riot

WASHINGTON — A federal magistrate judge on Friday refused to order the pretrial release of a man charged with planting two pipe bombs outside the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican national parties on the eve of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh ruled that Brian J. Cole Jr. must remain jailed before trial. The magistrate concluded there are no conditions of release that can reasonably protect the public from the danger that Cole allegedly poses.

Justice Department prosecutors say Cole confessed to placing pipe bombs outside the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee headquarters only hours before a mob of President Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol. According to prosecutors, Cole said he hoped the explosives would detonate and “hoped there would be news about it.”

“Mercifully, that did not happen,” Sharbaugh wrote. “But if the plan had succeeded, the results,” he said, could have been devastating, “creating a greater sense of terror on the eve of a high-security Congressional proceeding, causing serious property damage in the heart of Washington, D.C., grievously injuring DNC or RNC staff and other innocent bystanders, or worse.”

After his arrest last month, Cole told investigators that he believed someone needed to “speak up” for people who believed the 2020 election, which Democrat Joe Biden won, was stolen and that he wanted to target the country’s political parties because they were “in charge,” according to prosecutors.

If convicted of both charges against him, Cole faces up to 10 years of imprisonment on one charge and up to 20 years of imprisonment on a second charge that also carries a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence.

Cole’s attorneys asked for him to be released on home detention with GPS monitoring. They said Cole doesn’t have a criminal record, has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, and lives in a stable home that he shared with his parents in Woodbridge, Va.

“Mr. Cole simply does not pose a danger to the community,” defense attorneys wrote. “Whatever risk the government posits is theoretical and backward-looking, belied by the past four years where Mr. Cole lived at home with his family without incident.”

Cole continued to purchase bomb-making components for months after the Jan. 6 riot, according to prosecutors. They said Cole told the FBI that he planted the pipe bombs because “something just snapped.”

“The sudden and abrupt motivation behind Mr. Cole’s alleged actions presents concerns about how quickly the same abrupt and impulsive conduct might recur,” Sharbaugh wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for President Trump urged a federal judge on Friday to rule that Trump is entitled to presidential immunity from civil claims that he instigated a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta didn’t rule from the bench after hearing arguments from Trump attorneys and lawyers for Democratic members of Congress who sued the Republican president and allies over the Jan. 6. 2021, attack.

Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters at the “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House before the mob’s attack disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democratic President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Trump’s attorneys argue that his conduct leading up to Jan. 6 and on the day of the riot is protected by presidential immunity because he was acting in his official capacity.

“The entire point of immunity is to give the president clarity to speak in the moment as the commander-in-chief,” Trump attorney Joshua Halpern told the judge.

The lawmakers’ lawyers argue Trump can’t prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity rather than as an office-seeking private individual. And the U.S. Supreme Court has held that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity, they contend.

“President Trump has the burden of proof here,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph Sellers. “We submit that he hasn’t come anywhere close to satisfying that burden.”

At the end of Friday’s hearing, Mehta said the arguments gave him “a lot to think about” and he would rule “as soon as we can.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who chaired the House Homeland Security Committee, sued Trump, his personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups over the Jan. 6 riot. Other Democratic members of Congress later joined the litigation.

The civil claims survived Trump’s sweeping act of clemency on the first day of his second term, when he pardoned, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of all 1,500-plus criminal cases stemming from the Capitol siege. Over 100 police officers were injured while defending the Capitol from rioters.

Halpern said immunity enables the president to act “boldly and fearlessly.”

“Immunity exists to protect the president’s prerogatives,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the context and circumstances of the president’s remarks on Jan. 6 — not just the content of his words — are key to establishing whether he is immune from liability.

“You have to look at what happened leading up to January 6th,” Sellers said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Lawyers for US President Donald Trump say the BBC caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

United States President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking at least $10bn from the BBC over a documentary that edited his speech to supporters before the US Capitol riot in 2021.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami on Monday, seeks “damages in an amount not less than $5,000,000,000” for each of two counts against the United Kingdom broadcaster for alleged defamation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Earlier in the day, Trump confirmed his plans to file the lawsuit.

“I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally… I guess they used AI or something,” he told reporters at the White House.

“That’s called fake news .”

President Trump: “I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally…I guess they used AI or something…they actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with January 6th that I didn’t say.” pic.twitter.com/cUwXqBq3Zd

— CSPAN (@cspan) December 15, 2025

Trump has accused the UK publicly-owned broadcaster of defaming him by splicing together parts of a January 6, 2021, speech, including one section where he told supporters to march on the Capitol, and another where he said, “Fight like hell”.

The edited sections of his speech omitted words in which Trump also called for peaceful protest.

Trump’s lawsuit alleges that the BBC defamed him, and his lawyers say the documentary caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

The BBC has already apologised to Trump, admitted an error of judgement and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action.

The broadcaster also said that there was no legal basis for the lawsuit, and that to overcome the US Constitution’s strong legal protections for free speech and the press, Trump will need to prove in court not only that the edit was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.

The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the programme did not damage Trump’s reputation.

Trump, in his lawsuit, said that the BBC, despite its apology, “has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses”.

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement that the BBC had “a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda”.

The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the lawsuit was filed on Monday.

The dispute over the edited speech, featured on the BBC’s Panorama documentary show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, prompted a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior officials.

Other media organisations have settled with Trump, including CBS and ABC, when Trump sued them following his comeback win in the November 2024 election.

Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a newspaper in Iowa, all of which have denied wrongdoing.

Exiled punk band says its members are proud to be branded ‘extremists’ and hits back at Putin as an ‘aging sociopath’.

A Moscow district court has designated Russian punk protest band Pussy Riot as an extremist organisation, according to the state TASS news agency.

The exiled group’s lawyer, Leonid Solovyov, told TASS that Monday’s court ruling was made in response to claims brought by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office and that the band plans to appeal. According to TASS, the case was heard in a closed session at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office.

The court said that it had upheld prosecution submissions “to recognise the punk band Pussy Riot as an extremist organisation and ban its activities on the territory of the Russian Federation”, the AFP news agency reports.

An official Pussy Riot social media account shared a statement, responding defiantly to the ruling, saying the band’s members, who have lived in exile for years, were “freer than those who try to silence us”.

“We can say what I think about putin — that he is an aging sociopath spreading his venom around the world like cancer,” the statement said.

“In today’s Russia, telling the truth is extremism. So be it – we’re proud extremists, then.”

The group’s designation will make it easier for the authorities to go after the band’s supporters in Russia or people who have worked with them in the past.

“This court order is designed to erase the very existence of Pussy Riot from the minds of Russians,” the band said. “Owning a balaclava, having our song on your computer, or liking one of our posts could lead to prison time.”

According to TASS, earlier reports said that the Prosecutor General’s Office had brought the case over Pussy Riot’s previous actions, including at Christ the Saviour Cathedral in February 2012, and the World Cup Final in Moscow in 2018.

Today Russian court designated Pussy Riot as an extremist organization.

And yet, we’re freer than those who try to silence us. We can say what I think about putin — that he is an aging sociopath spreading his venom around the world like cancer. In today’s Russia, telling the… pic.twitter.com/ymz3BbApTo

— 𝖕𝖚𝖘𝖘𝖞 𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖙💦 (@pussyrrriot) December 15, 2025

The band’s members have already served sentences for the 2012 protest at the cathedral in Moscow, where they played what they called a punk prayer, “Mother of God, Cast Putin Out!”

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, who were jailed for two years on hooliganism charges over the cathedral protest, were released as part of a 2013 amnesty, which extended to some 26,000 people facing prosecution from Russian authorities, including 30 Greenpeace crew members.

In September, a Russian court handed jail terms to five people linked with Pussy Riot – Maria Alyokhina, Taso Pletner, Olga Borisova, Diana Burkot and Alina Petrova – after finding them guilty of spreading “false information” about the Russian military, news outlet Mediazona reported. All have said the charges against them are politically motivated.

Mediazona was founded by Alyokhina alongside fellow band member Tolokonnikova.

The news outlet says that it is continuing to maintain a verified list of Russian military deaths in Moscow’s war on Ukraine.

“We have confirmed 153,000 names, each supported by evidence, context, and documentation,” Mediazona said on Monday.