You can’t be pro-cop and pro Proud Boys

Just a few days ago, I was saying the government’s request for a 33-year sentence for the head of the Proud Boys for his role in the Jan. 6 riots was “crazy vengeful.” Convicted murderers have gotten less time.

Radio host Dawn Stensland (Photo: Audacity)

The judge may have agreed and handed Henry “Enrique” Tarrio 22 years for seditious conspiracy.

Tarrio then pleaded for mercy and praised the Capitol Police who had been attacked that fateful day.

The judge said his contrition was way too late. He apologized only after he was convicted, which cast a sheen of inauthenticity over his statement. 

Then a funny thing happened. On WPHT/1210-AM, mid-morning host Dawn Stensland went on the attack — not felon Tarrio, but the Department of Justice for prosecuting people who broke the law, meaning the Jan. 6 rioters.

That is like blaming the fire department for fires.

She said the Department of Justice wanted Tarrio to beg for mercy. She could not know if DOJ wanted begging. I’ll take the other side: If Tarrio believed what he had done was right, he would man up and not beg for a light sentence. And if he came to believe what he had done was wrong, he should have apologized earlier.

No, he’s just a wannabe Revolutionary punk, and a crybaby, too.

I’ve known Dawn for a long time and like her a lot. I particularly like how she brings a sensible “Mom voice” to issues, along with a willingness to present alternative viewpoints. She’s a good journalist, but here she is wrong by going too far right.

Other conservatives agree with her, but you can’t be pro-cop, as they profess to be, and then defend the people who attacked cops on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6. Viciously — with pepper spray, clubs, shields. 

Surely she didn’t miss the testimony of cops during the Jan. 6 hearings who said they were attacked by Proud Boys and others on the Capitol steps. Many officers were injured, some testified they were in fear for their lives.

Just so there is no misunderstanding — the hundreds of thousands who gathered to hear President Donald J. Trump speak did nothing wrong. Trump was not charged with inciting violence. The ones who gathered outside the Capitol did nothing wrong.

The ones who broke through police lines, smashed windows, crashed through doors, and entered the Capitol, they were wrong. Some of simple trespass, others of felonies, and it is those people who were identified and prosecuted by the Department of Justice. 

Prosecuted, not persecuted.

Personally, I think some of the sentences are too heavy, but the government was, Dawn said, sending a message.

Dawn is right about that.

And the message is democracy will fight back.

63 thoughts on “You can’t be pro-cop and pro Proud Boys”

  1. To suggest that the DOJ is simply, purely, honestly representing democracy here is wrong. It is acting, these days, as a partisan arm of the Executive which is a misunderstanding (on this Executive’s part) of what it should be. It tried to jail, for quasi terrorist felony acts, a pro life father for a mere trespass crime. I respectfully disagree that this is a blow for “democracy “

    1. Where were your opinions on the DOJ when TFG was in office? When the house was weaponized against Clinton and held interminable Benghazi hearings? And where are they in response to Gym Jordan’s and the rest of the GOP clowns efforts at holding hearings on everything that amount to nothing?

      1. How was the house “weaponized” against Clinton? Was she not SoS? Why shouldn’t that catastrophe of been examined? Just turn a blind eye a US Ambassador being murdered? Like what difference does it make now?

    2. You have zero evidence that the DOJ is doing ANYTHING partisan. Is their investigation of the President’s son partisan?? If you want to see evidence of such behavior, you’ll have to look to the prior administration, which CLEARLY and PROVABLY did exactly that. So I respectfully think you have no clue what you are talking about.

    3. I acknowledge your disagreement and allow Wanda and Freeze to state my case.
      If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If YOU are partisan, everything you see seems partisan.

      1. Allow Wanda and Freeze to state your case? LOL!! That’d be like putting Joe Xiden and Diane Feinstein on “Jeopardy!” A couple of MSNBC indoctrinated degenerates whose tiny minds have been hermetically sealed, forever.

    4. Of course you disagree that this is a blow for democracy. But the reason you disagree is simply because it does not fit your agenda.

    5. That’s a load of horse manure. You used to be a decent person but you sold your soul to the Trumpicans and now your their shill.

  2. Funny how the rioters who tore up center city for the Minnesota guy never heard even got a slap on the wrist. In fact they got an apology and a check in the mail. And yes I understand it was a federal building. Selective Justice.
    Free nicoletti ✊️

    1. There is NO equivalency between AA’s understandable frustration at centuries of oppression and the riots fomented by the 4 times indicted traitor. I don’t condone violence in any form, but the blacks have and had an actual reason for their rage.

    2. As Stu says it has been under-reported. Good old BBC has this for example. Why not the US? Then there is this fine Texas fellow who traveled to Minn. for the party, not BLM, just “Boogaloo Bois” a group that just wants to spark civil war. Fox (local) news had this on the guy who got 9 years for arson in Minn.

      It’s true that the prosecutions have been mostly the low-hanging fruit–that is the folks, who like many Jan 6ers, live-streamed their crimes, or were on video shot by others. A lot of the looters/arsonists were not so foolish (e.g. the masked “umbrella man” who is still being searched for), but investigations are on-going, and the Biden DOJ is still bringing cases. The folks identifiable from video have been or will probably be prosecuted.

      You might remember that the guy who left pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC on Jan 6 has yet to be identified and is still at large. Dumb criminals always get prosecuted first. Solving crimes without such conclusive evidence is hard work, despite our desire for instant gratification.

  3. You certainly can be both, was there testimony that anyone who attacked an officer that day was directed to do so? Watching video certainly does leave one wondering if the feds weren’t instigating the crowd that day. In what universe are you the judge of what others feel?
    He wasn’t even in DC that day, but Ray Epps was, it’s amazing all the video of Ray inciting violence is ignored. In what country are people prosecuted over and above what the law requires because they need to be made examples of, don’t you dare question the kingdom while proclaiming you’re really protecting democracy to the minions who blindly follow orders.
    BLM are allowed to destroy a city, take over a police station w/o consequence, even having a presidential candidate set up a bail fund for anyone who happens to get arrested.

    1. Since when does guilt depend on whether you were “directed” to commit a crime? Those prosecuted had a jury trial and were found guilty. Ray Epps is a touchstone of the right. Why? Because Tucker Carlson said he was a plant? Yes, he urged people to go to the Capitol, but he did not call for violence or trespass himself. You need a new fall guy.

      This riot has NOTHING to do with BLM, but since you mentioned it, hundreds WERE prosecuted by DOJ for those riots.

      1. You need a better link than having to download
        Did Tirro direct anyone to become violent? but Epps is on video all over the place telling the protestors to get into the Capital, he’s right there inciting them to take down the fence, but Joe Biggs, a Proud Boys leader convicted of seditious conspiracy who the government says “served as an instigator and leader” during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, was sentenced to 17 years in federal prison for taking down a fence
        You and Jerry Nadler would be great friends, Antifia and the Portland riots against the federal building are just a myth. I applaud GA’s GJ on indicting 61 Antifia and horray SPLC finally

        1. I can’t control bad links. Google “those convicted in 2020 riots” and see for yourself. If you believe what your eyes see. Probably not.
          Ray Epps is a boogeyman and all the twisting does not change the fact that those convicted committed crimes, and I already have written that Tarrio’s sentence is excessive.
          So shove Nadler where the sun don’t shine.

        2. Barbara, I went to the link that Stu supplied and I was able to read the article and without needing to download anything. Maybe something was wrong when you went there.

        3. “Did Tirro direct anyone to become violent?”
          Yes. Did you read anything about the evidence in the trial? It lasted four months! After you’ve reviewed the evidence, I’d be interested in your point-by-point reasons for disagreeing with the verdict and sentence. (Of course the defendants have the option of doing so themselves by appealing. If your view is correct, what are you worried about? It’ll be reversed on appeal, or maybe by the Supreme Court.)

          I’ve looked in vain for such a take down of the government’s case. If you are relying on such an analysis, please share the link. I’d be happy to read it.

          The government introduced hundreds of communications among the Proud Boys, including such tidbits as the hashtag “#f*cktheblue” and characterizing their planned Jan 6 actions as a “raid” in aid of what they literally considered an attempt at “revolution.” They had walkie-talkies to coordinate and direct the attack.
          From the Sentencing Memo:
          “Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs, and Rehl had in mind a specific objective for January 6. Tarrio had in his possession a nine-page strategic plan to “storm” government buildings on January 6 for the purpose of getting the government to overturn the election results. In the days before January 6, Nordean announced that he was prepared to use “force against the government”
          You can read the memo here:
          It is only 80 pages summarizing the evidence from the 4 month trial and explaining why the Proud Boys actions deserve serious time. Give it a read and let us know where it is wrong. (Or, as I said, point me to someone who has.) Written plans to take over the government? I’d say that’s a little more serious than “trespassing.” Literal plans to “storm” the Capitol–I’d say that qualifies as “directing violence.” Certainly that is what the jury who actually looked at the evidence found.

          In fact, the jury acquitted Pezzola of the conspiracy charge. He was not in on the seditious conspiracy–the facts showed he was merely a proven effective street brawler (“rally boy”) who was recruited by leadership for this talent, and he was only “following orders” when he broke into the Capitol.

          Your position is no different than the folks who waved “Free Mumia” signs for years. “Evidence be damned–we KNOW it was political.” History will remember you in the same way–maybe even on the same page–as the Mumia supporters.

          1. If we were in a declared war, the convicted rioters could be executed for treason, because that’s what they did on Jan.6th; they committed treason against the government, egged on by the ‘Orange God-king’.

      1. Hunter hardly got touched by the Republicans. Look at the ridiculous cases being brought against Donald Trump. By doing this the Dems are interfering with the election. They know they can’t pull off the Covid shutdown. People aren’t going to fall for it again.

        1. JR, the Proverb “There are none so blind as those who will not see” and the saying “There are none so deaf as those who will not hear” fits you and your ilk perfectly.

        2. No attorney(not being paid by Trump) much less any sitting judge thinks the cases are “ridiculous.” If they are, he has nothing to worry about. Judges, juries and the appellate or Supreme Court will throw them out. He should be trying to rush everything to trial so he can wave the acquittals on the campaign trail. Instead, he wants delay, delay, delay. Heck, if he “did nothing wrong” easy enough to get the indictments dismissed. One legal brief ought to do it.
          No case is perfect, else we wouldn’t need trials, but I will say that the documents case is a darn near slam dunk. Even those in the legal community, e.g. John Turly, who defend him on the other cases concede this.

  4. Let’s view this from the perspective of a front-line Police Officer who was protecting the US capital. You are overwhelmed with violent, angry, anti-government criminals. You are punched, hit with flagpoles, fire extinguishers, whose political mission is to stop the transfer of power of our highest office. The officers injured both physically and emotionally need to be heard. One purpose of sentencing is prevent future similar events from reoccurring. I believe the strongest sentence for those convicted will send a message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. Those jerk*** who attacked the capital belong in jail for a long time.

    1. I’d highly recommend a non-fiction. “Courage Under Fire” by Steven A. Sund who, on that January 6th, was the Chief of the United States Capitol Police. A real page turner.

  5. I agree, that you can’t be both. The sentences are way to heavy, when a repbulican get’s in, they will probably be lowered. Unfortunately those who rioted and burned our cities ,some that never recovered, never spent an hour in jail. It was the Police who were prosecuted.

      1. 140 cities? How many were dismissed? SOME never did spend an hour in jail, I never said no one was charged. How many Police were charged? I do believe it was very under reported.

          1. Do you mean those leading the rioting–then yeah, there were prosecutions for “conspiracy to incite a riot” and “incitement.” Unlike the Proud Boys, BLM does not have a command structure, or membership dues and anybody can start or call themselves a “BLM” chapter.

            It’s a decentralized “movement’ rather than a coherent organization. In some ways, it’s no more than a slogan. Thus, for example, when Seattle’s “BLM” demonstrated against Bernie Sanders, another Seattle “BLM” apologized. It’s more like “Tea Party” or “MAGA” than a top-down organization.

    1. Something worth mentioning regarding the “sentences were too high” notion: the Proud Boys were sentenced by a judge appointed by Trump, (Judge Timothy J. Kelly) and a card-carrying member of the conservative Federalist Society.

  6. Stensland and her husband, the walking hemorrhoid Larry Mendte, have realized the only way they can pay the rent is to whore themselves out to the MAGA crowd. No one with an IQ over 12 would take anything they say seriously. And who cares what they have to say about anything? Just another pair of democracy-hating amoeba.

    1. I have to agree Chuck…she was a journalist…now shes a conservative radio talk show host. Huge difference.

  7. “Democracy will fight back”? Odd, I don’t remember it fighting back against Jane Fonda and others of her ilk. Justice will always be unbalanced, and not blind at all.

    1. I have no use for Jane Fonda, but what law did she break? Want to try for treason, aid and comfort to the enemy?
      Despicable, but not treason in my book.

      1. Ask some of the Viet vets who were in the cages when Jane showed up to laud the communists. Treason, yes. A case could be made.

        1. She was in Nam in 1972, Nixon was president. HE didn’t make the case and the opinion of the POWs is immaterial. Me, I would call it treason, but that’s not what the law says, at least according to Nixon.

        2. Treasonous, if not treason. But if it’s treason, Tucker Carlson needs to watch himself. Fonda did eventually and way too belatedly apologize. Wonder if Carlson ever will.

    2. As a matter of fact, the federal “Anti-Riot Act” which is being used to prosecute many of the Jan 6ers was passed during the 60s to combat at least perceived lefty/Black violent revolutionary movements. (And the Proud Boys self-describe as being in favor of revolution).

      Its first recent use was in relation to the Portland BLM riots where a guy named Kevin Phomma was charged with assaulting police officers using Bear Spray outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement building. He claimed the statute violated his constitutional rights (I don’t really follow how assaulting cops is free speech), and the court rejected the claim. United States v. Phomma
      Well, what do you know? When the Jan 6ers made the same arguments, the courts cited the Phomma case and rejected them.

      As far as I know Jane Fonda never assaulted a cop, with or without Bear Spray. However the law was famously used against the Chicago 7, though the convictions were reversed because of small details like the judge ordering the wiretapping their attorneys’ phones. I doubt that mistake has been repeated.

        1. Aw, shucks. Thank you. As I think I mentioned, your site was recommended by a friend of mine with whom I’ve been cordially arguing politics with for over 30 years. We disagree on most things, except verifiable facts. (At least once, he changed my mind on an issue–don’t know if I’ve ever managed to modify his opinions).

          In my view, much of our politics mirrors the parable of the blind men describing the elephant. Folks see something and think that is the whole story. The challenge is to try to see the entire elephant. Facts help. Reading a variety of sources–particularly those you disagree with–helps.

          So, kudos to you, Stu (and my long-time friend and political opponent who recommended you) for trying to see the whole elephant, i.e., this great, though far from perfect, country of ours. Now let’s have an argument! It’s the American Way.

  8. Trump wanted to go the riot he instigated, but his Secret Service driver refused to drive him. And when Pence’s life was threatened, Trumpo🤡 said he deserved it. He didn’t lift a finger to stop it.

Comments are closed.