First felony sentencing for Jan 6th DC riot. How does it compare to the 2020 riots?

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

But still Trump's fault... 

Former President Trump has his share of the guilt, but not all of it. The lack of recognition and response by federal forces is his fault as head of the executive branch. It was his responsibility to have his domestic law enforcement anticipate the scale of the protest turned riot, and the direction it might take. Besides the National Guard there are numerous federal police agencies he could draw upon to reinforce the Capital Police.

The Congressional hearings will focus on the failings of the Trump administration in the events of January 6th.

What will be whitewashed is the actions and lack of actions of the Capital Police, which is Speaker Pelosi's failure. What % of the Capital Police where on duty January 6th? Did they put up a reasonable amount of physical barriers such as fences? 

And there is the shooting of Ashley Babbitt, the only person to die as a result of the January 6th riot.

If a white U.S. Marshal shot an unarmed black protester breaking into a Federal facility in Portland Oregon would it be handled in the same manner as the Babbitt death? The name of the officer that shot Babbitt has not been released. 

Was the shooting of Babbitt justified? To me at best it is questionable. From my understanding it would require that the officer felt his or his fellow officers lives where in danger. What made him think Babbitt was a deadly threat?

Edited July 30, 2021 by 17thfabn

[Ivanhoe]

7 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

Former President Trump has his share of the guilt, but not all of it. The lack of recognition and response by federal forces is his fault as head of the executive branch. It was his responsibility to have his domestic law enforcement anticipate the scale of the protest turned riot, and the direction it might take. Besides the National Guard there are numerous federal police agencies he could draw upon to reinforce the Capital Police.

Might be more than a few Constitutional issues involved. If an Executive branch agency had sent a whole bunch of armed agents to the Capitol, given that POTUS at the time was Trump and the Dems and the press had been promoting the coup thing for 4+ years, things could have turned out vastly worse. Capitol security is solely the responsibility of the USCP.

 

[17thfabn]

1 minute ago, Ivanhoe said:

Might be more than a few Constitutional issues involved. If an Executive branch agency had sent a whole bunch of armed agents to the Capitol, given that POTUS at the time was Trump and the Dems and the press had been promoting the coup thing for 4+ years, things could have turned out vastly worse. Capitol security is solely the responsibility of the USCP.

 

I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar. It would seem to me that the executive branch is responsible for security at any federal facility including the capitol.

[rmgill]

Posse Comitatus asserts, or if you like, Pussy Communist! 

Come on 17thAbn, this is required TN Watching you ought to know this. The president sending in federal agents or troops should be the last resort, not the first one. 

The Capitol police is run by the Chief of the Capitol police who is appointed by  the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Architect is nominated by the President. The Sergeat's at arms are elected by their respective houses. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/1901

Quote

"2 U.S. Code § 1901 - Establishment; officer appointments"
There shall be a Capitol police. There shall be a captain of the Capitol police and such other members with such rates of compensation, respectively, as may be appropriated for by Congress from year to year. The Capitol Police shall be headed by a Chief who shall be appointed by the Capitol Police Board and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board.

The US Capitol police do NOT report to the president and are not run by him. The are entirely separate from standard federal agencies. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

As to Babbit, well, it very well could be that the officer was a Secret Service Agent who had a primary in the room behind him. We however do not know that that was the case. But your point about that being a strange twist in the left's demands for clarity on shootings is well founded. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

How is the National Guard involved? They were not called in.

That doesnt seem to be entirely accurate. They were called in, but a series of SNAFU's seem to have made sure they didnt arrive till it was almost over. Kinda like Blucher I guess.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/08/confusion-miscommunication-delayed-guard-response-capitol-riot-senate-report-finds.html

For hours on Jan. 6, miscommunication, confusion and bureaucratic snafus snarled the effort to deploy National Guard troops to quell rioters at the U.S. Capitol, a Senate report released Tuesday found.

Defense Department officials could not adequately explain why the District of Columbia National Guard did not deploy until after 5 p.m. that day, according to the bipartisan report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate Rules Committee.

 

The Pentagon's response was delayed for hours in part because leaders, when contacted by D.C. officials, weren't clear what they were being asked to do -- or even whether a formal request was being made -- and weren't sure with whom to coordinate, the report found.

Pentagon officials told Senate investigators that criticism they received over the Defense Department's "heavy-handed response" to civil unrest last summer after the murder of George Floyd -- in particular, flying military helicopters over protests -- led the Pentagon to be more cautious in how it responded to the Jan. 6 riot.

 

The report said that Pentagon officials believed the department needed a "clear deployment plan" before sending in D.C. Guard troops "to avoid the appearance of over-militarization."

 

We are at this point nearly 20 years on from the War on Terror, and they are more concerned about appearances than security? Was nobody taking notes when armed terrorists tried to force the British and Canadian parliaments?

 

[Ivanhoe]

10 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar. It would seem to me that the executive branch is responsible for security at any federal facility including the capitol.

No.

[nitflegal]

I confess to much disappointment from our media and the left (not surprise, mind you) how little they care about the fact that a group of Americans have effectively been disappeared for half a year.  Regardless of ones feelings on the rioters elected legislators can't visit and monitor them, the media has no access, there are reports of mass solitary confinement, abuse, and injuries for people with no criminal records and one rather half assed felony charge.  

I tend to think of inflection points and this feels like one of them.  A mass of protesters, some violent and some not are being treated poorly (certainly not in line with guidelines for others with those same charges) and held away from any monitoring from officials and the media (Democracy dying in darkness and so forth) based on what appears to be poltiical considerations.  They aren't terrorists who could send messages and signals to their terror group, they are not foreign agents who could compromise security in a tv interview.  They are normal civilians who at worst may have been planning violence but lacked the opportunity to follow through and were engaged in a riot that had injury rates of LEO on par with the supported riots for the last five years with no similar conditions imposed upon the accused.  

It's too late to avoid the change so here is what is on the table; in some circumstances political opponents can be mistreated and hidden away for relatively minor charges of questionable providence and our political class is ok with this, as is the media and the majority of the public.  That ability is now part of overt US political life.  This feels like a fundamental shift with unpredictable but likely awful consequences.  Tie that in with the Federal government actively pushing for citizens to inform on their family, friends, and peers based on political issues and not criminal ones and we have a recipe for a really, really bad outcome.  If the left truly thinks that the right are a bunch of Nazis they may wish to consider that they are creating and normalizing the tools needed to bring about fascism.  I look forward to the real name of our Nehemiah Scudder being revealed. . .

[Stuart Galbraith]

Play stupid games, w in stupid prizes. At least they can console themselves  didn't end up like Ashli Babbit.

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That doesnt seem to be entirely accurate. They were called in, but a series of SNAFU's seem to have made sure they didnt arrive till it was almost over. Kinda like Blucher I guess.

 

 

SNAFU's in DC? You don't say...

You know what SNAFU means right? Situation Normal, All Fucked Up. 

That is NORMAL for DC. 

Let me give you an example. 

In many US cities there is a segment of the hoodlum population that will ride around the city, in packs of 50 or more usually, on off road bikes, 4 wheelers, ATVs and what not. They ignore traffic laws, perform random acts of crime if it so strikes them, and generally cause problem. The vehicles aren't licensed for the road either (tags would make it easy to find them. 

One of those hoodlums drove through a red-light, at speed and was crunched by a DC Fire Truck which had the green. The body was so badly mangled it was a challenge to identify him. His buddies didn't stick around apparently.  When they finally did identify the next of kin, his babymama sued for the wrongful death, the city paid it without even going to court. 

Yeah. SNAFU with an emphesis on NORMAL. 

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by rmgill

[BansheeOne]

I sense a disturbance in the Force - the Green-affiliated "tageszeitung" expresses my feelings on the House investigation perfectly. Improved Google translation. 

Quote

Assault on the Capitol under Inquiry

The Trenches Deepen

The US Capitol Assault Committee of Inquiry could clarify facts. But it's not about getting to the bottom of the truth.

This week it started - the US House of Representatives Committee of Inquiry into the events of January 6th. Hundreds of supporters of incumbent President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol that day, breaking into session chambers and congressional offices. Their goal: to prevent the final confirmation of Joe Biden's election victory.

This is the second time Congress has looked at the assault on the Capitol. The events of the day had already been rolled out during the impeachment proceedings against Trump, who was no longer in office. The procedures are very different, but they have one thing in common, even if the Democrats claim the opposite: It's not about finding out the truth.

The statements of the four police officers at the kick-off on Tuesday about their traumatic experiences in defending the Capitol against the angry mob were highly emotional and credible even in their exaggeration. But they did nothing to clarify the politically and legally open questions about January 6th. Why wasn't the police prepared? Why did it take many hours for reinforcements from the National Guard to arrive?

This is where the political assessment divides. For the Democrats, Trump provoked an uprising and then refused to take the appropriate measures against his own people. For the Republicans, this is nonsense: if anything, then it would be House chief Nancy Pelosi herself who should have taken care of protection. And now she is even making sure - by rejecting several Republicans as members of the committee of inquiry - that her own role is not discussed.

Little to no new knowledge

As a result of all the back and forth, it is completely clear from the start that the committee of inquiry will uncover little or no new information. Most importantly, it will do nothing to ensure that the divided public agrees on a common, fact-based version of what really happened on January 6th.

Just like before the start of the hearings, the Democrats will speak of an organized uprising afterwards, an attempted coup. For Republicans, it will remain a riot on the fringes of a peaceful demonstration - bad, yes, but not as bad as burning entire neighborhoods on the fringes of Black Live Matter demos after the death of George Floyd.

It is naive to believe that parliamentary committees of inquiry are convened anywhere in the world without primarily pursuing political goals. In this case in particular, however, it could theoretically have been different, since it is about an attack on the parliament itself which is supposed to be cleared up.

It would have been conceivable and urgently necessary to translate this moment of shocked pause, which was noticeable on the evening of January 6th at the reopening of the congress session, into political consequences or at least joint recommendations.

But both sides prevented that: First the Republicans with their rejection of a non-partisan commission of inquiry in the style of the 9/11 investigations. And then Nancy Pelosi with her partisan composition of the committee of inquiry, which on the Republican side only includes the two self-declared Trump critics Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

There will be many sessions, many television broadcasts, in which the same video sequences will be shown over and over again. Nobody will get any benefit from it. And the US will move even further from bridging the deep rifts which Joe Biden set out to.

https://taz.de/Sturm-aufs-Kapitol-im-U-Ausschuss/!5787801/

Edited July 31, 2021 by BansheeOne

[Stuart Galbraith]

Banshee that was interesting the first time. It's still interesting.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have buffer problems...

[BansheeOne]

Oh. Seems I hit the wrong button to clear the restored content from the reply box. Nifty feature by the way, but has its pitfalls. I'll paste the new text I wrote just now over it. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I have the same trouble. In fairness it's usually great, it's too easy to lose stuff on a tablet.

[nitflegal]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Play stupid games, w in stupid prizes. At least they can console themselves  didn't end up like Ashli Babbit.

I've used that phrase myself more than a few times.  However, when the stupid prize involves a fundamental change to the whole prize structure  that will be in place when the power blocks flip I get a bit apprehensive.

[Ssnake]

I can't help but notice that the big flip happened a good while ago.

• The PATRIOT act struck me as very un-American.
• When you think back to the Bourne novels (yes, fiction, I know - but hear me out): What was the big scandal that the CIA tried to cover up with all its might? That the US President had US citizens killed without due process. Fast forward to 2012, and the US President has developed some routine in that act, and hardly anyone blinks an eye.
• Speaking of due process, seems like still nobody is willing to admit that Guantanamo was a mistake, and close it.
• Dozens of people named "Tim McVeigh" are on federal no-fly lists even though the one they actually mean died in his own bomb blast, and yet nobody seems to be capable or care enough to strike these evidently false positive entries from the list; quite the contrary, the fact that they are on these lists seems to make life even harder for them. This is approaching Brazil levels of overreach paired with incompetence.
• Asset forfeiture, do I need to write more
• Fast & Furious
• IRS and EPA weaponized against political opposition
• Steele dossier, false witness to get a wiretap permission against a presidential candidate and his campaign, General Flynn ... seriously, is there a low that US organizations aren't willing to sink to?
• SWAT teams routinely mis-targeting homes for raids combined with no-knock warrants and plainclothes officers storming apartments in the middle of the night ...

I understand that 9/11 hit a raw nerve with the US public, but 20 years have passed now, and the damage of strengthening the Executive over the other governmental branches combined with a US public that has decided to glue the blinders on so they don't have to discuss the freight train wreck of transporting dumpsters of manure on fire that is at the feet of every US citizen.

It leaves me speechless.

[rmgill]

And now you have the White House bragging about selecting people that they want big tech to censor. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, nitflegal said:

I've used that phrase myself more than a few times.  However, when the stupid prize involves a fundamental change to the whole prize structure  that will be in place when the power blocks flip I get a bit apprehensive.

If Antifa had done the same thing, would they get treated the same way? Yes, I dont personally doubt it. Would anyone on the political right be so concerned for their welfare if they had? No, and justifiably not.

The significant thing is not their race, their cause, or the tatty flag they did it under. Surely the really significant thing is what they did and they should be punished for it. It doesnt matter if its left or right, for the damage they did to US Democracy (for Global democracy actually) they should do a 20 year stretch in a federal prison.

Im less concerned about their welfare, than the host of authoritarian Governments worldwide that are going to use the assault on the Senate as an excuse to throw yet more journalists and people campaigning for Democratic reform in the slammer. Russia and China already have.

[Der Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

• Dozens of people named "Tim McVeigh" are on federal no-fly lists even though the one they actually mean died in his own bomb blast, and yet nobody seems to be capable or care enough to strike these evidently false positive entries from the list; quite the contrary, the fact that they are on these lists seems to make life even harder for them. This is approaching Brazil levels of overreach paired with incompetence.

Are there any sources to confirm that? Didn't find anything with some quick googling.

[Rick]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I can't help but notice that the big flip happened a good while ago.

• The PATRIOT act struck me as very un-American.
• When you think back to the Bourne novels (yes, fiction, I know - but hear me out): What was the big scandal that the CIA tried to cover up with all its might? That the US President had US citizens killed without due process. Fast forward to 2012, and the US President has developed some routine in that act, and hardly anyone blinks an eye.
• Speaking of due process, seems like still nobody is willing to admit that Guantanamo was a mistake, and close it.
• Dozens of people named "Tim McVeigh" are on federal no-fly lists even though the one they actually mean died in his own bomb blast, and yet nobody seems to be capable or care enough to strike these evidently false positive entries from the list; quite the contrary, the fact that they are on these lists seems to make life even harder for them. This is approaching Brazil levels of overreach paired with incompetence.
• Asset forfeiture, do I need to write more
• Fast & Furious
• IRS and EPA weaponized against political opposition
• Steele dossier, false witness to get a wiretap permission against a presidential candidate and his campaign, General Flynn ... seriously, is there a low that US organizations aren't willing to sink to?
• SWAT teams routinely mis-targeting homes for raids combined with no-knock warrants and plainclothes officers storming apartments in the middle of the night ...

I understand that 9/11 hit a raw nerve with the US public, but 20 years have passed now, and the damage of strengthening the Executive over the other governmental branches combined with a US public that has decided to glue the blinders on so they don't have to discuss the freight train wreck of transporting dumpsters of manure on fire that is at the feet of every US citizen.

It leaves me speechless.

I am still amazed Ssnake on the superb knowledge of the U.S. Government you have and especially on how it operates! A most qualitative post.

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Are there any sources to confirm that? Didn't find anything with some quick googling.

My non-google Google throws the following links, didn't bother checking them in detail:

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/flashback-obama-admin-put-vets-on-watch-list-in-2009

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unlikely-terrorists-on-no-fly-list/

[nitflegal]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If Antifa had done the same thing, would they get treated the same way? Yes, I dont personally doubt it. Would anyone on the political right be so concerned for their welfare if they had? No, and justifiably not.

The significant thing is not their race, their cause, or the tatty flag they did it under. Surely the really significant thing is what they did and they should be punished for it. It doesnt matter if its left or right, for the damage they did to US Democracy (for Global democracy actually) they should do a 20 year stretch in a federal prison.

Im less concerned about their welfare, than the host of authoritarian Governments worldwide that are going to use the assault on the Senate as an excuse to throw yet more journalists and people campaigning for Democratic reform in the slammer. Russia and China already have.

Here is where I think we stare at each other and blink.  We had a similar riot target the White House and while smaller and not getting inside they also burned buildings down.  We had rioters who had Federal courthouses under siege for months and fire bombing police stations.  The vast majority of those people caught were released.  None have been held for 6 months before trial in solitary confinement and elected officials and the media denied access to them.  Any case that is even close to this has demonstrably not had the perpetrators treated the same way. Not even close.  The people who have shot congressmen haven't been treated this way.  The people who bombed the capital were not held in solitary and denied access to outsiders.  

I've read many of the DOJ's complaints and statement of facts and I'm not trying to minimize the riot.  When you read about the injuries and attacks on the police it becomes pretty clear that there were several truly violent rioters in the mix and I have no issue with throwing the book at them.  However I have always been taught that the foundation of western justice is that it applies equally to king and commoner.  Maybe here is where we differ; I don't have any stronger feelings against a person who invades the capital to do harm and a person who invades a florist or police station to do the same.  The message here is that some citizens are not only more valuable than others legally but that we will punish those who dare attack a member of our Federal government far harsher than someone who attacks a black store owner in Portland.  Justice is either blind or it isn't.  If it isn't than we have created a judicial caste system formally.

[Stuart Galbraith]

43 minutes ago, nitflegal said:

Here is where I think we stare at each other and blink.  We had a similar riot target the White House and while smaller and not getting inside they also burned buildings down.  We had rioters who had Federal courthouses under siege for months and fire bombing police stations.  The vast majority of those people caught were released.  None have been held for 6 months before trial in solitary confinement and elected officials and the media denied access to them.  Any case that is even close to this has demonstrably not had the perpetrators treated the same way. Not even close.  The people who have shot congressmen haven't been treated this way.  The people who bombed the capital were not held in solitary and denied access to outsiders.  

I've read many of the DOJ's complaints and statement of facts and I'm not trying to minimize the riot.  When you read about the injuries and attacks on the police it becomes pretty clear that there were several truly violent rioters in the mix and I have no issue with throwing the book at them.  However I have always been taught that the foundation of western justice is that it applies equally to king and commoner.  Maybe here is where we differ; I don't have any stronger feelings against a person who invades the capital to do harm and a person who invades a florist or police station to do the same.  The message here is that some citizens are not only more valuable than others legally but that we will punish those who dare attack a member of our Federal government far harsher than someone who attacks a black store owner in Portland.  Justice is either blind or it isn't.  If it isn't than we have created a judicial caste system formally.

Fine, so throw any Antifa rioter a 20 year stretch. Im nothing if not equal opportunities. 😁

The problem I have is that every time I drop in this thread, many of you intelligent, well meaning individuals seem to think think that because you have the impression the 'other guys', whom ever they might be,  somehow got a light sentence, then it justifies these guys getting one too. It does not. Anyone who tries to knobble democracy, either side of the Isle, needs to start geting crucified. I dont care if they are far right, far left, Antifa, the Klu Klux Klan or the Richard Nixon Appreciation society. I dont care, I really dont.

I would further add, lest somehow Ryan or anyone else get the impression im being judgemental, Im not judging any of you for holding this opinion. Im just in complete incredulity you wall want to start handing out get monopoly cards for people who walked in with ropes and Nazi symbology and chanted the intent to murder your elected representives, not to mention attempt to murder policemen. I dont care who they are or what the cause is, its fucking wrong.

Nitflegal you are minimizing the riot. You dont think you are, you are im sure a very level headed, very responsible member of the community. But you have bought into the narrative that just because one group fucks with your political system, these guys can too. No they shouldnt.

Yes, justice is blind. Thats what you should be calling for. And if it isnt, complain about it, dont call for going easy on people who are gone just as far off the reservation.

These are probably very untypical views for an American lefty to hold but Im neither American nor typical, im sure you noticed.

No disrespect intended like.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ivanhoe]

37 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I would further add, lest somehow Ryan or anyone else get the impression im being judgemental, Im not judging any of you for holding this opinion. Im just in complete incredulity you wall want to start handing out get monopoly cards for people who walked in with ropes and Nazi symbology and chanted the intent to murder your elected representives, not to mention attempt to murder policemen. I dont care who they are or what the cause is, its fucking wrong.

Do you have a photo of this?

 

[BansheeOne]

Actually as noted before, it's both sides complaining that their guys are being treated more harshly than the other's. Starting with the rather laborous argument on the Left that much more BLM rioters were detained on most single days during protests in DC than attackers of the Capitol, to many of them nationaly being hit with stacked charges including interstate terrorism which might add up to life in prison (though the most severe sentence I've found so far is 46 months for brandishing an assault rifle) while prosecutors allegedly can't find serious enough offenses to keep the Capitol rioters in jail, leading to the fact that at least 70 percent of the latter have been released though the federal pre-trial release rate is apparently just 25. For some reason, the "Guardian" has been prominent in that camp. 

Quote

Revealed: majority of people charged in Capitol attack aren’t in jail

At least 70% have been released as they await hearings – compared with a typical rate of 25% of federal defendants

Lois Beckett in Los Angeles

Fri 28 May 2021 06.00 EDT

At least 70% of people charged in the Capitol riot have been released as they wait for trial, according to a Guardian analysis.

That high pre-trial release rate stands in stark contrast with the usual detention rates in the federal system, where only 25% of defendants nationwide are typically released before their trial.

Eric Munchel, known as “Zip Tie Guy”, who was allegedly photographed wearing tactical gear and carrying wrist restraints in the Senate chamber, was released in late March, along with his mother, after an appeals court questioned whether he posed any danger outside the specific context of 6 January.

Richard Barnett, the Arkansas man photographed with his foot on Nancy Pelosi’s desk, was released in late April, nearly two months after screaming during a court hearing that “it’s not fair” that he was still in custody when “everybody else who did things much worse are already home”.

Multiple alleged members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two groups facing the most serious conspiracy charges related to their alleged plans for violence, have been released before trial, though some prominent leaders in these groups remain in custody.

The disparity in pre-trial detention rates highlights what legal experts said was a broader development in the 6 January cases: the likelihood that a substantial swath of the alleged rioters may not serve any prison time at all, even if they are convicted or plead guilty.

Many Capitol defendants are being released ahead of trial because they are facing relatively low-level charges, experts said, though other factors, including racial bias, may also play a role.

“I’m both surprised and not surprised. Most of these people are white,” said Erica Zunkel, associate director of the Federal Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “The majority of people in the federal system are people of color.”

The US attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which is prosecuting the cases, said in a statement that the alleged Capitol rioters were facing very different kinds of charges than most people in the federal system.

“Comparing the per cent of January 6 defendants detained with the overall federal average is comparing apples and oranges,” a spokesperson for the office said. “The majority of federal defendants are charged with immigration or drug crimes, both of which are typically accompanied by detention. The January 6 defendants are charged with a variety of obstruction, assault, and trespassing charges. The comparison makes no sense.”

[...] 

By mid-May, at least 440 people had been arrested on charges related to the 6 January Capitol breach, according to the justice department, including at least 125 charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement.

Of 398 defendants listed on the justice department’s Capitol breach case site as of 10 May, at least 330 were listed on the site, or in federal court records, as released from custody. At least 56 of those defendants remained in detention.

The precise number and percentage of Capitol defendants who are released versus in detention changes often, as new alleged rioters are arrested, others secure release, and a few risk re-arrest for violating the conditions of their release. The number and status of cases on the justice department’s Capitol breach website also lags behind court filings.

But the broader trend in the cases is clear: the overwhelming majority of Capitol defendants are not being detained ahead of trial.

Based on their likelihood of flight risk or danger to their communities, some of the Capitol defendants have been required to meet more intensive release conditions, including GPS monitoring, curfews or home detention, and limitations on their access to the internet or social media, according to court records.

Many of the Capitol defendants are facing only relatively low-level federal charges, such as entering a restricted building or disorderly conduct within a restricted building. A Washington Post analysis of court documents in mid-May concluded that 44% of the Capitol defendants faced only misdemeanor charges.

Some of the federal judges hearing the Capitol cases have expressed concern that certain defendants may have already spent more time in custody than they are likely to face as a punishment for their crimes.

“For those who end up only charged with misdemeanors, it’s likely that they won’t serve any substantial time, or potentially no time at all,” said Mary McCord, an expert on extremism who served for nearly 20 years as a prosecutor in the US attorney’s office in Washington DC. “It’s quite possible if they were to plead guilty, they would be sentenced to whatever time was served, or 30 days.”

There is a tension between the dramatic collective effect of the 6 January mob, which halted the official certification of Biden’s election as president and threatened the legitimacy of American democracy, legal experts said, and what federal prosecutors can prove that individual people did.

“The irony is that we have so many laws – so many things are illegal – it’s somewhat surprising that they’re not able to find charges that are more serious,” Zunkel said.

Some more serious potential charges, like conspiracy or seditious conspiracy, would require evidence of prior agreement to commit a crime that appears to be lacking for many participants in the chaotic Capitol mob, said Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and former federal prosecutor.

“When you look at each individual, what they did might amount to destruction of property or illegal entry, and that’s in all likelihood what they’ll be charged with, but the larger dimension of their participation in a massive attack falls by the wayside,” Richman said.

Part of the current dynamic of the Capitol cases, Richman cautioned, was seeing the very normal limitations of the criminal justice system come up against the heightened expectations of a public who watched the shocking violence of 6 January unfold in real time.

“Criminal prosecutions never end in these glorious accountability moments where everyone is satisfied that right was done,” Richman said.

[...] 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/28/us-capitol-attack-suspects-jail-trial

That said, if you have as various critics of solitary confinement for Capitol rioters as Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul and the ACLU, you can hardly put the complaints down to partisan bias, and might want to take a closer look at the justifications.