The U.S. Attorney's office announced an update on charges related to the U.S. Capitol insurrection soon.
As I cover that, my colleague @ColinKalmbacher will live-tweet the Aaron Mostofsky hearing.
"We have opened 160 case files, and that is just the tip of the iceberg."
We have received more than 100K pieces of digital media.
He solicits more at 1-800-CALL-FBI
He credits pre-siege intelligence to the arrest of Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio before Jan. 6 https://t.co/lLYLUsndyn
He says he anticipates hundreds of cases.
The numbers will "geometrically increase."
"This is just the beginning."
Now after those charges are filed, then we have the ability to indict these individuals on more significant charges.
"I just want to clarify that the initial charges we're filing, some of these misdemeanors, are only the beginning. They are not the end."
The FBI, working with U.S. Attorney's office, are looking at cases that potentially include sedition and conspiracy cases.
More from Adam Klasfeld
More from Government
How does a government put a legislation on 'hold'? Is there any constitutional mechanism for the executive to 'pause' a validly passed legislation? Genuine Koshan.
So a committee of 'wise men/women' selected by the SC will stand in judgement over the law passed by
Here is the thing - a law can be stayed based on usual methods, it can be held unconstitutional based on violation of the Constitution. There is no shortcut to this based on the say so of even a large number of people, merely because they are loud.
Tomorrow can all the income tax payers also gather up at whichever maidan and ask for repealing the income tax law? It hurts us and we can protest quite loudly.
How can a law be stayed or over-turned based on the nuisance value of the protestors? It is anarchy to allow that.
CJI: our intention is to see if we can bring about an amicable resolution to the problem. That is why we asked you why don't you put the #FarmBills on hold. You want time for negotiation. If there is some sense of responsibility showing that you will not implement the laws
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) January 11, 2021
So a committee of 'wise men/women' selected by the SC will stand in judgement over the law passed by
CJI: .....then we can form a committee with ICAR members to look into this. Till then you can continue to put the law on hold. Why will you insist on continuing the law anyhow
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) January 11, 2021
Here is the thing - a law can be stayed based on usual methods, it can be held unconstitutional based on violation of the Constitution. There is no shortcut to this based on the say so of even a large number of people, merely because they are loud.
AG Venugopal: none of the petitions point to any provision of three farm acts stating that it is unconstitutional
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) January 11, 2021
CJI: we are not declaring it unconstitutional
AG: laws cannot be stayed. This is drastic
Tomorrow can all the income tax payers also gather up at whichever maidan and ask for repealing the income tax law? It hurts us and we can protest quite loudly.
How can a law be stayed or over-turned based on the nuisance value of the protestors? It is anarchy to allow that.
I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.
This will go pretty in depth FYI.
The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:
1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.
2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.
Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.
These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.
It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.
This is where one of the first red flags comes up.
The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.
When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.
This will go pretty in depth FYI.
I couldn't possibly guess why Six Days in Fallujah is being revived at a time when US army recruitment is at an all time low.
— Daniel Ahmad (@ZhugeEX) February 11, 2021
This reboot is from the same people that worked with the FBI and CIA on training systems and is basing its game on excusing US war crimes. pic.twitter.com/5H8vVqKh9s
The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:
1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.
2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.
Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.
These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.
It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.
This is where one of the first red flags comes up.
The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.
When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.
