US Election 2020 🇺🇸 🤯

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,301
5,727
113
Twin Moose Creek

Thomas's full dissent

The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.

The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.

Like most States, Pennsylvania has a long history of limiting the use of mail-in ballots. But in October 2019, the Pennsylvania Legislature overhauled its election laws. Relevant here, it gave all voters the option of voting by mail, and it extended the deadline for officials to receive mail ballots by several days to 8 p.m. on election day. 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019–77. Then, in response to COVID–19, the legislature again amended the law but decided not to extend the receipt deadline further. See 2020 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2020–12. Displeased with that decision, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party sued in state court. It argued that the court could extend the deadline through a vague clause in the State Constitution providing, in relevant part, that “[e]lections shall be free and equal.” Art. I, §5. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed. On September 17, it held that this “free and equal” provision enabled the court to extend the deadline three days to accommodate concerns about postal delays. Petitioners promptly moved for emergency relief, filing an application for a stay on September 28. That application easily met our criteria for granting relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam).

Not only did parties on both sides agree that the issue warranted certiorari, but there also was no question that petitioners faced irreparable harm. (“‘[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury’”). Petitioners further established a fair prospect of certiorari and reversal. For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution “operat[es] as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power” to regulate federal elections. Because the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution by overriding “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.”

Despite petitioners’ strong showing that they were entitled to relief, we divided 4–4 and thus failed to act… Four days later, petitioners filed the first of these petitions and moved to expedite consideration so the Court could decide the merits before election day. But by that
time, election day was just over a week away. So we denied the motion to expedite even though the question was of “national importance” and there was a “strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

Now that the petitions are before us under the normal briefing schedule, I see no reason to avoid them. Indeed, the day after we denied petitioner’s motion to expedite in No. 20–542, the case became even more worthy of review.

The Eighth Circuit split from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, granting a preliminary injunction against an attempt by the Minnesota Secretary of State to extend the legislature’s deadline to receive ballots by seven days. Carson v. Simon, 978 F. 3d 1051, 1059–1060, 1062 (2020). This divide on an issue of undisputed importance would justify certiorari in almost any case. That these cases concern federal elections only further heightens the need for review.


Elections are “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.”
Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election.”

Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system. They sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the integrity and fairness of elections. To prevent confusion, we have thus repeatedly—although not as consistently as we should—blocked rule changes made by courts close to an
election. An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.

We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election. This Court ordered the county boards to segregate ballots received later than the deadline set by the legislature. And none of the parties contend that those ballots made an outcome-determinative difference in any relevant federal election. But we may not be so lucky in the future. Indeed, a separate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have already altered an election result. A different petition argues that after election day the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nullified the legislative requirement that voters write the date on mail-in ballots. According to public reports, one candidate for a state senate seat claimed victory under what she contended was the legislative rule that dates must be included on the ballots. A federal court noted that this candidate would win by 93 votes under that rule. A second candidate claimed victory under the contrary rule announced by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He was seated.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,301
5,727
113
Twin Moose Creek
continued

That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.

At first blush, it may seem reasonable to address this question when it next arises. After all, the 2020 election is now over, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision was not outcome determinative for any federal election.

But whatever force that argument has in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections. For at least three reasons, the Judiciary is ill equipped to address problems—including those caused by improper rule changes—through postelection litigation.

First, postelection litigation is truncated by firm timelines. That is especially true for Presidential elections, which are governed by the Electoral Count Act, passed in 1887. That Act sets federal elections for the day after the first Monday in November—last year, November 3. Under a statutory safe-harbor provision, a State has about five weeks to address all disputes and make a “final determination” of electors if it wants that decision to “be conclusive.” §5. Last year’s deadline fell on December 8, and the Electoral College voted just six days later. Five to six weeks for judicial testing is difficult enough for straightforward cases. For factually complex cases, compressing discovery, testimony, and appeals into this timeline is virtually impossible.

Second, this timeframe imposes especially daunting constraints when combined with the expanded use of mail-in ballots. Voting by mail was traditionally limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent.


In recent years, however, many States have become more permissive, a trend greatly accelerated by COVID–19. In Pennsylvania, for example, mail-in ballots composed just 4% of ballots cast in 2018. But the legislature dramatically expanded the process in 2019, thereby increasing the mail-in ballots cast in 2020 to 38%.

This expansion impedes postelection judicial review because litigation about mail-in ballots is substantially more complicated. For one thing, as election administrators have long agreed, the risk of fraud is “vastly more prevalent” for mail-in ballots. Liptak, Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises, N. Y. Times, Oct. 6, 2012. The reason is simple: “[A]bsentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system.”

Pennsylvania knows this well. Even before widespread absentee voting, a federal court had reversed the result of a state senate election in Philadelphia after finding that the supposedly prevailing candidate “conducted an illegal absentee ballot conspiracy and that the [election officials] covertly facilitated the scheme with the specific purpose of ensuring a victory for” that candidate. This problem is not unique to Pennsylvania, and it has not gone away.

Two years ago, a congressional election in North Carolina was thrown out in the face of evidence of tampering with absentee ballots. Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence.

Fraud is not the only aspect of mail-in ballots that complicates postelection judicial review. Also relevant are the corresponding safeguards that States put in place to ameliorate that heightened risk of fraud. To balance the “strong interest” of ballot access with the “‘compelling interest in preserving the integrity of [the] election process,’” Purcell, 549 U. S., at 4, many States have expanded mail-in ballots but sought to deter fraud—and create mechanisms to detect it—by requiring voters to return ballots in signed, dated secrecy envelopes. Some States also require witness or notary signatures. Tallying these ballots tends to be more labor intensive, involves a high degree of subjective judgment (e.g., verifying signatures), and typically leads to a far higher rate of ballot challenges and rejections. Litigation over these ballots can require substantial discovery and labor-intensive fact review. In some cases, it might require sifting through hundreds of thousands or millions of ballots.

It also may require subjective judgment calls about the validity of thousands of ballots. Judicial review in this situation is difficult enough even when the rules are clear and the number of challenged ballots small. Adding a dispute about who can set or change the rules greatly exacerbates the problem.

Third, and perhaps most significant, postelection litigation sometimes forces courts to make policy decisions that they have no business making. For example, when an official has improperly changed the rules, but voters have already relied on that change, courts must choose between potentially disenfranchising a subset of voters and enforcing the election provisions—such as receipt deadlines—that the legislature believes are necessary for election integrity. That occurred last year. After a court wrongly altered South Carolina’s witness requirement for absentee ballots, this Court largely reinstated the original rule, but declined to apply it to ballots already cast. Settling rules well in advance of an election rather than relying on postelection litigation ensures that courts are not put in that untenable position.

In short, the postelection system of judicial review is at most suitable for garden-variety disputes. It generally cannot restore the state of affairs before an election. And it is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladministration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results.

Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election, we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions. Here, we have the opportunity to do so almost two years before the next federal election cycle.


Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling.
There is a clear split on an issue of such great importance that both sides previously asked us to grant certiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emergency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant certiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argument fails.

The issue presented is capable of repetition, yet evades review. This exception to mootness, which the Court routinely invokes in election cases, “applies where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.”

Here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision about six weeks before the election, leaving little time for review in this Court. And there is a reasonable expectation that these petitioners—the State Republican Party and legislators—will again confront nonlegislative officials altering election rules. In fact, various petitions claim that no fewer than four other decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court implicate the same issue. Future cases will arise as lower state courts apply those precedents to justify intervening in elections and changing the rules.


One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,667
3,004
113
Capitol riot suspect blames 'right-wing media' and Trump for her actions
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Helen Coster
Publishing date:Feb 23, 2021 • 16 hours ago • 2 minute read

In this file photo taken Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. President Donald Trump greets supporters on The Ellipse near the White House in Washington, D.C. PHOTO BY BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI /AFP via Getty Images / Files
Article content
A suspect charged in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot partially blamed the “right-wing media” for her actions, as conservative news outlets face accusations that they spread misinformation ahead of the violence that left five people dead.

In a motion for release to home confinement pending the outcome of her case, filed Saturday, Jessica Watkins said she “fell prey to the false and inflammatory claims of the former president, his supporters, and the right wing media.”


She did not identify the media outlets by name or give more details about what the claims were that led her to take part in the protest.

Watkins, a leader of the far-right ‘Oath Keepers’ group, has been charged with conspiring to storm the Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election victory. She has pleaded not guilty to the conspiracy charges.


The role the media may have played ahead of the Capitol siege has faced criticism in some quarters. On Monday, two Democratic U.S. lawmakers sent letters to a dozen cable, satellite and streaming video companies urging them to address their “disseminating misinformation to millions” of users from some channels.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
The letters said “right-wing media outlets, like Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News all aired misinformation about the November 2020 elections.”

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is holding a hearing on traditional media’s role in promoting disinformation and extremism.

Watkins’ motion states that after the riots took place, she also “believed the right wing media’s assertions that the violence was perpetrated by ‘antifa’ or others.” As part of their Jan. 6 coverage, conservative media outlets at times cast doubt on the identities of the rioters.


Hosts and guests on all networks condemned the violence.

A spokesman from Newsmax wrote in a statement: “Newsmax reported on the events in Washington D.C. as they unfolded and continually condemned any violence and illegal behaviour. We never diminished the severity of the actions undertaken by those who entered the capitol building.”

OANN said: “When government officials want to silence media, especially media that shines a light on their false narratives, it’s nothing short of an attack on our democracy and freedom of press.”

Representatives from Fox News did not reply to requests for comment on Watkins’ assertions. Earlier, Fox said in response to the lawmakers’ letter that for lawmakers to tell distributors to “engage in viewpoint discrimination sets a terrible precedent.”
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,667
3,004
113
Trump supporters want to 'blow up' Capitol, police chief warns
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Susan Cornwell and Kanishka Singh
Publishing date:Feb 25, 2021 • 19 hours ago • 1 minute read • comment bubbleJoin the conversation
Newly-installed razor wire tops the unscalable fence surrounding the U.S. Capitol in the wake of the January 6th riot and ahead of the upcoming inauguration in Washington, U.S. January 14, 2021.
Newly-installed razor wire tops the unscalable fence surrounding the U.S. Capitol in the wake of the January 6th riot and ahead of the upcoming inauguration in Washington, U.S. January 14, 2021. PHOTO BY JONATHAN ERNST /REUTERS
Article content
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump supporters who launched a deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol last month have indicated they want to “blow up” the building and kill members of Congress, the acting chief of the Capitol Police said on Thursday.

Threats suggest extremists could target the building during an address by President Joe Biden, Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman told lawmakers as she advocated for continued high security around the building.


“Members of militia groups that were present on Jan. 6 have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union,” Pittman told members of the House Appropriations Committee.

“We think that it’s prudent that Capitol Police maintain its enhanced and robust security posture until we address those vulnerabilities going forward,” she said.

A date has not been announced for Biden to deliver his State of the Union address to Congress, which typically happens early in the year.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Unprecedented security measures were imposed in Washington following the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, including fences topped with razor wire and checkpoints manned by the National Guard.


About 5,000 troops are expected to stay through mid-March.

Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Democrat Biden’s electoral victory over the Republican president, who falsely claimed the November election had been marred by widespread fraud.

The attack delayed the certification of Biden’s win by several hours, as lawmakers were forced to flee the mob. Five people died in the violence, including a Capitol Police officer.

More than 200 people have been charged so far for their roles in the riot, including some with ties to far-right fringe groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,301
5,727
113
Twin Moose Creek



The Senate’s lawyers contended that the constitution gives the Legislature the role of maintaining the purity of elections and make sure voter integrity is protected, that the subpoenas were legal and a proper use of legislative power.

Thomason agreed with the Senate on all those arguments, saying the subpoenas “are legal and enforceable.”

“There is no question that the Senators have the power to issue legislative subpoenas,” Thomason wrote. “The Subpoenas comply with the statutory requirements for legislative subpoenas. The Senate also has broad constitutional power to oversee elections.

“The Arizona legislature clearly has the power to investigate and examine election reform matters,” the ruling says. “The Subpoenas also do not violate separation of powers principles. Production of the subpoenaed materials would not violate confidentiality laws.”

The ruling appears to end a bitter fight that has divided two elected Republican bodies who became embroiled in a battle prompted by former President Donald Trump’s loss in Arizona.

Fann has said she wants the audit to prove one way or another whether the victory of President Joe Biden was legitimate. Court challenges in Arizona and other battleground states where former President Donald Trump lost found no evidence of fraud, miscounts or other problems.

Reached by phone while driving to her home in Prescott on Friday morning, Fann said she had not yet talked to Senate lawyers other than to be told she had won.

“We are thrilled and grateful that the judge was able to see the big picture in this whole issue,” she said. “That this has never been about overturning an election. This has always been 100% about voter integrity and finding the answers to all of our voters’ questions about the safety and security and validity of the Arizona electoral system.”

The county Board of Supervisors has pointed to repeated checks that show the election was free and fair and properly conducted. They also did two additional audits in an effort to mollify the Senate.

Early this week, they released the results of those new audits of their equipment that showed no malicious software or incorrect counting equipment and that none of the computers or equipment were connected to the internet. Previous reviews and a hand recount of a sample of ballots also found no issues.

The state Senate wants its own forensic audit. The Senate fell one vote short of finding the five-member board in contempt earlier this month.

The county Board of Supervisors previously turned over reams of data but balked at handing over the actual ballots or the tabulation machines, saying the ballots were by law secret and the machines would be compromised.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,301
5,727
113
Twin Moose Creek
Interesting bit of news almost no one is covering


"Well, she started creating rumors saying that I was dishonorably discharged," Collins recounted.

"It really made me upset," he recalled, "because, you know, as a 13-year U.S. Navy veteran, combat veteran served in Iraq, you know, lost everything fighting for this country, to have somebody tell me that I was dishonorably discharged, especially somebody who's sitting in Congress, was absolutely disrespectful."

"So we sent her, and the media outlets that she was using, a letter to stop running false advertising, along with a copy of my DD 214," Collins said, referring to the form number for the military's Report of Separation document. "And she completely ignored it and spent more millions of dollars running advertisements. And I guess she thought we were joking. And the next month, we went ahead, and we [filed a lawsuit] against her for defamation, libel, and slander."

"She thought the lawsuit was a campaign stunt, even though I never put it in the media that we filed the lawsuit," Collins continued. "And she ignored it. And she went into default. And, you know, after the default was entered, then she started trying to put in paperwork, when she saw that I wasn't playing games. And, here we are now, Maxine's trying to get documents filed to the court the last minute even though she's already defaulted. And it's been a complete mess. We won in court yesterday ...

"So she filed an anti-SLAPP motion — a free speech motion to say that what she said was part of her free speech rights, which is ridiculous. This is America, you can say what you want to, but you got to pay if you lie, you know, and that's where she's at. But the judge denied [her motion]. The continuation she wanted to file, a judge denied that as well. And the motion to set aside the default, the judge denied that as well, because she was already in default and trying to file all this other paperwork. And even the motion to get a trial, the judge denied that as well. And so now ... we have another court date ... and on this court date, I get to ask her whatever I want to."
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,667
3,004
113
More than 300 charged in deadly assault on U.S. Capitol, official says
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Sarah N. Lynch and Mark Hosenball
Publishing date:Feb 26, 2021 • 20 hours ago • 1 minute read • comment bubble13 Comments
In this file photo taken on January 6, 2021 Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they push barricades to storm the U.S. Capitol in Washington.
In this file photo taken on January 6, 2021 Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they push barricades to storm the U.S. Capitol in Washington. PHOTO BY ROBERTO SCHMIDT /AFP via Getty Images
Article content
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department has charged more than 300 people with taking part in the deadly storming of the Capitol by former President Donald Trump’s supporters, and at least 280 have been arrested, acting Deputy Attorney General John Carlin told reporters on Friday.

“The investigation into those responsible is moving at a speed and scale that’s unprecedented, and rightly so,” Carlin said. “Those responsible must be held to account, and they will be.”


On Thursday, acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman told lawmakers that Trump supporters had indicated they may wish to blow up the building. Pittman expressed concern extremists could target Congress during an address by President Joe Biden.

On Friday, a senior FBI official, responding to questions about that threat, said the bureau is “watching very closely for any reaction from individuals that would show either an intent to commit an attack or somebody that has already committed one.”

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
The FBI has been investigating whether far-right fringe groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys conspired in advance to impede the election certification.


So far, at least 18 associates of the Proud Boys have been charged in connection with the riots. This month, prosecutors also charged nine associates of the Oath Keepers in connection with an alleged plot to storm the Capitol dating as far back as November 2020.

The senior FBI official told reporters that domestic extremists have increasingly posed grave threats for several years, and said anti-government extremist threats marked the biggest threat in 2020 and remain a top concern.

“2020 was a very big year for us. The violent reaction to a mixture of events that took place around the country is unlike anything we have seen in decades,” the official said, noting that three of the four fatal domestic terrorism attacks came from people who ascribe to an “anti-government or anti-authority violent extremist ideology.”
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,667
3,004
113
FBI pinpoints suspect in probe of U.S. Capitol officer's death: report
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Publishing date:Feb 27, 2021 • 13 hours ago • 2 minute read • comment bubbleJoin the conversation
A U.S. Capitol police officer holds a program for the ceremony memorializing U.S. Capitol police officer Brian D. Sicknick, 42, as he lies in honour in the Rotunda of the Capitol in Washington D.C., on Feb. 3, 2021. Officer Sicknick died as a result of injuries he sustained during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
A U.S. Capitol police officer holds a program for the ceremony memorializing U.S. Capitol police officer Brian D. Sicknick, 42, as he lies in honour in the Rotunda of the Capitol in Washington D.C., on Feb. 3, 2021. Officer Sicknick died as a result of injuries he sustained during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. PHOTO BY DEMETRIUS FREEMAN / POOL /Getty Images
Article content
WASHINGTON — The FBI has pinpointed a suspect in its investigation into the death of a U.S. Capitol Police officer in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress by supporters of then-President Donald Trump, the New York Times reported on Friday.

The Times, citing two unnamed law enforcement officials briefed on the inquiry, said investigators have zeroed in on an individual seen in video footage of the riot who attacked several officers with bear spray, including Brian Sicknick, the policeman who died.


Sicknick, 42, was among a vastly outnumbered group of police officers confronted by the mob who stormed the Capitol in a bid to stop Congress from certifying the election of President Joe Biden.

The violence led to the impeachment of Trump by the U.S. House of Representatives on a charge of inciting an insurrection, but he was acquitted by the Senate in a trial held after he left office.

According to the New York Times, FBI agents began to suspect soon after opening a homicide probe that Sicknick’s death was related to his inhalation of a chemical irritant, such as mace or bear spray, which both law enforcement officers and rioters were armed with during the insurrection.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
According to one of the officials cited in the Times’ report, video evidence shows that Sicknick’s suspected assailant discussed attacking officers with bear spray beforehand.

Medical examiners have yet to rule on the cause or manner of Sicknick’s death, as the autopsy is pending results of toxicology tests, the Capitol Police said in a statement on Friday.

Well over 100 officers were injured in the riot and five people died.


Although investigators have narrowed potential suspects seen in video footage to a single person this week, they have yet to identify that individual by name, the Times reported.

The newspaper said the U.S. Justice Department declined to comment. The Federal Bureau of Investigation declined to comment to Reuters.

More than 200 people have been arrested for their role in the Capitol siege, a number of them associated with militant groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, underscoring rising concern about threats posed by right-wing extremists.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,667
3,004
113
Parler drops case against Amazon for pushing it offline over Capitol violence
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Publishing date:Mar 03, 2021 • 3 hours ago • 1 minute read • comment bubbleJoin the conversation
Pro-Trump protesters storm into the U.S. Capitol during clashes with police, during a rally to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, in Washington, U.S, January 6, 2021.
Pro-Trump protesters storm into the U.S. Capitol during clashes with police, during a rally to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, in Washington, U.S, January 6, 2021. PHOTO BY SHANNON STAPLETON /REUTERS
Article content
Parler, the social media app popular among American right-wing users, has dropped its case against Amazon.com Inc for cutting off its web-hosting services, court documents from late Tuesday showed.

The app went dark in January as many service providers pulled back support, accusing it of failing to police violent content related to the attack on the U.S. Capitol, the nation’s legislative seat, by followers of then-President Donald Trump.


Google removed the application from its Play Store and Apple from App Store.

Parler sued Amazon, accusing it of making an illegal, politically motivated decision to shut it down to benefit Twitter Inc.


A U.S. judge rejected its demand that Amazon restore services for the platform later in January. A month later, Parler re-launched its services online and said the new platform was built on “sustainable, independent technology.”

Amazon has said that Parler ignored repeated warnings to effectively moderate the growth of violent content on its website, including calls to assassinate prominent Democratic politicians, leading business executives and members of the media.

Parler, however, has said there was no evidence apart from anecdotes in the press that it had a role in inciting the riots in U.S. Capitol and argued that it was unfair to deprive millions of law-abiding Americans a platform for free speech.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,667
3,004
113
Police warn of possible bid by militia group to attack U.S. Capitol
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Publishing date:Mar 03, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 1 minute read • comment bubbleJoin the conversation
A National Guardsman passes the U.S. Capitol on the day the House of Representatives is expected to vote on legislation to provide $1.9 trillion in new coronavirus relief in Washington, U.S., February 26, 2021.
A National Guardsman passes the U.S. Capitol on the day the House of Representatives is expected to vote on legislation to provide $1.9 trillion in new coronavirus relief in Washington, U.S., February 26, 2021. PHOTO BY KEVIN LAMARQUE /REUTERS
Article content
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Capitol Police department has obtained intelligence pointing to a possible plot to “breach the Capitol by an unidentified militia group” on Thursday, the agency said on Wednesday.

The Capitol Police statement added that it is working with local, state and federal agencies “to stop any threats to the Capitol,” adding, “We are taking the intelligence seriously.” No further details on the threat were provided.


Thursday marks the date when some right-wing conspiracy theorists have claimed that former President Donald Trump, who was defeated in the Nov. 3 election, will be sworn in for a second term in office. A pro-Trump mob that authorities have said included a number of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 and interrupted the formal certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory over Trump in a rampage that killed five people including a police officer.


The Capitol Police statement noted that it already has made “significant security upgrades” at the Capitol, home to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. It was unclear if these upgrades were done in response to this latest threat or whether it includes the measures already in place following the Jan. 6 riot.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,667
3,004
113
Parler sues Amazon again, after dropping original lawsuit
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Publishing date:Mar 03, 2021 • 19 hours ago • 1 minute read • comment bubbleJoin the conversation
Pro-Trump protesters storm into the U.S. Capitol during clashes with police, during a rally to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, in Washington, U.S, January 6, 2021.
Pro-Trump protesters storm into the U.S. Capitol during clashes with police, during a rally to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, in Washington, U.S, January 6, 2021. PHOTO BY SHANNON STAPLETON /REUTERS
Article content
Social media app Parler has dropped its federal case against Amazon.com Inc for cutting off its web-hosting services and filed a separate lawsuit against the company and its web services unit in a Washington state court, according to court documents from late Tuesday.

The new lawsuit filed by Parler, which was first reported by NPR, accused Amazon of defamation and breach of contract.


Parler, an app popular among American right-wing users, came back online last month after going dark in January as many service providers pulled back support, accusing it of failing to monitor violent content related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the nation’s legislative seat, by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

Parler sued Amazon, accusing it of making an illegal, politically motivated decision to shut it down to benefit Twitter Inc but a U.S. judge rejected its demand that Amazon restore services for the platform later in January.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content

A month later, Parler re-launched its services online and said the new platform was built on “sustainable, independent technology.” SkySilk, a Los Angeles-based company, said it was providing Parler with private cloud infrastructure.

An Amazon Web Services spokesman said there was no merit to the lawsuit’s claims. Parler did not respond to requests for comment.

Amazon has said that Parler ignored repeated warnings to effectively moderate the growth of violent content on its website, including calls to assassinate prominent Democratic politicians, leading business executives and members of the media.

Parler, however, said there was a lack of evidence that it had a role in inciting the pro-Trump riots in U.S. Capitol and argued that it was unfair to deprive millions of law-abiding Americans a platform for free speech.

Google also removed the application from its Play Store and Apple from its App Store.