Days before former President Trump’s impeachment trial begins, newly filed federal charges against anti-government activists offer fresh, compelling evidence that the accused perpetrators of the Capitol riots pre-planned their attack days and weeks in advance and in plain sight of an FBI that vowed to be vigilant to extremist threats.

View Comments (3)

A dozen FBI affidavits supporting charges against the more than 200 defendants show rioters engaged in advance planning on social media sites. The planning included training, casing sites, identifying commanders on scene, and requests for donations of cash, as well as combat and communication gear. . . .

The early actions identified in court documents date back to November, with planning and rhetoric accelerating after Christmas, court records show.

That growing body of evidence raises questions about whether the FBI and other security agencies acted proactively enough to thwart the violence. It also undercuts the House Democrats’ impeachment claim — supported by 10 Republicans — that Trump’s speech spontaneously incited the riots, legal experts told Just the News. . . .

Trump’s lawyers are planning to argue the president’s speech did not in fact incite violence but rather called for peaceful protest and was protected by the First Amendment. They also are preparing a video montage showing Democrats making comments encouraging violence dating to last summer’s BLM protests.

George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat who has defended Trump on impeachment issues, argued in a column published Sunday in The Hill newspaper that the impeachment claims do not meet the legal standard of incitement. . . .

“The problem is free speech. The remarks of Trump last month would not satisfy the test in [landmark free speech case Brandenburg v. Ohio] when the Supreme Court said ‘advocacy of the use of force or of law violation’ is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for use of force. He told supporters to go ‘peacefully’ and to ‘cheer on’ his allies in Congress.”

Beyond the First Amendment, the FBI’s investigation provides growing evidence that the riot was not spontaneous but planned. For instance, last week federal prosecutors filed an FBI affidavit showing that two days after Christmas, an anti-government activist named Ethan Nordean in the state of Washington posted a message on his Parler account as he planned to come to Washington for the Jan. 6 Capitol protest.  . . .

By Jan. 4, Nordean, a Proud Boys member who also went by the fictional name Rufio Panman, escalated the rhetoric as he prepared to come to the capital, suggesting violence was imminent. . . .

Screenshots taken from a video “show NORDEAN and other Proud Boys dressed in tactical gear along with the phrase ‘Back the YELLOW,’ which is a phrase commonly used to show support for the Proud Boys,” the FBI affidavit said.

Editor’s Note: Click HERE to view the PDF.

FBI affidavits filed against other defendants in the attack detail extensive fundraising efforts on popular and public websites like Go Fund Me and the Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo, prompting a crackdown on such sites.

One of the cases in which the FBI has detailed the most extensive pre-planning involves the conspiracy charges against Thomas Edward Caldwell, Donovan Ray Crowl, and Jessica Marie Watkins. . . .

The FBI alleges intercepted audio from the Jan. 6 attacks shows the three discussing sticking to a plan. . . .

In one Facebook message, Crowl tells Caldwell: “Will probably call you tomorrow … mainly because … I like to know wtf plan is. You are the man COMMANDER.”

The FBI also states that days before the riot Caldwell appeared to refer to Oath Keepers leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes in a Facebook message to group members in which he talked about coordinating with activists from other states.

“I don’t know if Stewie has even gotten out his call to arms but it’s a little friggin late,” Caldwell wrote, according to the FBI. “This is one we are doing on our own. We will link up with the north carolina crew.” . . .

FBI officials, when pressed about whether agents were too complacent before the attacks, noted that an alert was sent Jan. 4 to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington, D.C. warning of possible violence. . . .

“We recognize that the FBI must be aware not just of the domestic violent extremism threat, but also of threats emanating from those responding violently to First Amendment-protected activities,” Wray testified.

“In the past, we have seen some violent extremists respond to peaceful movements through violence rather than non-violent actions and ideas, he said. “The FBI is involved only when responses cross from ideas and constitutionally protected protests to violence. Regardless of the specific ideology involved, the FBI requires that all domestic terrorism investigations be predicated based on activity intended to further a political or social goal, wholly or in part involving force, coercion, or violence, in violation of federal law.”

(Excerpt from Just the News. Article by John Solomon. Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

What do you think about this growing evidence? Share in the comments below!