. It is okay however, as VP -Elect Kamala Harris is good with that and supported it all.

Just one day ago –> it is terrorism but they call it unlawful assembly.

Portland rioters smash courthouse window, damage businesses before police declare unlawful assembly

Portland police arrived on the scene and told the crowd it had declared an unlawful assembly.Portland rioters smash courthouse window, damage businesses before police  declare unlawful assembly | Fox News

So why the new proposed legislation? Hardly balanced application of the law and that is good with the new administration and progressive members of Congress.

The Patriot Act 2.0 coming your way.

Note:

March 11, 2020
Legislation introduced by Schneider would empower federal law enforcement to better monitor and stop domestic extremist violence

Today, legislation introduced by Congressman Brad Schneider (IL-10) to address the threat of domestic terrorism passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 24-2. The Committee’s markup and bipartisan vote reports H.R. 5602, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020, out of the House Judiciary Committee.

“The rising tide of domestic terror across our country, particularly from violent far-right extremists and white supremacist organizations, demands a response from Congress,” said Schneider. “It is not enough to just condemn hate, we need to equip law enforcement with the tools needed to identify threats and prevent violent acts of domestic terrorism. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act improves coordination between our federal agencies and makes sure they are focused on the most serious domestic threats. I thank Chairman Nadler and Chairwoman Bass for their leadership on this issue and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation in markup. I look forward to building support for a vote by the full House as soon as possible.”

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020 would enhance the federal government’s efforts to prevent, report on, respond to, and investigate acts of domestic terrorism by authorizing offices dedicated to combating this threat; requiring these offices to regularly assess this threat; and providing training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing it.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2019, domestic extremists killed at least 42 people in the United States in 17 separate incidents. This number makes 2019 the sixth deadliest year on record for domestic extremist-related killings. Last year, a Trump Administration Department of Justice official wrote in a New York Times op-ed that “white supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States. Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement, at both the Federal and State levels, has been slow to respond.”

H.R. 5602 would authorize three offices, one each within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to monitor, investigate, and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism. The bill also requires these offices to provide Congress with joint biannual reports assessing the state of domestic terrorism threats, with a specific focus on white supremacists. Based on the data collected, H.R. 5602 requires these offices to focus their resources on the most significant threats..

H.R. 5602 also codifies the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which would coordinate with United States Attorneys and other public safety officials to promote information sharing and ensure an effective, responsive, and organized joint effort to combat domestic terrorism. The legislation requires DOJ, FBI, and DHS to provide training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism and white supremacy. Finally, H.R. 5602 directs DHS, DOJ, FBI, and the Department of Defense to establish an interagency task force to combat white supremacist infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020  has been endorsed by the following organizations: Anti-Defamation League, Arab American Institute, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, Human Rights Campaign, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Muslim Advocates, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund, and Unidos. .

The legislation has more than 100 co-sponsors in the House. A Senate companion bill is led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

China Forces International Criminal court to be Useless

With Beijing not a signatory to the ICC, those bringing the claim of genocide have pointed to the alleged forcing of Uighur people from Tajikistan and Cambodia into China as evidence. Both countries are signatories to the Rome statute setting up the ICC.

“The US government has reason to doubt the honesty of the ICC. The Department of Justice has received substantial credible information that raises serious concerns about a long history of financial corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels of the office of the prosecutor,” Barr said.

He referred to the ICC as “little more than a political tool employed by unaccountable international elites”.

***

Apart from genocide, China has reservations over the definitions of all the other core crimes, namely, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crime of aggression. Throughout the negotiation process, one of the major guiding principles in defining the crimes under consideration was that these definitions should be reflective of customary international law. China opposed the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed during peacetime, because, it argued that customary international law required a nexus to armed conflict, and without such nexus, the major attributes of the crimes would be changed. China’s objection towards the ICC’s jurisdiction over war crimes committed in non-international armed conflict was similarly raised in the context of customary international law. Moreover, China resisted the inclusion of the crime of aggression under the ICC’s jurisdiction due to the lack of a precise definition on state act of aggression underlying the crime.

So, while world leaders have confirmed Covid-19 came from Wuhan, China, it is unlikely the ICC will ever bring a case against China for the nefarious actions of the pandemic. Meanwhile, there is the matter of the human rights violations by China against the Uighurs.

Uighur model sends rare video from Chinese detention | Fox News

NYT’s: The International Criminal Court has decided not to pursue an investigation into China’s mass detention of Muslims, a setback for activists eager to hold Beijing accountable for persecution of ethnic and religious minorities.

Prosecutors in The Hague said on Monday that they would not, for the moment, investigate allegations that China had committed genocide and crimes against humanity regarding the Uighurs, a predominantly Muslim ethnic group, because the alleged crimes took place in China, which is not a party to the court.

The abuses described “have been committed solely by nationals of China within the territory of China,” said a report by the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda of Gambia.

For months, Uighurs in exile had urged the court to investigate China’s repressive policies against Muslim minorities, the first attempt by activists to use the force of international law to hold Chinese officials accountable for the crackdown. They accused the Chinese government of carrying out a campaign of torture, forced sterilization and mass surveillance against Muslims, among other abuses.

China has faced growing international condemnation for its harsh treatment of Muslims, including the construction of vast indoctrination camps in the western region of Xinjiang. President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign described China’s actions in Xinjiang as genocide, a position also taken by other Western leaders.

China has denied that the camps are abusive, describing them instead as job training centers aimed at countering religious extremism and terrorism, despite a preponderance of contradictory evidence.

Many Uighurs said on Tuesday that they were disappointed in the court’s decision not to investigate. They vowed to continue to lobby global leaders to punish China for the abuses.

“The I.C.C. was formed for one and only one reason: to confront the most horrific international crimes,” said Fatimah Abdulghafur, a Uighur poet and activist who lives in Australia. “The atrocities of the Chinese regime toward Uighurs are countless.”

Products you buy may have been made in China by forced Uighur labor - Los  Angeles Times article

The complaint against China was filed by two Uighur exile groups, the East Turkistan Government in Exile and the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement.

In addition to abuses against Muslims inside China’s borders, the Uighur groups had also lobbied the court to investigate Beijing for pursuing the repatriation of thousands of Uighurs through unlawful arrests in or deportation from other countries, including Cambodia and Tajikistan.

In its report on Monday, the prosecutor’s office said there was “no basis to proceed at this time” because there did not appear to be enough evidence to show that Chinese officials had committed crimes over which the court had jurisdiction.

“Not all conduct which involves the forcible removal of persons from a location necessarily constitutes the crime of forcible transfer or deportation,” the report said.

Lawyers representing the Uighur groups said they were still hopeful that the court would open an investigation after considering new evidence.

“We have explained we’ve been hampered by Covid restrictions,’’ said Rodney Dixon, who is the lead lawyer in the case. “The prosecutor needs further and concrete evidence from Cambodia and Tajikistan to establish jurisdiction, and we will be providing that early in the year.”

Lawyers following the court said that the prosecutor, whose mandate is coming to an end, had been under time pressure to present her final report to the annual assembly of court members now meeting in The Hague. A new prosecutor will be elected in the coming weeks.