Grand Jury Indicts Alleged Trump Would-Be Assassin on Four Counts
The DOJ added the charge assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon.
A Washington, DC, grand jury has indicted Cole Allen on four counts, including attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump.
Allen originally faced three counts, but the DOJ added assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon.
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro told CNN that ballistics “showed the agent’s protective vest contained a buckshot pellet from the Mossberg pump action shotgun Allen allegedly carried on the night of the shooting.”
Here are the four counts:
- Attempt to assassinate the President of the United States
- Assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon
- Transporting a firearm across state lines
- Discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence
The DOJ accused Allen of storming the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner with the intent to murder Trump.
Allen has not entered a plea.
[Featured image via YouTube]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Death! By Bunga-Bunga! 🙂
are they skipping the ” attempted murder of a federal officer with a deadly weapon ” as it requires the proof of intent ?–whereas the assault charge is a slam dunk ?
Hope a Culture Marxist Judge doesn’t get the case.
Too late!
Judge hardest hit!
Grand jury indicts would be assassin on four counts
Judge Zia M. Faruqui immediately apologizes
Magistrate Judge Faruqui’s willfully blind comment that Allen is “a person with no criminal history” — other than (i) attempting to assassinate the President of the United States, (ii) assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon, (iii) transporting a firearm across state lines with the intent to commit a felony, and (iv) discharging a firearm during a crime of violence — is the 2026 equivalent of asking, “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
He should be fired from the bench immediately.
Faruqui Off and Find Out.
“other than”
But that’s not his past — that’s his future.
Hey, we can thank Faruqui for one thing — his bizarre little speech turned him into 100% recusal fodder.
Allen already did all of those things. We can all agree that he was not arrested at the scene on a whim. At a trial, the presumption of innocence is an evidentiary burden to be rebutted.
The magistrate was correct; the guy doesn’t have a criminal history. History refers only to the past, before a defendant did whatever he’s charged with now.
And the fact is that he does have rights, and if what his lawyer told the magistrate was true then those rights were violated.
The fact that he expected not to survive his crime doesn’t mean he’s a suicide risk now that he was stopped. Being willing to give ones life for a cause doesn’t make one suicidal. So it appears, from the little that was reported, that he was put in extreme restraints not out of a genuine concern for his safety but as a punishment for what he did, and that’s wrong. It’s not up to the Bureau of Prisons to invent punishments for prisoners for the crimes they’re accused of, or even for the ones they’ve been convicted of. It should only be punishing prisoners for offenses committed in its custody, breaches of its rules. If true he deserved the apology.
Milhouse, you said, “The fact that he expected not to survive his crime doesn’t mean he’s a suicide risk now that he was stopped.”
By this level of “reasoning” can we also assume that any Islamo-whacko who is caught assembling or trying to detonate a suicide bomb is also no longer a suicide risk, simply because he got caught?
And apparently you are now a mind reader, capable of knowing what the jailers were thinking when they acknowledged the reality that:
– He was on an assassination attempt that would (if successful) almost certainly result in his own death.
– That he admitted this in his manifesto.
– That he expressed zero remorse for his actions, and has attempted to justify them.
– That he has quite probably not changed what’s left of his collectivist-indoctrinated mind, and is still quite probably suicidal.
They then proceeded to act on these facts and put him under a suicide watch. A failure to have done so would have been considered by people like you to be gross negligence. Considering this fact the jailers were in a lose/lose situation, and took the simplest route. Now if he “commits suicide” a la Epstein, it’ll be the judge’s fault and not theirs.
Or is it that you simply want him dead? This could probably be quite easily done by releasing him into the gen-pop of whatever facility he’s in…Epsteining him could be quite simple.
You occasionally, like the blind squirrel, find a nut, and I’ve acknowledged when you have. But in this instance you are completely off your nut.
Absolutely. Have you ever heard of one of these people committing suicide in prison?! It doesn’t seem to happen, or at least no more often than any other prisoner. Because they’re not doing it in order to die; they’re doing it to achieve a goal, and they’re willing to sacrifice their life for that goal, but once caught and in custody suicide wouldn’t achieve anything, so they’re no more suicidal than anyone else.
Literally none of those factors are any indication that he’s suicidal. And based on what the judge was told there were no indications at all. Certainly nothing to justify such extreme mistreatment. If they had a good reason for it they should have told the judge when he asked.
If indeed he is/was suicidal it would likely be over the fact that he was apprehended and he didn’t anticipate that (?). Given that he has been labeled as “smart,” he also likely knows that he’s in deep sh** facing prison for a long time…enough to make one suicidal.
You make the case he was “willing to give [his] life for a cause.” Oh my. And what a noble cause that was, killing as many people as he could. He doesn’t know how fortunate he is to be in solitary confinement. He’ll find out soon enough.
If he were suicidal, that might be a reason. But based on the reporting there was literally no indication that he was suicidal, so the only reason they would have treated him like that was out of spite.
“History refers only to the past, before a defendant did whatever he’s charged with now.”
That’s an obtuse, convenient, and private definition of history you’ve got there. Having been caught red-handed and on video in flagrante delicto, those acts and the corresponding arrest become part of his history.
5 U.S.C. § 9101(a)(2). Once Allen was arrested, he had, by definition, a criminal history.
Further, show me where I said he didn’t have rights. I didn’t. That’s a strawman you set up to knock down. Do better.
Judge: I’m very sorry you have been indicted. I want to apologize to you for that.
No judge said that, or anything even remotely like it.
JohnC was not stating a direct quote (no ” ” marks used). He was implying what the judge might have meant by his bizarre apology: why would the judge go way out of his lane to question the Bureau of Prison’s decisions? It’s not his job to do that. Just like it is not his job to apologize, directly or circuitously, to the defendant for being indicted.
It is certainly his job. He’s the one who committed the prisoner to the BOP’s custody and he is responsible for ensuring that he isn’t mistreated. Any complaints about mistreatment go to him, and it’s his duty to look into them.
There’s no question what he meant by the apology. He explicitly said what he was apologizing for, and if the complaint turns out to have been true then he was right to apologize. If the complaint is true then whoever made that decision should be prosecuted, but won’t be because they never are.
To imply that he apologized for remanding the guy to jail is bizarre, because it was his decision. He could have given bail, but of course he didn’t because no one would.
Wasn’t a bystander hit? Doesn’t matter who fired it still gets attached to the shooter. So why wasn’t that charged?
Because it didn’t happen. The only person hit was a secret service agent.
“Only” a secret service agent?
What the heck kind of phrase is that? “Hey, he ONLY shot one person in an attempt to kill them.” Or were you saying, “He shot ONLY a federal agent…they’re not worth thinking about.”
What I want to know is why he’s not being charged with attempted murder in the shooting of the USSS agent…who is extremely lucky that his vest stopped the buckshot. This attempted assassin loaded his shotgun with malice aforethought, aimed it (albeit poorly) at the agent, and pulled the trigger, not knowing if the agent was wearing a vest or not.
“Only”. Sheesh.
Are you on drugs?!! Or are you just stoopid? Your response is not only nasty but makes no sense at all.
Are you even capable of reading English? What are we discussing here? We’re discussing a question about why he wasn’t charged for the bystander who was hit. And the answer is because that didn’t happen. There was no bystander hit, so how could he be charged with that? Only the secret service agent was hit, and that is one of the four charges. Or are you such a degenerate and evil person that you want people charged also for made-up crimes that never happened?
Leave a Comment