Feds aren't using posts about plans to attack the Capitol as evidence

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
NBC Investigations
@NBCInvestigates
From @KenDilanianNBC and @oneunderscore__ A new report and a separate NBC News review found hundreds of social media posts about plans to attack the Capitol. Why aren't we seeing this evidence in court?

Feds aren't using posts about plans to attack the Capitol as evidence
The feds have presented no evidence any of the people charged in the Jan. 6 riot planned to attack the Capitol. But these posts gave detailed plans.
nbcnews.com
4:50 AM · Apr 20, 2021

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/we-found-hundreds-posts-about-plans-attack-capitol-why-aren-n1264291

WASHINGTON — FBI officials have repeatedly said they gathered no credible intelligence in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection suggesting that pro-Trump extremists intended to storm the U.S. Capitol.

And even after months of intensive investigation, Justice Department prosecutors have presented no evidence so far that any of the 420 individuals charged to date for their actions on Jan. 6 planned in advance to attack the building in which Congress was certifying Joe Biden's victory in the presidential election.

But a new report by a nonprofit research group, and a separate review by NBC News, uncovered hundreds of social media posts discussing plans to move on the Capitol, including a map of the facility and talk of how to create a stampede that would overwhelm Capitol Police.

"You know there will be riot police preventing us from getting in the capitol building," one anonymous poster wrote in December. "What if we created a stampede/crush situation? Start pushing from the back. Surely they will have to get out of the way or get crushed. They're not going to start shooting people."

*snip*

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. lol

[Miguelito Loveless]

2. Why would the FBI and DoJ ignore evidence of conspiracy to overthrow the government?

I cannot think of any reason that doesn't involve a refusal to charge the insurrectionists appropriately. I am guessing that "being in a restricted area without permission" not only sounds better than "conspiracy to commit insurrection", it probably has a much lower penalty.

[triron]

5. This is both disappointing (understatement) and very strange. Where is Garland?

[Miguelito Loveless]

9. Another reason looms

It completely demonstrates the failure, once again, of intelligence in law enforcement. Despite extraordinary powers of surveillance granted since 2001, turning the US gov't into a de facto police state, they still utterly suck at their job. Best not to bring up evidence that the FBI, DoJ, et al, could be replaced with crowd sourcing.

[triron]

15. Must be something more I still think.

Perhaps time will 'out'?

[Bettie]

3. Because many in the FBI

sympathize with the insurrectionists and want them to go free.

[fescuerescue]

4. The evidence that makes its way into a courtroom is always

a subset of the evidence that investigators see and see to build a narrative or theory.

To bring it into court? Just seeing it isn't enough. It has to be substantiated and conform to the rules of evidence before it's shown to a judge.

Building the legal supporting structure behind an internet posting can take weeks or months with subpoenas to ISPs, interviews with technology experts and equipment confiscation.

[triron]

6. What do you base your assertions on?

[fescuerescue]

13. This is a good start

https://www.rulesofevidence.org

Article IX and Article X is a good place to start for a few months of study.

[PortTack]

14. Thank you! Many assume a lot without the full picture

[Hortensis]

11. As you say. And the FBI is known for building tight cases,

not ones that can't hold up to under capable defenses. We haven't had any of the believed major actors brought to trial on major charges yet, either.

[StarfishSaver]

7. Probably because posts on a website don't meet the standards of the rules of evidence

Unless the posts can be traced directly to specific individuals and conclusively validated, they would not be admitted into evidence by a court.

[Ocelot II]

10. Once again, the voice of reason and knowledge of how all this works.

Thank you.

[RockRaven]

8. Every jury is going to have at least one person who wouldn't want to be held accountable for

everything they say on social media, and is sympathetic to defense arguments of merely trolling and/or unserious braggadocio. And it only takes one to prevent a conviction. The social media stuff may get in the way more than it helps for many of these perps.

[Deminpenn]

12. Not every piece of evidence the gov't has or is validating

needs to be in an indictment. There are such things as amended indictments.

The feds have enough evidence to charge and hold these perps while they work on gathering additional information and leads.