Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Second Round of Inauguration Day Rioters Trials Start This Week

Second Round of Inauguration Day Rioters Trials Start This Week

“There are four defendants on trial now, each facing eight charges”

In January of this year, prosecutors dropped charges against 129 of the people who rioted in Washington DC on Trump’s inauguration day. This week, the second round of defendants go on trial.

Zoe Tillman reports at BuzzFeed:

A Jury Acquitted The First Group To Stand Trial On Inauguration Rioting Charges. Prosecutors Are Trying Again.

The US Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC, is in a very different position now trying a new group of defendants than it was at the start of the first trial in November. There were 188 defendants with cases pending at the time — still a sizeable chunk of the 234 people arrested in downtown Washington on Jan. 20, 2017. Prosecutors had secured a string of guilty pleas, including one that resulted in jail time.

Now, the government is trying to bounce back from a high-profile loss. After a DC Superior Court jury acquitted the first group, prosecutors announced they were dropping charges against 129 remaining defendants, saying they would focus on defendants who allegedly engaged in “identifiable acts of destruction, violence, or other assaultive conduct,” who planned violence, or who participated in “black bloc” tactics to aid the property destruction that day.

The latest trial — jury selection began Monday — will test whether that strategy pays off. In the first trial, there was no evidence the defendants were involved in destroying property. According to Defend J20 Resistance, a group supporting the defendants, prosecutors are expected to accuse some of the defendants on trial now of participating in the violence.

The potential consequences are serious:

There are four defendants on trial now, each facing eight charges: one felony count of inciting or urging to riot, five felony counts of destruction of property, and two misdemeanor counts for engaging in a riot and conspiracy to riot.

The felony charges carry maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. The misdemeanors have maximum penalties of 180 days in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Many people on the right were disappointed when so many of these folks walked in January. This time could be different, as John Sexton observed at Hot Air:

So the government’s strategy didn’t work out well the first time around but this trial should be different. This time the defendants are being accused of specific acts. Hopefully, guilty verdicts will be the result and a clear message will be sent to other black bloc anarchists out there who are watching this trial closely.

In case anyone has forgotten what these goons did that day, here’s a reminder:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


When I first saw this headline, I thought it was more about Hamas rioters in Gaza. Wrong location, same sort of rioters though.

Me too!

YellowGrifterInChief | May 16, 2018 at 11:41 am

This time the defendants are being accused of specific acts.

What a novel idea. Instead of trying to intimidate lawful protestors, go after people who allegedly rioted.

Starting in the JWB administration, the Secret Service started herding protestors of the Gulf War II into ‘Free Speech Zones’ where Bush couldn’t hear them. I know the Right is all upset with FSZs, but it started with Bush. Perhaps we can all agree that (as someone quipped), “I thought the USA was a Free Speech Zone.”

    Are you sure SPZs started with Bush?

      tom_swift in reply to davod. | May 16, 2018 at 2:56 pm

      They were called Free Speech Zones in the Bush era. But like most everything else, they were perverted in the succeeding Obama era, but kept the same name, so Obamites could deflect criticism onto Bush. Same deal as “Homeland Security”—something intended to protect America from homicidal foreigners was perverted into a domestic surveillance program inflicted on Obama’s American opponents.

    Lawful protesters? All of the organizing leaflets and online exchanges which advocated violence against both persons and property were a clue to the “lawful”ness that the participants expected to take part in.

    Add to that wearing all-black uniforms and face masks so as to make it harder to match up individual violent acts with individuals. And this behavior is different from past Democratic “lawful” protests in DC in the 50s and prior in what way, other than the switch from all-white to all-black?

      YellowGrifterInChief in reply to BobM. | May 16, 2018 at 4:36 pm

      You make me wonder how the 1st group was acquitted of all charges and so many others had their charges dismissed.

      Apparently you didn’t even look at the pictures in the article. The police are in all black. The protestors look kinda normal for a cold day in January.

        Yeah, the picture of a line of riot police shows them all

        There exist plenty of pictures of “Antifa” fascists all in black as well, and they aren’t wearing any name tags, badges with numbers, or body cams to document their actions.

        Don’t be obtuse, the previous wave of trials resulted in acquittals because they, like Dem “lawful” protestors of old – dressed all alike and covered their faces. Also, like their ancestor Dem “protesters” set things on fire and gathered around them to celebrate.

        Granted, for the storefront glass breakage they seem to be taking notes from an even earlier crop of fascists – hopefully one CrystalNacht was enuf for the new century.

          tom_swift in reply to BobM. | May 16, 2018 at 9:41 pm

          Interestingly enough, “brownshirt” behavior—violent physical attacks on anyone saying things a particular group doesn’t want said—is nowadays associated with the color brown purely by accident. In its early days in Depression-era Germany, the NSDAP didn’t have much of a budget. But they found a large stash of surplus uniforms they could acquire on the cheap, and history was made. The fact that the uniforms were a nondescript and unexciting shade of brown wasn’t too important—as long as they were all the same (i.e., “uniform”) and could be associated with the group, they’d do.

          I’ve always suspected that the Party’s later obsession with regalia and rather snappy clothing was inspired by embarrassment about (and overcompensation for) the dowdy duds they all wore in the early days.

Home rule has been a disaster since inception. Better that the District would revert back to Congressional authority and Military District of Washington operations.

D.C. residents could given the choice to vote in Maryland or Virginia. Local or District elections would not matter as there would not be any elected civilian office, only employees of the federal government.

We saw what happened last round. It will be more leftist judges making excuses for violent felons.

    YellowGrifterInChief in reply to forksdad. | May 16, 2018 at 4:40 pm

    You’ve got an answer for everything. A wrong, bitter, prejudiced answer – but an answer.

Subotai Bahadur | May 16, 2018 at 5:00 pm

This is the US Attorney’s Office. Part of the functionally Democrat controlled Department of Justice. Tried in the Democrat District of Columbia. I’m not optimistic.

Haha. DC is a joke. I betcha these folks get off too. DC juries are in on it. There are at least two or three justice systems. The jury will nullify all of this because DC is 98% Democrats and swampians. It’s like Austin. Try convicting a hippie Prog of something in Austin. Just try.

clayusmcret | May 17, 2018 at 6:23 am

When local courts are done acquitting the violent protestors (to make political statements), the defendents should be brought up on federal charges and find the protestors guilty in adult court.