All hell broke loose during the virtual court appearance of US Capitol Insurrection defendant Landon Copeland.
A court released transcript shows how vulgar and disjointed the hearing became for this defendant from Utah, whose accused of assaulting police ==>
Copeland was screaming "objection" during the hearings of *other* defendants, including when prosecutors referenced Trump and FOX News.
Eventually, he promised to keep his "mouth shut"
Soon after, things began spiraling out of control. Copeland began yelling at judge. Wanted postponement, cited his military service... said "You owe this to me"
Then... screaming again.... he called the court "a robot" and said the court couldn't get to him in rural Utah, if he wanted to stop them
Yes he was --- and remains -- free from jail
Then the vulgarities started. Directed at the judge!
Court tried to mute him, but Copeland kept unmuting himself
Prosecutors allege Copeland has made troubling social media posts and messages, including references to "bombing" and honoring Ashli Babbitt
Judge scheduled another hearing later this Spring. And transcript says judge will decide at that hearing, whether to change Copeland's release conditions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
FLASH: Sen Thom Tillis (R-NC) is on Senate floor and he's about to make a motion for "unanimous consent" to expedite the hanging of the January 6th plaque at the Capitol
To honor the police heroes
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) speaks first: "In 2022, we passed a law .. saying we'd hang this plaque"
"I'm here to team up with my colleague from North Carolina to have a strategy to make sure we *do* have this plaque up"
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is now speaking. He recalls that he was on floor in Senate chamber on Jan 6.
Tillis says prior law requiring Jan 6 plaque had a "technical" issue that requires clarity. He says issue can be quickly cured
Some pardoned rioters are retracing their march from the Ellipse to the Capitol
Some victims are part of a 10am hearing organized by House Democrats
And: Anger, toxicity and confrontation continue to define Jan 6. Still.
Poltico Playbook on Jan 6 just now:
“Today D.C., and much of America, is deeply divided about what happened.
That lack of consensus represents a triumph, of sorts, for Donald Trump, and stands as testament to his unmatched ability both to reshape political narratives and to carry his supporters to extraordinary positions”
Injured DC police officer Dan Hodges says the Jan 6 denialism remains rampant
“Everything on January 6 occurred exactly as it appeared to. There’s no conspiracy here, there’s no, it wasn’t a “Fed-surrection”
NEW: House Speaker Mike Johnson – after two years of deflecting questions on the matter – is now arguing that the legally-required January 6 plaque must be re-considered
(more)
In a statement tonight, a spokesperson for Speaker Johnson says:
"As written, the statute authorizing this plaque is not implementable, and proposed alternatives devised by Democrat House staff, not members, also do not comply with the statute. If Democrats are serious about commemorating the work of USCP officers, they are free to work with the appropriate committees of jurisdiction to develop a framework for proper vetting and consideration, just as the House does for Congressional Gold Medals, commemorative gold coins, and similar ceremonial responsibilities”
Federal law required the Jan 6 plaque to be hung on Capitol grounds by March 2023
ALERT: House Judiciary Committee releases 250+ page transcript of its interview of Special Counsel Jack Smith
Smith testified: "January 6th was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted. Over 160 individuals later pled guilty to assaulting police that day. Exploiting that violence, President Trump and his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election. I did not choose those Members, President Trump did"
(MORE)
Special Counsel Jack Smith interview w/ House Judiciary Committee (MORE)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): "You just made some pretty definitive statements about your belief that President Trump was guilty of these charges. Is that correct?"
Jack Smith: "Yes, I believe we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases"
Jordan: "And doesn't the Justice Manual prohibit prosecutors from asserting that a defendant is guilty of something before a jury makes a determination?"
Smith: "When a case is pending, yes."
When he was asked about other election disputes (including 2000 election), Jack Smith told House Judiciary Cmte:
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election"