I've only been listening, not live tweeting, but Matthew Ryan Miller's attorney just told Judge Moss his client should only get a year and a day in prison because it would be more beneficial to focus on treatment for his drug addiction (to marijuana). Moss... skeptical.
“Seeing pictures of my inebriated behaviors that day sends shivers down my spine,” Matthew Ryan Miller tells Judge Moss. “My intentions that day were to wear a wild outfit, drink some beers and have a great time.”
"Every time I think of the events of that day, I feel sickened by what happened," U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss says.
🚨 SENTENCE: Matthew Ryan Miller, of Howard County, Maryland, ordered to serve 33 months in prison for assaulting police during the #CapitolRiot. Will have to pay $2,000 in restitution and complete 100 hours of community service. wusa9.com/article/news/n…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Opening arguments have finished. DOJ told jury Timothy Hale-Cusanelli "genuinely believes" in civil war and that Jewish interests control President Biden. That's why, they said, he entered the Capitol. He lamented they didn't have enough people to hold it indefinitely.
Hale-Cusanelli's attorney, Jonathan Crisp, described his client as "bombastic" and "antagonistic."
Crisp: "He is the guy you have met who just wants to say things to agitate things." But, he said, that's all it is.
Rep. @RodneyDavis releases 2nd statement calling for release of footage showing @RepLoudermilk meeting w/ what he's described as "constituent family" on 1/5.
Statement mischaracterizes @January6thCmte's letter, which does not accuse Loudermilk of leading "reconnaissance tours."
See @January6thCmte's letter below. More at issue seems to be that @RepLoudermilk was among @HouseAdmnGOP members who reviewed video and said there were no groups/tours prior to 1/6. Loudermilk now says he did meet w/ group on 1/5 while Capitol was closed.
Rep. Loudermilk and Rep. Davis were also among a group of GOP members who filed an ethics complaint against Democrats for alleging Republicans led tours prior to 1/6. wusa9.com/article/news/n…
Judge Nichols' novel reading of the 1512(c)(2) statute continues rippling outward. Now one of the #CapitolRiot defendants who pleaded guilty before him, Gina Bisignano, wants to withdraw that plea, citing his ruling in the Garrett Miller/Joseph Fischer cases.
Judge Nichols is the only judge in the D.C. District to find a document requirement in 1512(c)(2) — the obstruction statute under which many #CapitolRiot defendants are charged. Even his three fellow Trump appointees have explicitly rejected it. wusa9.com/article/news/n…
Gina Bisignano's plea deal was unusual: it was filed under seal and was one of only a handful that specifically mentioned witness protection.
That's likely because Bisignano had a meeting w/ other #CapitolRiot defendants after Jan. 6, including Danny Rodriguez & Ed Badalian.
Starting soon: At 2 PM, five Proud Boys indicted for allegedly conspiring to disrupt the certification of Electoral College votes on Jan. 6 will be back in court for a control status hearing. There used to be 6 in the case, but: wusa9.com/article/news/n…
Bad waiting music today. Bring back the Spin Doctors-esque muzak.
OK, we're getting started. Everybody is present except for Zachary Rehl. His (new) attorney Carmen Hernandez says he'd rather be present, but he understands. Rehl previously had attorney Jonathon Moseley, but dropped him shortly before he was disbarred. wusa9.com/article/news/n…
Starting now: Motion hearing for nine Oath Keepers in the seditious conspiracy indictment.
Up first: David Fischer, attorney for Thomas Caldwell, arguing the seditious conspiracy charge should be thrown out because it requires a conspiracy against the enforcement or execution of a law, and, he argues, Congress "cannot execute a law."
Fischer quickly glosses over his argument that a member of the executive branch would have had to been executing a law on Jan. 6 without noting that a member of the executive branch, VP Mike Pence, was there.
See a lot of Twitter speculation about right-wing Pastor Greg Locke's latest fusillade. While it's certainly true his rhetoric has gotten more incendiary and overtly political recently, that doesn't necessarily mean it violates Section 501(c)(3) or the Johnson Amendment.
Section 501(c)(3) DOES allow churches/religious leaders to take positions on public policy issues. Religious leaders can even explicitly endorse candidates *as long as it's not at an official church function or spoken as a representative of the church.*
Greg Locke's latest comments are obviously political *and* take place during an official church function... but that's still probably not enough. 501(c)(3) is tailored toward communications about specific candidates or political campaigns, not general screeds against one party.