Leaked DOJ Docs: FBI Informant Says Proud Boys Did Not Plan to Enter Capitol, Were There to Protect Trump Supporters

The Department of Justice is well aware that the Proud Boys who attended the Stop the Steal rally on January 6 were not violent and did not conspire to enter the Capitol—yet are prosecuting them on conspiracy charges anyway, FBI documents obtained by Gateway Pundit reveal.

Five members of the group are currently in pre-trial detention on federal charges: Enrique Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Dominic Pezzola and Zachary Rehl.

A whistleblower leaked “a treasure trove” of exculpatory documents, and text messages—some marked “Highly Sensitive”—to the Gateway Pundit reporter Cara Castronuova. “These documents would be buried forever and never see the light of day if they were not leaked to us by a brave whistleblower,” Castronuova wrote. “While the informant does provide an honest assessment of the activity of the group, the videos and photos he took all day long of the group and sent back to his bosses were ultimately used to conjure up a case to present before a Grand Jury and Indict these individuals.”

The document dump includes hundreds of pages of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews between federal law enforcement officials and an FBI Confidential Human Source (CHS).

The CHS—identified as James Ehren Knowles—reportedly infiltrated the Kansas City Proud Boy chapter for over a year and a half before the January 6th rally, and kept FBI headquarters informed on the group’s activities. Knowles reportedly gained the K.C. Proud Boys’ trust and was included in all group communications.

He accompanied the group to the Capitol on January 6th, and provided his handlers at the FBI with on the ground updates as the rally devolved into a riot. He told FBI headquarters that his group “were not involved in, nor did they inspire the breaking of the barriers at the Capitol building.”

Knowles described the chaos as protesters made their way into the Capitol building as “herd mentality,” rather than organized. “There were no overt threats of violence made at that time,” he said.

Knowles told his superiors that the K.C. Proud Boys went to the Jan. 6 rally with the intention of protecting Trump Supporters from Antifa attacks so they could enjoy the day and “get back to their hotels safely.”

“Our role at the rally was supposed to be defense only,” Knowles told his handlers. “Defending them from Antifa—defend only from Antifa and BLM, and ourselves if under attack.”

He added: “This should go without saying that you shouldn’t be knocking around some faggot with pink hair, just because he calls you a Nazi.”

The informant told the FBI that the Proud Boys never talked about “stopping the electoral college or certification of the election,” and did not conspire to go inside the Capitol.

Despite this exculpatory evidence, all of the K.C. Proud Boys have since been indicted and are facing decades in prison, Castronuova reported.

A total of six people (including a woman who was pregnant at the time) are being charged with Conspiracy, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting (this carries a maximum 20 year penalty), Obstruction of Law Enforcement During Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting, Threatening a Federal Officer, Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds and Carrying a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon.

Not only was there no conspiracy, according to the informant, the Proud Boys actually helped law enforcement while inside the Capitol.

On page 15 of the FBI’s Jan. 6 “Reporting Document,” Knowles reports that a law enforcement officers seemed “grateful” and one even gave the the K.C. Proud Boys a thumbs up, as they worked to deescalate the situation, and clear the area of the more rambunctious people.

Confidential Human Source (CHS), a collaborative source with direct and indirect access, most of whose reporting has been corroborated , stated the following on 1/6/2021:

CHS stated that the KC Proud Boys (KCPB) in attendance at the rally entered the Capitol building 30 minutes after the building was breached to help deescalate Trump supporters and law enforcement. Once KCPB entered the building, they told people to stop acting like anarchists and leave. KCPB told the people to start bagging trash from where trash cans were thrown at law enforcement, along with a woman who was saying the same thing to protestors. KCPB told protestors to stop at the doors of the House of Representatives, and that their voice was heard and it was time to go. A law enforcement officer gave a thumbs up to KCPB, as they were trying to clear the area of people trying to fight law enforcement.

No one from KCPB were involved with the battery of a law enforcement officer, nor did anyone damage property in the capital building. KCPB then went back to a rental house and adhered to the curfew in place. CHS stated law enforcement seemed grateful as KCPB ushered individuals out of the building.

One member of KCPB told an older “hefty” white law enforcement that the “Proud Boys deescalated downstairs, they are clearing out.”

The informant reported that Proud Boy leaders instructed members to be non-violent, and in a “defensive and not offensive” posture on Jan. 6.

More here:

https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/12/leaked-doj-docs-fbi-informant-says-proud-boys-did-not-plan-to-enter-capitol-were-there-to-protect-trump-supporters/

***************************************************

UK: the tide turns in favour of women

Things are looking up for women in the UK. In a landmark tribunal ruling last week, Maya Forstater won her discrimination case against her former employer who had fired her in 2018 for saying that sex cannot be changed and that biological sex matters.

Welcoming the verdict, the public policy researcher and co-founder of Sex Matters, said:

‘My case matters for everyone who believes in the importance of truth and free speech.

‘We are all free to believe whatever we wish. What we are not free to do is compel others to believe the same thing, to silence those who disagree with us or to force others to deny reality. ‘Human beings cannot change sex. It is not hateful to say that; in fact it is important in order to treat everyone fairly and safely. It shouldn’t take courage to say this, and no one should lose their job for doing so.’

She concluded her victory statement by saying, ‘We have had enough of being sidelined in language, law, policy and public spaces.’ And that, ‘This judgment is further evidence that the tide is turning.’

Forstater’s case gained worldwide attention when JK Rowling – who is now well known for her gender-critical beliefs – made the following tweet in 2019:

‘Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill.’

Following the verdict vindicating Forstater, Rowling again tweeted her support: ‘Every woman who’s been harassed, silenced, bullied or lost employment because of her gender-critical beliefs is freer and safer today, thanks to the warrior that is [Maya Forstater].’

On the same day that Forstater’s judgment was handed down, British Triathlon became the first British sport to restrict transgender athletes over the age of 12 from competing in women’s sporting events across all levels. Their statement confirms that they have updated their Transgender Policy following a period of consultation ‘to ensure that it reflects the needs of our sport, protects fairness in competition, and serves our desire to make triathlon truly inclusive’.

Under the policy, there will now be two categories: ‘a Female Category, (for those who are of female sex at birth), and an Open Category, (for all individuals including male, transgender, and those non-binary who were of male sex at birth)’.

UK women’s sport advocacy group Fair Play For Women celebrated the news, tweeting: ‘Well done British Triathlon. After full consultation – including women – they have concluded fairness matters in sport. Sex-based women category plus open category to include trans people.’

Now, in the wake of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s resignation announcement, several conservative leadership candidates have signalled their support for biological reality and women’s sex-based rights.

Former UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak has vowed to make them part of his policy platform if he becomes the new Prime Minister.

The father of two daughters is said to be ‘critical of recent trends to erase women via the use of clumsy, gender neutral language’, ‘believes we must be able to call a mother a mother and talk about breastfeeding’, and ‘will not support the language of sex being eroded in legislation or the public sector’.

He has also previously expressed support for female-only sport and bathrooms to protect the rights and safety of women and girls: ‘You need to have compassion for those thinking about their identity and thinking about what that means for them, their families as they’re potentially going through a change and we need to be compassionate and understanding about that.

‘And we also have to have respect, in particular for views of women who are anxious that some of the things they have fought really hard for and rights that are important to them will be eroded.

‘We need to have respect for that point of view. ‘Biology is critically important as we think about some of those very practical questions.’

In a series of tweets posted hours before her leadership bid, Trade Minister Penny Mordaunt sought to clarify her position (or change her tune?) on trans issues after some conservatives dubbed her ‘a committed warrior for the trans lobby’, apparently referencing her 2018 comments that ‘trans women are women and trans men are men’.

In a thread that began with the question, ‘Do I know what a woman is?’, Mordaunt responded: ‘I am biologically a woman. If I have a hysterectomy or mastectomy, I am still a woman. And I am legally a woman. Some people born male and who have been through the gender recognition process are also legally female. That DOES NOT mean they are biological women, like me.

‘During my tenure at @GEOgovUK I challenged the trans orthodoxy with real and genuine concern, especially the volume girls referred into trans services. I set up this Inquiry.

‘On sport, I raised this years ago. This was important to me because I’ve trained alongside men in the Navy. I support a science-based approach. @uk_sport has done good work, as have @sharrond62 @Daley_thompson and others. The biology is overwhelming important.

‘It was me that changed maternity legislation that was drafted in gender neutral language (by another) to use female terms. I have also defended free speech on these issues.’

In an interview last week, Attorney General Suella Braverman, who is also vying for leadership said: ‘We need to get rid of all of this Woke rubbish and get back to a country where describing a man and a woman in terms of biology does not mean that you’re going to lose your job.’

This comes after she recently clarified that schools are not legally obligated to address transgender students by their preferred pronouns or allow them to access spaces for the opposite sex. She has described JK Rowling as a ‘heroine’ of hers.

But perhaps the candidate causing the most excitement when it comes to railing against gender ideology, is former Equalities Minister and rising star Kemi Badenoch. In the last days of Boris Johnson’s government – despite hostile civil servant opposition – she successfully pushed through reforms to ensure all new public buildings have separate bathrooms for women and men.

She also defended former Sussex University Professor Kathleen Stock when she was cancelled by trans activists last year, saying that her views that people cannot change their biological sex were probably ‘in step with the majority of the population’. In an article for The Times as part of her campaign launch, she put great emphasis on ‘telling people the truth’.

Badenoch has Allison Bailey’s backing, the barrister and co-founder of LGB Alliance who initiated a case against LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall and her legal chambers for discrimination over her gender-critical views in 2020.

In a tweet of support, she wrote: ‘Tory MPs will do well to select @KemiBadenoch as the next Conservative leader. She gets the urgency & importance of standing firm on women & girls’ sex-based rights & is thoroughly impressive. She is the Tories best hope of securing a victory over Labour at the next GE.’

Some commentators have, unsurprisingly, accused the conservative leadership candidates of making their comments to score political points, but the interesting point is that they believe their gender-critical views (whether genuinely held or not) to be mainstream enough that people will actually get behind them on this.

In Forstater’s words, ‘the tide is turning’.

Brits are starting to wake up to the harms of gender ideology and to the fact that women’s rights are inextricably linked to biological reality. It is because of women like Forstater that this is even an issue in the UK leadership bid, and that individuals and organisations are now becoming more comfortable to speak out. Her case was pivotal. As one commentator has noted, in ‘[ensuring] gender-critical beliefs are protected by law, [her case] has played a role in creating the space for these discussions to happen’.

We watch on with hope at these developments in the UK as women like Maya Forstater, JK Rowling, Allison Bailey, Keira Bell, Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel, Suzanne Moore, Helen Joyce, Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch, and so many others(!) continue – despite an ongoing barrage of threats and abuse – to champion biological reality and women’s sex-based rights. And we look to some of the incredible women who are fighting the same good fight in Australia, knowing that it is only a matter of time before the dominoes start to fall here too.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/07/uk-the-tide-turns-in-favour-of-women/

**********************************************

Disdain for democracy among pro-abortion agitators

Over the course of half a century Roe v Wade became sacralised. To question it was heresy meriting instant excommunication. Hence the shock the Supreme Court has overturned it, even though many experts had always questioned its legal soundness. Justice Byron White, dissenting in the original decision, called it ‘an exercise of raw judicial power’. Moreover, the pro-choice movement had increasingly drifted away from the mainstream centre, successfully pushing for abortions on demand into the third trimester, when babies can live outside their mothers’ wombs. New York’s 2019 Reproductive Health Act allegedly permits babies born alive after a failed abortion to be left to die. Activists for unrestricted abortion rights gradually lost both the moral high ground and the political middle ground. Hence the dismay at the overturning of Roe. Even though the matter has been returned to the states’ political process, activists know that will be a hard sell. Contrary to the high-decibel noise, the essence of the complaint is that judges should have retained the anti-democratic power of SCOTUS to prioritise its judgment over that of voters – Les Deplorables – and lawmakers.

In 2019, CDC statistics show, 629,898 legal abortions were carried out in America. With 195 abortions per 1,000 live births, on average, every sixth baby is being aborted. Women in their twenties account for 57 per cent of abortions. This is the real crisis that needs addressing. Yet, 93 per cent of abortions are in the first trimester and under 1 per cent after 21 weeks. Polls indicate majority support for access to abortions but with restrictions. Other than for those demanding extreme positions, this suggests it should be possible to create support in most states for ‘safe, legal and rare’ abortion regimes.

Abortion laws raise challenging moral questions. It’s not for judges to make up the bioethics of trimesters, viability, and the dividing line between foetus and human life. Rather, it is for people through their elected representatives to find the appropriate balance between the competing interests of women, the unborn child, and society’s moral compass. Legislatures legislate to make law; the judiciary applies law. Using the judiciary to resolve highly political contestation can increase social conflict. Only the democratic process can facilitate compromise and adjustment based on a rigorous assessment of the full range of policy considerations and carefully crafted exemptions and protections.

SCOTUS did not outlaw abortion or make a finding on the merits of abortion, only on whether the US Constitution confers a nationwide right to abortion. Answering in the negative, it returns the matter to the political arena of democratic contestation on a state-by-state basis. As has become distressingly commonplace, the extremists hog the bullhorns while the broad middle with nuanced views on this morally fraught issue retreats into self-silencing solitude. Some believe life begins at conception and all abortion is the slaughter of innocents. Others, that any woman has the right to choose abortion to the very edge of birth. Most believe that abortion should be available under some circumstances but vary on the nature of the restrictions.

The hysterical claptrap let loose on the world since the Dobbs v Jackson decision, ignores the legal nature of the decision, the simple statement that courts should stay out of this and leave it to the democratic process to resolve. Instead, the complexity of the issue is reduced to soundbites and bumper sticker slogans. ‘F— you, Supreme Court!’ was the thoughtful response, middle finger raised, from singer Janelle Monáe. The response from several shrieking Democrats – who attacked Trump for threatening US democracy – has also been performative, refusing to engage with the substance of the decision, despite their legal qualifications, and instead exploiting it to delegitimise the Court. President Biden, forgetting his earlier criticisms of Roe, says the decision will set the US on an ‘extreme and dangerous path’ and ‘the health and life of women across this nation are now at risk’. Vice President Kamala Harris, former attorney general of California, missed yet another opportunity to demonstrate gravitas: ‘Millions of women in America will go to bed tonight without access to the healthcare and reproductive care that they had this morning’. Just what is ‘reproductive’ about abortion, pray? Senator Elizabeth Warren, once a Harvard law professor (in part owing to her sex and then-claim to American Indian ethnic ancestry), thundered that the ‘Supreme Court doesn’t get the last word. In a democracy, we get the last word’. Ma’am, that’s the essence of Dobbs.

The backdrop to Dobbs is five significant changes since 1973 when single mothers were stigmatised, contraception wasn’t easily available, women faced a multitude of social and workplace discriminations, marital rape was legal, date rape rarely recognised, and any rape hard to prosecute. Scientific advances allow premature babies to survive from around 25 weeks. Ultrasound photos and videoclips show newly created life and tiny hearts beating inside the womb. This has changed the equation for women and families. Insisting a foetus is just a clump of cells until after birth flies in the face of lived reality. There is no longer any stigma to pregnancy among unmarried women. Contraception is widely available and affordable. Women’s roles and status have improved significantly. There’s full female participation in the political process, and a majority of voters are women, as the Dobbs decision notes.

The Democrats are bent on milking the ratbag group of 6 January rioters as an insurrection and an attempted coup d’état for maximum political mileage. But they won’t condemn the ‘doxxing’ of Supreme Court justices, publishing their details online, picketing their homes and inciting incendiary action against them. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the target of an attempted assassination at his home and more recently he left a DC restaurant by the back door to avoid protestors gathered outside. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had the bad grace to mock him for that. Twitter has permitted a torrent of racist abuse and threats against Justice Clarence Thomas. With impressive lack of self-awareness, Hillary Clinton described Thomas as ‘a person of grievance as long as I’ve known him – resentment, grievance, anger’.

Legions of abortion rights supporters watched silently as women’s rights were progressively trampled by biological males identifying as women and invading women-only safe spaces. They enthusiastically endorsed mask and vaccine mandates in direct violation of ‘My Body My Choice’. ‘Abortion on the ballot’ will be a vote winner for Democrats only if the Republicans run away from this fight. As Scott Morrison was warned often and discovered to his cost, voters rarely reward political cowardice.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/07/disdain-for-democracy/

***********************************************

ICE Says Immigrant Women in Custody Still Entitled to Abortion Services

Top immigration officials are planning to instruct detention centers around the country that women in custody are entitled to abortions and should be transferred to receive one if they are being detained in a state where abortion is now illegal.

The directive is contained in an undated memorandum, seen by The Wall Street Journal, which cites the recent Supreme Court decision that ended the federal right to an abortion. The memo is from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Tae Johnson and is addressed to Corey Price, head of the agency’s enforcement division.

“This memorandum serves as a reminder of existing ICE policies and standards requiring that pregnant individuals detained in ICE immigration custody have access to full reproductive health care,” the memo states. “This is also a reminder that, pursuant to existing ICE policy, it may be necessary to transfer a detained pregnant individual within an area of responsibility (AOR) or to another AOR, when appropriate and practicable, in order to ensure such access.”

ICE facilitates abortions for immigrants in its custody in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened, according to ICE’s health regulations.

An official familiar with the memo said it would likely be sent later this week, and would represent the first law enforcement agency to reinforce reproductive rights in federal custody. ICE detains immigrants in the country unlawfully on civil immigration violations, many of them in the course of their asylum applications.

The memo is designed in part to pre-empt potential conflicts with Republican-led states where ICE runs many of its jail facilities and where abortion bans have started to take effect, the official said.

Many ICE detention centers use space inside local and county jails, and ICE relies on local contractors to run those detention centers and transfer detained immigrants. Should local jails or contractors become subject to restrictive state laws, the person said, the ICE directive would take precedent.

It isn’t clear how many detained immigrants the new policy would affect. Under President Biden, ICE separately issued a policy last summer that instructs officers to avoid arresting or detaining pregnant women.

It adds to the suite of policies the Biden administration is rolling out to demonstrate its support for abortion rights. On Monday, for example, the Department of Health and Human Services told hospitals in new guidance that they are required to perform abortions and provide related services in emergency situations.

Abortion has previously been a fraught issue in federal immigration custody. In 2018, under the Trump administration, officials pressured pregnant teenagers living in federal immigration shelters for unaccompanied immigrant children not to have abortions, a policy that sparked a highly publicized legal battle.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/ice-says-immigrant-women-in-custody-still-entitled-to-abortion-services-11657639375

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************