A detention hearing is about to start in federal court in Arkansas in the case of Richard Barnett, the man photographed sitting in Nancy Pelosi's office (see: https://t.co/GAAENhkxf0). He's been in custody since his arrest

Prosecutors alleged Barnett was carrying a stun gun. He's charged with entering a restricted area w/ a weapon, violent entry/disorderly conduct, and theft. There isn't anything on the docket indicating what the govt/Barnett will be seeking as far as detention v. release
We're still waiting for the Richard Barnett detention hearing to start in Arkansas. Meanwhile, follow @o_ema for updates on initial appearances in DC federal court today for a few of the Capitol insurrection arrestees --> https://t.co/cIDwzghXPp
Richard Barnett's detention hearing is underway in Arkansas — Judge Erin Wiedemann will decide if Barnett should stay behind bars. The first witness is FBI special agent Jonathan Willett, who was involved in the Capitol riot investigation
FBI agent walks the judge through surveillance videos that the agent says show Barnett walking in and out of Nancy Pelosi's office, with a "walking stick Taser" on his hip, as well as the widely disseminated photos of Barnett sitting in Pelosi's chair with his feet up
FBI agent now presenting evidence of Barnett buying the "walking stick Taser" on 12/31 (receipt + surveillance footage from the shop + opened packaging found during a search). Agent said Barnett also purchased pepper spray and two-way radios during that shop.
FBI agent says Barnett confirmed he owned firearms, and the government shows a photo of Barnett kneeling holding a gun, alongside two children (one of whom is holding a very large gun that the agent says appears to be an assault rifle)
Govt shows video of Barnett outside the Capitol holding up the letter he took from Pelosi's office and saying he left a message that read, "Bigo was here, you bitch." Also showed footage of Barnett from a Nov. "Stop the Steal" rally saying "whatever it takes, whatever it takes"
Barnett's attorney Anthony Siano is cross-examining the FBI special agent. He asks about the agent's background and the timeline of the investigation into Barnett; agent says it started Jan. 6th (the day of the riot) when they got word someone from Arkansas may have been involved
Siano notes the agent kept referring to Barnett taking a "letter" from Pelosi's office, and asks if the agent knew it was an empty envelope. The agent says he didn't know what was inside because it was a sealed envelope
Siano has the agent confirm Barnett reached out to law enforcement the night after the riot (not totally clear who he contacted) about self-surrendering. FBI agent says he assumed Barnett assumed the FBI was looking for him, b/c the FBI hadn't notified they were looking to arrest
On redirect, re: the defense's questions about Barnett offering to self-surrender to law enforcement the night of the riot on Jan. 6, the prosecutor asks the FBI agent if Barnett turned himself in as soon as he got back to Arkansas from DC. The FBI agent says no.
FBI agent had noted that Barnett said in his interview after surrendering that he had guns but had recently moved them. Judge asks the FBI agent if Barnett told them where the guns were, and the agent says no he did not
We're now hearing from defense witnesses who know Barnett and are testifying that he's trustworthy and not a threatening person

More from Zoe Tillman

New, with more to come: DOJ under Biden is keeping up the previous admin's effort to take over Trump's defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized during the campaign.

First brief under new admin: https://t.co/JihPuNXxHj


Story: DOJ is keeping up an effort to try to take over Donald Trump's defense against a defamation case filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized as a candidate last fall.

Key phrase in tonight's brief? "institutional interests"
https://t.co/LTuq3vv58F


This is the latest case that tests DOJ's traditional role of defending the power and prerogatives of the executive branch — any executive branch, regardless of president. What's unusual is that Biden had weighed in on this case specifically.

DOJ says Trump's comments about Carroll — who accused him of raping her more than 20 years ago — were "crude and disrespectful." Notably, that language does not appear in DOJ's prev. brief filed 1/15. But DOJ says the case isn't about what's "appropriate"

A federal district judge in Manhattan had rebuffed DOJ's effort last fall to substitute the US govt for Trump as the defendant. If the government ultimately wins, it would likely spell the end of Carroll's suit, since the US is immune against libel suits

More from Legal

You May Also Like

Nano Course On Python For Trading
==========================
Module 1

Python makes it very easy to analyze and visualize time series data when you’re a beginner. It's easier when you don't have to install python on your PC (that's why it's a nano course, you'll learn python...

... on the go). You will not be required to install python in your PC but you will be using an amazing python editor, Google Colab Visit
https://t.co/EZt0agsdlV

This course is for anyone out there who is confused, frustrated, and just wants this python/finance thing to work!

In Module 1 of this Nano course, we will learn about :

# Using Google Colab
# Importing libraries
# Making a Random Time Series of Black Field Research Stock (fictional)

# Using Google Colab

Intro link is here on YT: https://t.co/MqMSDBaQri

Create a new Notebook at https://t.co/EZt0agsdlV and name it AnythingOfYourChoice.ipynb

You got your notebook ready and now the game is on!
You can add code in these cells and add as many cells as you want

# Importing Libraries

Imports are pretty standard, with a few exceptions.
For the most part, you can import your libraries by running the import.
Type this in the first cell you see. You need not worry about what each of these does, we will understand it later.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?