FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated

[Jon Banks]

Reuters: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described "dirty trickster", and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot.[/i]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

[Tom Scully]

Reuters: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described "dirty trickster", and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot.[/i]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

versus some facts... IOW, you're setting yourself up to be at least as disappointed about the eventual outcome of more than 600 arrests as I expect you already are about "the Durham investigation".

https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/08/23/stop-the-steal-hints-of-the-january-5-rallies-in-the-january-6-riot-investigation/

STOP THE STEAL: HINTS OF THE JANUARY 5 RALLIES IN THE JANUARY 6 RIOT INVESTIGATION
August 23, 2021

With the charges against Owen Shroyer, the government has now charged three people who had a speaking part in several rallies tied to Stop the Steal the day before the insurrection: Brandon Straka, Russell Taylor and his co-conspirators, and Shroyer. Because I’m working on some gaps in the government’s story — gaps that must be intentional, for investigative or prosecutorial reasons — I want to look at how DOJ is beginning to fill in the story about January 5.

With Walk Away founder Brandon Straka, who was arrested on January 25, the mention of his speech at the Stop the Steal rally at Freedom Plaza in his arrest affidavit
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

 was almost incidental, included along with the rest of his incendiary speech directly tied to the riot (but the affidavit didn’t include his other public comments over a broader period — for example, it doesn’t mention Straka’s role in sowing suspicion of the Michigan vote tally)...

...The January 5 rally at the Supreme Court (which featured some of the same people as the Freedom Plaza one) appears in the So Cal Three Percenter conspiracy indictment
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046979-210609-hostetter-et-al
in part for the logistical challenges it posed....

..But it still provided cause for DOJ to mention that by December 30, Russell Taylor knew of a Stop the Steal plan to “surround the Capitol.”...

...That is, in the conspiracy indictment charging 3 percenters with organizing not just themselves to come armed to the Capitol, but others in Southern California, the earlier rally serves as both an organizational focus and a platform to sow violence.

Shroyer’s affidavit
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21046736/8-19-21-us-v-jonathan-owen-shroyer-complaint-affidavit.pdf
mentions several things he said on January 5.. ...

Prosecutors are deliberately tight lipped at this stage in which they only reveal in court pleadings the least of their evidence... and have you forgotten, too, about weapons stashed in advance?

https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/08/20/reuters-doesnt-mention-terrorism-when-discussing-the-january-6-investigation/
REUTERS DOESN’T MENTION TERRORISM WHEN CLAIMING DOJ WON’T CHARGE SERIOUS OFFENSES IN THE JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATION
August 20, 2021
Reuters has a story claiming to report that, “FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated,” that has elicited a lot of consternation. I’d like to look at what it does and does not say. Most of it is true — and not news — but somewhere along the way someone (either the reporters or the sources) misunderstood parts of what they’re looking at.

REUTERS OR ITS SOURCES DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW DOJ IS CHARGING THIS
One detail shows this to be true.

The Reuters piece makes much of the fact that DOJ is not charging what it calls “serious” charges.
...........
..............
Not once does the story mention obstruction, which also carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. If you don’t mention obstruction — and your sources don’t explain that obstruction will get you to precisely where you’d get with a sedition charge, but with a lot more flexibility to distinguish between defendants and a far lower bar of proof (unless and until judges decide it has been misapplied) — then your sources are not describing what is going on with the investigation.

Furthermore, Reuters purports to rule out “more serious, politically-loaded charges,” but it never mentions terrorism.
.....

[Steve M. Galbraith]

versus some facts... IOW, you're setting yourself up to be at least as disappointed about the eventual outcome of more than 600 arrests as I expect you already are about "the Durham investigation".

Prosecutors are deliberately tight lipped at this stage in which they only reveal in court pleadings the least of their evidence... and have you forgotten, too, about weapons stashed in advance?

Nowhere did Jon express any view about being disappointed or happy about this story. He simply presented it.

Second, your own source - a pretty partisan one if I may say - says this: "Most of it [the above story] is true — and not news — but somewhere along the way someone (either the reporters or the sources) misunderstood parts of what they’re looking at."

Your link then talks about "obstruction" and "terrorism" charges which, again, have nothing to do with the specific area of how much of the attack was coordinated or planned in advance. Apparently very little of it. That's the most important question about what happened: Was it planned? Directed? Or was it just a mob? So far the evidence indicates that it wasn't.

Maybe they are holding those conspiracy charges back but I would think that if there was evidence of a major conspiracy that that would have been revealed by now. Either leaked to the media or shown in some of the charges. So far, it hasn't.

[Tom Scully]

Nowhere did Jon express any view about being disappointed or happy about this story. He simply presented it.

Second, your own source - a pretty partisan one if I may say - says this: "Most of it [the above story] is true — and not news — but somewhere along the way someone (either the reporters or the sources) misunderstood parts of what they’re looking at."

Your link then talks about "obstruction" and "terrorism" charges which, again, have nothing to do with the specific area of how much of the attack was coordinated or planned in advance. Apparently very little of it. That's the most important question about what happened: Was it planned? Directed? Or was it just a mob? So far the evidence indicates that it wasn't.

Maybe they are holding those conspiracy charges back but I would think that if there was evidence of a major conspiracy that that would have been revealed by now. Either leaked to the media or shown in some of the charges. So far, it hasn't.

I've been exposed to Jon's political views since well before the last election, back when Royell claimed to be an authority on covid-19 risks, impact, and mitigation.

The Trump supporting faction of the GOP has become so extreme and unmoored from facts (not including you in that description) that what once was regarded simply as competent as a result of an accurate track record, now seems, "a pretty partisan one".

The attack on the U.S. Capitol is more troubling than the Oklahoma City bombing 26 years ago. No amount of spin or other minimization efforts is going to change that. Post a source I should trust, based on track record and depth of analysis. Dr. Marcy Wheeler quit contributing at The Intercept almost immediately after becoming associated with it because she prizes her independence and wants to be evaluated on her accuracy and not be subjected to the tactic you used to diminish the impact of her analysis and opininion. Since January, she's examined every pleading by prosecutors and defendants involved in January 6 and tried to focus most on those charged with violent offenses and those who moved from entrance to entrance of the Capital.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/09/the-gateway-pundits-east-capitol-door-oath-keeper-conspiracy/
June 9, 2021
"..That makes the intent of the Gateway Pundit story more interesting. It claims that the existing explanation for how the East doors got opened is that a Marine Major “went inside and managed to run around and open up the doors.”

She immediately pointed out the identities of key persons Tucker Carlson was falsely claiming must be FBI instigators. She is a linguist who compares government redactions in documents, gleaning details from inconsistent redactions. She is assisted by a criminal defense attorney who debates her as if he was the defense attorney of some of the January 6 accused.

I've been following her work since 2005.

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/emptywheels-marcy-wheeler-knows-more-than-she-tells-but-she-tells-a-lot.php
Marcy Wheeler knows more than she tells, but she tells a lot
By Sam Thielman
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
This article is the first profile in a series focusing on notable forensic journalists for the Tow Center for Digital Journalism.
IN THE SOMETIMES MURKY WORLD of national security reporters, few people are wrong less often than Marcy Wheeler.....

[Jon Banks]

versus some facts... IOW, you're setting yourself up to be at least as disappointed about the eventual outcome of more than 600 arrests as I expect you already are about "the Durham investigation".

Prosecutors are deliberately tight lipped at this stage in which they only reveal in court pleadings the least of their evidence... and have you forgotten, too, about weapons stashed in advance?

Steve is right. I won't be disappointed with whatever the FBI or Durham investigation conclude.

As for my personal opinion, I am skeptical that January 6th was a top-down coup attempt. It looks more like some groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers came prepared for violence (as they often are) but there was no well organized plot.

As for Durham, I think he's a straight shooter and will get to the bottom of whether or not the FBI overreached in their 2016 investigation into Trump's campaign.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Steve is right. I won't be disappointed with whatever the FBI or Durham investigation conclude.

As for my personal opinion, I am skeptical that January 6th was a top-down coup attempt. It looks more like some groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers came prepared for violence (as they often are) but there was no well organized plot.

As for Durham, I think he's a straight shooter and will get to the bottom of whether or not the FBI overreached in their 2016 investigation into Trump's campaign.

It does seem to me that at this point, and it's been more than seven months, that if there was a larger conspiracy behind this attack, some greater coordination and planning beforehand, some directed purpose behind it, that that would have been revealed by now. Charges brought, indictments made, press conferences announcing the discovery, leaks to the media. I can't believe that they're withholding information about a larger plan simply to be shown at a later date.

As you said, instead of an attempt coup this was just a mob that did what mobs often do. Undirected, uncontrolled violence. Nothing planned out beforehand except perhaps by those small radical crackpots. Doesn't excuse it - prosecute them.

As to Durham: I think it's clear that people in the FBI, high ranking ones, cut corners when investigating the Trump campaign. They were overzealous and skirted around the safeguards we've put in since the COINTELPRO revelations. Whether that warrants criminal prosecution will be revealed by the Durham investigation. There have been as far as I can tell no leaks from that. So either they've found nothing or he's running a tight ship.

[Jon Banks]

As to Durham: I think it's clear that people in the FBI, high ranking ones, cut corners when investigating the Trump campaign. They were overzealous and skirted around the safeguards we've put in since the COINTELPRO revelations. Whether that warrants criminal prosecution will be revealed by the Durham investigation. There have been as far as I can tell no leaks from that. So either they've found nothing or he's running a tight ship.

There was one prosecution and that was for a blatant example of evidence tampering.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/former-fbi-attorney-pleads-guilty-durham-398605


I'll be surprised if there are other examples as bad. I agree that the FBI were over zealous in their paranoia about Russian interference and concern about Trump.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There was one prosecution and that was for a blatant example of evidence tampering.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/former-fbi-attorney-pleads-guilty-durham-398605


I'll be surprised if there are other examples as bad. I agree that the FBI were over zealous in their paranoia about Russian interference and concern about Trump.

They uncritically accepted, maybe not consciously but with little skepticism, the Steele dossier and that was when things went of the rails.