Talk of the Civil War can be found online as well as in journal articles
Pro-Trump protests and civil disobedience: Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, POPUS and Truth Social
Posts on Twitter that mentioned “civil war” had soared nearly 3,000 percent in just a few hours as Mr. Trump’s supporters blasted the action as a provocation. Similar spikes followed, including on Facebook, Reddit, Telegram, Parler, Gab and Truth Social, Mr. Trump’s social media platform. Critical Mention said that the phrase was more talked about on radio programs and podcasts.
Now experts are bracing for renewed discussions of civil war, as the Nov. 8 midterm elections approach and political talk grows more urgent and heated.
CNN has obtained secret service documents that show there was a lot of intelligence regarding the potential for violence before January 6.
There is a habit in post-9/11 Washington, especially among politicians, to call out any failure to predict the future as an “intelligence failure.” That allows elected officials to make sure the people know about the intelligence gathering going on.
The Secret Service gave the January 6 committee documents that showed most of the intel was coming from the FBI. Much of that was being passed in briefings at the FBI’s Washington field office to all agencies involved in preparing for the January 6 protests. Critics have also pointed to a December 31, 2020, Secret Service summary of Facebook posts promoting pro-Trump protests on January 6 with each paragraph ending with “there is no indication of civil disobedience.”
One summary of FBI intel from January 5 states right wing groups responding from across the nation to establish a quick reaction force in Virginia. Should POTUS need assistance, stand by at the ready.
There was also information provided to the Secret Service by the US Marshals Service from a post from 9 a.m. on January 6 on the online social site known as Parler and popular with conservatives: “Now you got weapons I came packing got my dc carry permit in November,” writes a Trump supporter. I’m here for justice. We must see how corrupt the man is if he were to come out of that building in handcuffs.
The Capitol Police’s threat assessment of anti-Trump protests and violent extremism: Comments on Jones’s account of the Facebook demonstration in Washington
“While we have not yet identified specific plans to engage in large-scale violence, we remain concerned about singular acts of political violence occurring in the days ahead,” Daniel J. Jones, president of Advance Democracy, a not-for-profit research organization, told CNN.
The question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how intelligence flows between agencies. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are supposed to share information with law enforcement partners.
Critics said that shows the Secret Service wasn’t really talking about the potential for violence. As an intelligence professional who read similar summaries for nearly two decades, I can tell you that caveat simply meant this: There is simply no indications in the Facebook posting of planned violence.
To underscore that point, the same document went to great pains on its first page to point out that prior demonstrations by some of the same groups in Washington just weeks earlier had resulted in “physical altercations between pro and anti-Trump demonstration groups as well as numerous arrests” including for assault, assault on a police officer, possession of a weapon and inciting violence.
Three days before the storming of the capitol, a threat assessment was produced by the US Capitol Police intelligence arm.
The document was written by a team of Capitol Police intelligence analysts working for Jack Donohue, an expert on politically motivated violent extremism. Prior to joining the Capitol Police, Donohue had been one of my deputies in the NYPD.
Reply to “Stop the Steal’s Protest on January 6 2021,” by C.E. Irving and M.W. Walker
The memo concluded, “Supporters of the current president see January 6 2021, as the last opportunity to overturn the results of the presidential election.” It is possible that this sense of desperation and disappointment leads to more violence. Another key judgment on that page: “Unlike previous post-election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter-protesters…but rather Congress itself.”
The analysis ends with these words: “this, combined with Stop the Steal’s propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members and others who actively promote violence, may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike.” That was Sunday, January 3 at 3 p.m.
The House of Representatives Sergeant-at-Arms was asked to request National Guard troops by the man. Irving, the speaker of the house, was said to have expressed concern about having the National Guard present, and not being supported by the intelligence. In his testimony Irving denied the account that was given to him.
Some reports have said that my use of the National Guard troops was determined by theoptics. That is categorically false. The media portrayed gymnastic stunts as the reason for not having adequate security for January 6.
According to Sund, Stenger also would not approve the request but “suggested I ask them how quickly we could get support if needed and to ‘lean forward’ in case we had to request assistance on January 6.” During the days leading up to January 6, William Walker was asked if the National Guard would be able to get troops on the ground. Walker told Sund yes, but needed the formal approvals to mobilize.
Both sergeants-at-arms testified in March that they never brought the January 3 request from the chief of the Capitol to either Pelosi or McConnell until the Capitol was fully under siege on January 6. Irving said, “The intelligence was not that there would be a coordinated attack on the Capitol, nor was it contemplated in any of the interagency meetings I attended before the attack.” Stenger died of cancer.
If there was one thing that might have changed, it might have been advance word from the White House that President Donald Trump was going to give a speech to a large crowd of supporters outside on the Ellipse and tell them they had to “fight like hell” to save the country as they prepared to march to the Capitol. That didn’t enter the threat stream until it actually happened.
The sergeants- at-arms and Capitol Police chief had to fall on their swords. Congress called for a review of Capitol Police decisions in March. Congress passed legislation giving the chief of the Capitol Police the authority to ask for emergency assistance from the DC National Guard and other federal agencies without having to go through the Capitol Police Board.
It shows us that the police chief shouldn’t have to run a crisis through one, even if they work by committee.
Security posture, online chatter, and public access in the United States Capitol Police response to the January 6, 2001 attack on the U.S. Capitol
On the two-year anniversary of the January 6, 2001 attack on the US Capitol, the US Capitol Police is increasing their security posture and monitoring online chatter.
Additionally, USCP is coordinating with law enforcement agencies in surrounding jurisdictions, including police departments from Maryland’s Montgomery County and Fairfax County in Virginia. Civil disturbance units can be accessed by the police in Washington, DC.
A document written by the Capitol Police suggested that there could be hundreds of protesters on both the Supreme Court and Capitol grounds.
The solicitor general did not respond to the case because he believed it would not be taken seriously by the justices. The fact that the justices are considering the case on January 6 is only due to the timing of the DOJ’s decision last year to waive its response on November 23, automatically putting it on the list for this Friday.
The stepped-up posture is the result of a lot of caution and is in fact standard procedure for the USCP in the wake of the deadly riot two years ago.
Over the past two years, USCP has overhauled its approach and drafted a common framework for First Amendment activity that could potentially turn volatile. Tactical and medical operational planning is one of the strategies the department uses regularly.
The Dean Obeidallah Show: Why We Are Going to DC Pack Our S***!!!” After Donald Trump’s Decay into Proton-Leading Crime
Editor’s Note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM radio’s daily program “The Dean Obeidallah Show.” Follow him @[email protected]. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. You can give your opinion on CNN.
Before the January 6 attack, Trump had urged his supporters to attend his rallies, in an attempt to feed his ego. In a post-January 6 America, it could be seen as a possible attempt to replicate the insurrection. But this time, the desperate Trump wants his supporters to protect him from being held accountable for potential crimes.
It’s reassuring to see that Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, told his staff by email Saturday night, “We do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York.” While not mentioning Trump, he stated that the proper safeguards are in place for all 1,600 of us, and that any threats will be fully investigated.
In a follow-up on Truth Social, Trump wrote, “THEY are killing our nation as we sit back and watch.” We have to save America. PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST!!!”
One example is Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers. Referencing Trump’s “wild” tweet, Meggs wrote in a Facebook message in late December 2020, “Trump said It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that’s what he’s saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir, yes, Sir! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your s***!!”
This is thought to have occurred after the FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in regards to a court-approved investigation into the handling of classified documents. The president decried what he said was the bad situation for the nation, as his home in Florida, Mar-A-Lago, was being occupied by FBI agents. Two days later he baselessly accused the FBI of potentially planting evidence.
It is not surprising that the FBI was targets of an unprecedented number of threats. One person — who had in the past repeated the false 2020 election claims on Trump’s social media platform — tried to breach an FBI field office in Cincinnati and was killed in a shootout with police.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/19/opinions/trump-call-for-protests-obeidallah/index.html
Online Chatter After the January 6th Anomaly: The Status and Future of the U.S. Capitol Investigation and the New York City Crime Scene
The former president also has repeatedly floated pardoning the January 6 attackers should he be reelected — even claiming they deserve an “apology.” If I get back in the White House, I will have your back.
This email sounds like it could be from a prosecutor in a case involving a mob boss. But that is where we are as a nation given what has happened in the past few years.
If the facts and the law warrant criminal charges, Trump should face an indictment, just as any of us would. And if there is an incitement of violence, criminal charges should also be brought in that regard. No one is above the law — not even Donald J. Trump.
The online chatter was just that; it did not have the actionable information, coordination and volume that preceded the US Capitol attack, according to US officials and security experts.
That dynamic has led to a cautious response from the Biden administration, which has refrained from making too much of the chatter and been careful about what it shares regarding potentially violent rhetoric with state and local law enforcement, a senior US official familiar with the online chatter told CNN.
The intelligence community is familiar with the online chatter because it always rises to a level of concern, according to a senior law enforcement official.
A key difference two years after January 6, sources tell CNN, is the threat of arrest has risen in the minds of many potential protesters. As a good indicator of the current situation, the senior law enforcement official pointed to a small protest on Monday in New York City, noting that one group that was scheduled to come decided not to out of apparent fear of being arrested.
The Republican congresswoman warned that if protests against an arrest of Trump were to continue, they could be used by federal agents.
And until Trump tells his supporters when and where to show up in his defense, as he did before the Capitol riot, “it is unlikely we will see another event of January 6th’s magnitude and even then, a lot of folks have lost faith in him,” said Meghan Conroy, a former investigator on the January 6 Select Committee who is now a research fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.
The amount of rhetoric was seen in the week leading up to January 6 but has not reached the same level yet, according to the CEO of the online threat analysis firm.
There has been a recent trend of posts from influential right-wing figures being geared at creating chaos rather than sparking violence. After Trump announced that he would be arrested, Jack Posobiec took to Trump’s social media platform to say that a nationwide bank run was needed.
Law enforcement and security experts told CNN they are not seeing large groups animating around Trump’s Truth Social post calling for protest at any level near what they saw at January 6. A law enforcement expert that tracks social media posts said engagement on some posts was lower than they had previously thought.
The Alvin Bragg probe of a hush money payment from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels: A letter to the Bragg office
It is unclear if and when the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will unveil charges against Trump as part of its probe into a hush money payment from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. House Republicans, though, are already pledging to investigate Bragg’s investigation.
Three House GOP chairmen on Monday sent a letter to Bragg calling for his testimony and claiming that Bragg’s investigation was an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.”
