k8e

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins reports from WHCA: “A member of security here is telling us that there is a shooter who is confirmed dead."

NEWS: The attempted shooter at the White House Correspondent's Dinner is 31 year old Cole Tomas Allen from Torrance, California and he is in custody.

I did a quick search… <<< Treatment in Custody (Pre-Trial Detention and Jail Conditions) • Prolonged solitary/restrictive confinement and poor jail conditions: Many defendants were held in the D.C. Central Detention Facility (often called the “gulag” by critics) for months or years pre-trial, sometimes in 22–23 hours/day lockdown. Allegations include moldy cells, inadequate food/water/medical care, denial of haircuts/shaving/nail trimming, restricted religious services, and physical/verbal abuse by guards (e.g., being labeled “white supremacists”). Some described it as “hellish” with constant screaming from other inmates. One defendant reportedly committed suicide rather than return. • Denial of bail or excessive pre-trial detention: Non-violent or misdemeanor defendants were allegedly held without bond for extended periods, violating speedy-trial rights and amounting to punishment before conviction. Critics called them “political prisoners” or “hostages.” Representation and Access to Counsel/Evidence • Difficulties with legal representation: Some defendants temporarily lacked attorneys (e.g., when a prominent lawyer contracted COVID-19 and became unresponsive). A few went pro se (self-represented) due to dissatisfaction with appointed counsel or resource constraints. • Withholding of exculpatory evidence: Defense teams claim they were denied full access to ~41,000 hours of Capitol surveillance footage and other videos for over two years, despite its potential to show non-violent behavior or police interactions. Lawyers like Joseph McBride and Albert Watkins (former counsel for Jacob Chansley) said this violated Brady disclosure rules and provided grounds for appeals; some footage only became public later via releases to Tucker Carlson. Hearings, Trials, and Venue • Biased venue and jury pool in Washington, D.C.: Defendants filed (and courts denied) repeated motions for change of venue, arguing the heavily Democratic district, heavy local media coverage, and J6 Committee hearings created insurmountable prejudice. Some defense counsel advised waiving jury trials in favor of bench trials because they viewed D.C. jurors as irredeemably biased; critics called the jury pool “indoctrinated.” • Perceived judicial bias: D.C. judges (many Obama appointees) were accused of prejudging cases, rushing proceedings, or showing hostility in bench trials and sentencings. Some defendants claimed the process lacked fairness compared to high-profile cases tried elsewhere. Prosecution and Charging Decisions • Overcharging and prosecutorial overreach: The DOJ allegedly misused the obstruction-of-an-official-proceeding statute (18 U.S.C. § 1512) against hundreds of defendants, even non-violent ones. The Supreme Court later ruled (in Fischer v. United States, 2024) that it requires proof of document tampering or evidence impairment, leading to vacated or reduced charges for some and validating claims of improper charging. • Disparate treatment vs. other protests: J6 defendants received harsher sentences and more aggressive prosecution than participants in 2020 BLM/Antifa riots, which critics said involved similar (or greater) violence but fewer federal charges or lighter penalties. Some judges themselves noted this disparity during sentencings. • Political motivation and selective prosecution: The cases were framed as a “two-tiered justice system” driven by Biden DOJ bias to target Trump supporters, including pressure to plead guilty and “entrapment” or FBI-informant allegations. >>>