Politics
Capitol rioters included highly trained ex-military and cops
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump’s supporters massed outside the Capitol last week and sang the national anthem, a line of men wearing olive-drab helmets and body armor trudged purposefully up the marble stairs in a single-file line, each man holding the jacket collar of the one ahead.
The formation, known as “Ranger File,” is standard operating procedure for a combat team that is “stacking up” to breach a building — instantly recognizable to any U.S. soldier or Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a chilling sign that many at the vanguard of the mob that stormed the seat of American democracy either had military training or were trained by those who did.
An Associated Press review of public records, social media posts and videos shows at least 21 current or former members of the U.S. military or law enforcement have been identified as being at or near the Capitol riot, with more than a dozen others under investigation but not yet named. In many cases, those who stormed the Capitol appeared to employ tactics, body armor and technology such as two-way radio headsets that were similar to those of the very police they were confronting.
Experts in homegrown extremism have warned for years about efforts by far-right militants and white-supremacist groups to radicalize and recruit people with military and law enforcement training, and they say the Jan. 6 insurrection that left five people dead saw some of their worst fears realized.
FILE – In this Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021 file photo, Donald Trump supporters gather outside the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
“ISIS and al-Qaida would drool over having someone with the training and experience of a U.S. military officer,” said Michael German, a former FBI agent and fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “These people have training and capabilities that far exceed what any foreign terrorist group can do. Foreign terrorist groups don’t have any members who have badges.”
Among the most prominent to emerge is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and decorated combat veteran from Texas who was arrested after he was photographed wearing a helmet and body armor on the floor of the Senate, holding a pair of zip-tie handcuffs.
Another Air Force veteran from San Diego was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer as she tried to leap through a barricade near the House chamber. A retired Navy SEAL, among the most elite special warfare operators in the military, posted a Facebook video about traveling from his Ohio home to the rally and seemingly approving of the invasion of “our building, our house.”
Two police officers from a small Virginia town, both of them former infantrymen, were arrested by the FBI after posting a selfie of themselves inside the Capitol, one flashing his middle finger at the camera.
This Jan. 6, 2021 photo made available by the United States Capitol Police in a complaint and arrest warrant shows Rocky Mount Police Department Sgt. Thomas “T.J.” Robertson and officer Jacob Fracker in the Capitol in front of a statute of John Stark, a Revolutionary War officer famous for writing the state motto of New Hampshire, “Live Free or Die.” (Courtesy United States Capitol Police via AP)
Also under scrutiny is an active-duty psychological warfare captain from North Carolina who organized three busloads of people who headed to Washington for the “Save America” rally in support the president’s false claim that the November election was stolen from him.
While the Pentagon declined to provide an estimate for how many other active-duty military personnel are under investigation, the military’s top leaders were concerned enough ahead of President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration that they issued a highly unusual warning to all service members this week that the right to free speech gives no one the right to commit violence.
The chief of the U.S. Capitol Police was forced to resign following the breach and several officers have been suspended pending the outcome of investigations into their conduct, including one who posed for a selfie with a rioter and another who was seen wearing one of Trump’s red “Make America Great Again” caps.
The AP’s review of hundreds of videos and photos from the insurrectionist riot shows scores of people mixed in the crowd who were wearing military-style gear, including helmets, body armor, rucksacks and two-way radios. Dozens carried canisters of bear spray, baseball bats, hockey sticks and pro-Trump flags attached to stout poles later used to bash police officers.
A close examination of the group marching up the steps to help breach the Capitol shows they wore military-style patches that read “MILITIA” and “OATHKEEPER.” Others were wearing patches and insignias representing far-right militant groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and various self-styled state militias.
FILE – In this Sunday, June 25, 2017 file photo, Stewart Rhodes, founder of the citizen militia group known as the Oath Keepers speaks during a rally outside the White House in Washington. Rhodes, an Army veteran who founded the Oath Keepers in 2009 as a reaction to the presidency or Barack Obama, had been saying for weeks before the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot that his group was preparing for a civil war and was “armed, prepared to go in if the president calls us up.” (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
The Oath Keepers, which claims to count thousands of current and former law enforcement officials and military veterans as members, have become fixtures at protests and counter-protests across the country, often heavily armed with semi-automatic carbines and tactical shotguns.
Stewart Rhodes, an Army veteran who founded the Oath Keepers in 2009 as a reaction to the presidency of Barack Obama, had been saying for weeks before the Capitol riot that his group was preparing for a civil war and was “armed, prepared to go in if the president calls us up.”
Adam Newbold, the retired Navy SEAL from Lisbon, Ohio, whose more than two-decade military career includes multiple combat awards for valor, said in a Jan. 5 Facebook video, “We are just very prepared, very capable and very skilled patriots ready for a fight.”
He later posted a since-deleted follow-up video after the riot saying he was “proud” of the assault.
Newbold, 45, did not respond to multiple messages from the AP but in an interview with the Task & Purpose website he denied ever going inside the Capitol. He added that because of the fallout from the videos he has resigned from a program that helps prepare potential SEAL applicants.
This image shows a video by Adam Newbold posted on Facebook on Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2021. The retired U.S. Navy SEAL said he was not going to Washington, D.C., “looking for a fight” and that people should treat police officers and National Guard members with respect. He added: “We are not going down looking for a fight. We are just very prepared, very capable, and very skilled patriots ready for a fight. And we will react without hesitation when called upon to do so.” (Facebook via AP)
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Larry Rendall Brock Jr. of Texas was released to home confinement Thursday after a prosecutor alleged the former fighter pilot had zip-tie handcuffs on the Senate floor because he planned to take hostages.
“He means to kidnap, restrain, perhaps try, perhaps execute members of the U.S. government,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Weimer said. “His prior experience and training make him all the more dangerous.”
This undated photo provided by the Grapevine, Texas Police Department in January 2021 shows Larry Rendall Brock Jr. During the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, Brock was photographed on the Senate floor wearing a helmet and heavy vest and carrying zip-tie handcuffs. The retired Air Force officer was arrested in Texas and charged Sunday, Jan. 10 in federal court in the District of Columbia. (Grapevine, Texas Police Department via AP)
Army commanders at Fort Bragg in North Carolina are investigating the possible involvement of Capt. Emily Rainey, the 30-year-old psychological operations officer and Afghanistan war veteran who told the AP she traveled with 100 others to Washington to “stand against election fraud.” She insisted she acted within Army regulations and that no one in her group entered the Capitol or broke the law.
“I was a private citizen and doing everything right and within my rights,” Rainey said.
More than 110 people have been arrested on charges related to the Capitol riot so far, ranging from curfew violations to serious federal felonies related to theft and weapons possession.
Brian Harrell, who served as the assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at the Department of Homeland Security until last year, said it is “obviously problematic” when “extremist bad actors” have military and law enforcement backgrounds.
“Many have specialized training, some have seen combat, and nearly all have been fed disinformation and propaganda from illegitimate sources,” Harrell said. “They are fueled by conspiracy theories, feel as if something is being stolen from them, and they are not interested in debate. This is a powder keg cocktail waiting to blow.”
The FBI is warning of the potential for more bloodshed. In an internal bulletin issued Sunday, the bureau warned of plans for armed protests at all 50 state capitals and in Washington, D.C., in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, police departments in such major cities as New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Houston and Philadelphia announced they were investigating whether members of their agencies participated in the Capitol riot. The Philadelphia area’s transit authority is also investigating whether seven of its police officers who attended Trump’s rally in Washington broke any laws.
A Texas sheriff announced last week that he had reported one of his lieutenants to the FBI after she posted photos of herself on social media with a crowd outside the Capitol. Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar said Lt. Roxanne Mathai, a 46-year-old jailer, had the right to attend the rally but he’s investigating whether she may have broken the law.
One of the posts Mathai shared was a photo that appeared to be taken Jan. 6 from among the mass of Trump supporters outside the Capitol, captioned: “Not gonna lie. … aside from my kids, this was, indeed, the best day of my life. And it’s not over yet.”
A lawyer for Mathai, a mother and longtime San Antonio resident, said she attended the Trump rally but never entered the Capitol.
In Houston, Police Chief Art Acevedo said an 18-year veteran of the department suspected of joining the mob that breached the Capitol was placed on leave and will face a disciplinary hearing.
“There is no excuse for criminal activity, especially from a police officer,” Acevedo said. “I can’t tell you the anger I feel at the thought of a police officer, and other police officers, thinking they get to storm the Capitol.”
Florida
Democratic Leaders Condemned Susan Valdés’ GOP Switch; Orange Democrats Later Appear Alongside Her
Florida
[COURTS & LAW] Paula Stark Court Record Could Impact Daisy Morales, James Bush III Defamation Lawsuits Against FHDCC
Stark’s Leon County Election Fight, Bush’s $1 Million Default Battle in Miami-Dade and Morales’ Orange County Defamation Lawsuit Could Put FHDCC’s Legal Status Under Scrutiny in Three Florida Courts
ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Three Florida court cases. Three counties. One political committee — and an unresolved legal question that could affect two pending defamation lawsuits.
Court records obtained and reviewed by Florida National News show the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee (FHDCC) sought permission to become a Party Defendant in Republican state Rep. Paula Stark’s Leon County election lawsuit in June 2026.
Less than a month later, FHDCC took a different procedural position in former Democratic state Rep. James Bush III’s Miami-Dade defamation lawsuit, arguing that it is an unincorporated political organization that lacks the capacity to be sued in its own name.
That position is supported by a sworn affidavit submitted by State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, chair of FHDCC, describing her authority over committee funds and legal matters and stating the committee’s position that it cannot be sued as a political committee.
Now, former Democratic state Rep. Daisy Morales has named FHDCC as a defendant in a separate defamation lawsuit in Orange County.
The cases involve different parties, claims and legal issues. FHDCC’s attempt to intervene in Stark’s case does not establish that the committee has capacity to be sued in Bush or Morales.
But the developing record presents a significant question: FHDCC affirmatively asked one Florida circuit court to allow it to become a Party Defendant, then later argued in another that its organizational structure prevents it from being sued in its own name.
FHDCC Asked to Become a Party Defendant in Stark Case
Stark, a Republican state representative from St. Cloud, sued after election officials determined she failed to qualify for reelection to House District 47.
Her case, Paula Stark v. Cord Byrd, et al., Case No. 2026-CA-1311, was filed in the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County before Circuit Judge Joshua M. Hawkes.
On June 25, 2026, attorney Mark Herron filed a motion on behalf of FHDCC and Democratic House District 47 candidates Jorge Figueroa and Anthony Nieves.
The filing was expressly titled “Motion to Intervene as a Party Defendants in Pending Election Case” and asked Hawkes to permit FHDCC, Figueroa and Nieves to intervene as Party Defendants under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230.
FHDCC also described itself in the motion as an affiliated party committee established under Section 103.092, Florida Statutes, to support Democratic candidates for the Florida House.
The committee asserted that the outcome of Stark’s lawsuit would affect the resources FHDCC would expend in the House District 47 election.
Herron signed the filing as “Attorney for the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee.”
Herron also serves as FHDCC treasurer. His dual role could become relevant if the Bush or Morales defamation lawsuits reach discovery concerning the committee’s organization, finances or decision-making. Any potential testimony would depend on Herron’s firsthand knowledge and applicable attorney-client and other legal protections.
Hawkes Denied FHDCC Intervention
FHDCC did not succeed in becoming a party to Stark’s case.
In his July 8 Order on Petition for Mandamus, Hawkes explained that he denied FHDCC intervention because the committee’s asserted interest amounted to “just a financial stake.”
Hawkes instead allowed Figueroa and Nieves to intervene because their candidacies and political positions were directly affected by whether the primary would remain closed. The written order consequently identifies Figueroa and Nieves — not FHDCC — as intervenors.
That distinction is critical.
The Stark record establishes that FHDCC asked to become a Party Defendant. It does not establish that the court accepted FHDCC in that capacity. Hawkes expressly denied the committee’s request.
Hawkes ultimately denied Stark’s request for ballot relief. In his analysis, he also referenced an argument advanced by “counsel for Intervenors.”
The Stark litigation was subsequently closed.
Why Stark Matters
Hawkes did not decide whether FHDCC has legal capacity to sue or be sued.
He rejected FHDCC’s intervention because its asserted interest in the election dispute was insufficient.
But the underlying motion remains significant because it establishes that FHDCC, through counsel, affirmatively invoked a Florida court’s jurisdiction and asked to participate as a Party Defendant.
That record could become relevant if FHDCC maintains in other courts that its organizational structure prevents it from being sued in its own name.
Bush’s $1 Million Default Battle in Miami-Dade
While Stark’s election litigation was unfolding in Leon County, FHDCC was facing a different legal battle in Miami-Dade.
Former Democratic state Rep. James Bush III filed a defamation lawsuit in August 2025 against Edge Communications, LLC, Strong Community, FHDCC and state Rep. Ashley Gantt.
The case, James Bush III v. Edge Communications, LLC, et al., Case No. 2025-015569-CA-01, was assigned to Section CA31 of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and Circuit Judge Migna Sanchez-Llorens, according to the court’s Case Management Order.
The order, signed Oct. 11, 2025, established July 8, 2026, as the deadline for summary judgment and dispositive motions, resolution of certain pretrial matters and mediation. It projected an Oct. 6, 2026 trial date.
On July 8 — the same day Hawkes issued his Stark ruling in Leon County — clerk defaults were entered against FHDCC and other defendants in Bush’s lawsuit, according to filings previously reviewed by FNN.
FHDCC moved to set aside its default on July 15.
Bush then filed a Motion for Final Default Judgment on July 29 seeking $1 million, plus costs, against the defaulted defendants.
The distinction is important: Bush is seeking a $1 million final default judgment. The court has not entered a $1 million judgment based on the records reviewed for this report.
FHDCC Argues It Cannot Be Sued in Its Own Name
FHDCC’s response to the Miami-Dade default creates the central comparison with the Stark record.
In its Motion to Set Aside Default, FHDCC argued that it is a 527 political unincorporated organization that lacks capacity to be sued in its own name.
The committee cited Larkin v. Buranosky, a 2008 Florida appellate decision involving unincorporated political organizations.
That remains FHDCC’s legal position, not a determination by the Miami-Dade court.
But the timing creates a significant comparison:
June 25 — Leon County: FHDCC asks to enter litigation as a Party Defendant.
July 8 — Leon County: Hawkes denies FHDCC intervention.
July 15 — Miami-Dade County: FHDCC argues that its organizational status prevents it from being sued in its own name.
Those positions are not automatically contradictory. Intervention and capacity to be sued are distinct legal questions, and Hawkes did not decide whether FHDCC possessed capacity to sue or be sued.
But the records could invite scrutiny of how FHDCC characterizes its legal identity and litigation authority in different proceedings.
FHDCC Chair Hunschofsky Submits Sworn Affidavit
The Miami-Dade dispute took on added significance when State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, chair of the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, submitted a sworn affidavit supporting FHDCC’s effort to set aside the default.
Hunschofsky described FHDCC as a Florida registered political committee affiliated with the Florida Democratic Party but not controlled by it.
She also described her authority within the organization, stating that she is responsible for the allocation of FHDCC funds and for legal actions against the committee and its defense.
Hunschofsky further stated that FHDCC is an unincorporated entity and that the committee understands it “cannot be sued as a political committee.”
She said that after learning Bush had obtained a default, she immediately instructed attorney Juan-Carlos Planas to seek to set aside the default and have the case dismissed based on FHDCC’s position that it cannot be sued under Florida law.
The affidavit represents sworn statements by FHDCC’s chair concerning the committee’s structure and her responsibilities. Her assertion concerning whether FHDCC can be sued is the committee’s legal position; it does not establish that Sanchez-Llorens has accepted that interpretation.
Morales Defamation Lawsuit Brings Question to Orange County
The third case brings the issue to Orange County.
On Aug. 14, former Democratic state Rep. Daisy Morales filed a defamation lawsuit against FHDCC and Democratic House District 43 nominee Samuel Vilchez Santiago.
The case, Daisy Morales v. Samuel Vilchez Santiago and Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, Case No. 482026CA008697A001OX, is pending in the Ninth Judicial Circuit before Circuit Judge Michael Deen.
Morales asserts claims for defamation/libel and defamation by implication arising from political mailers distributed during the Democratic primary campaign.
Among the disputed statements was a representation that Morales endorsed Republican candidates and was expelled from the Orange County Democratic Party.
Morales alleges the statements were false and defamatory.
Those allegations remain pending. Neither Vilchez Santiago nor FHDCC has been found liable for defamation.
Vilchez Santiago defeated Morales in the Aug. 18 Democratic primary, but the election result does not resolve the civil lawsuit.
Could Stark and Bush Affect Morales?
The Stark intervention record makes the potential Orange County issue clearer.
If FHDCC raises the same capacity defense against Morales that it raised against Bush, the Orange County court could be asked to consider a broader record concerning the committee’s legal identity and structure.
That record could include FHDCC’s request to become a Party Defendant in Stark; Herron’s representation of the committee; Hawkes’ denial of FHDCC intervention; FHDCC’s Miami-Dade capacity argument; Hunschofsky’s sworn affidavit; and state records governing the committee’s organization and operations.
None of that evidence establishes the merits of Morales’ defamation claims.
But it could become relevant to a threshold question:
Is FHDCC itself a proper defendant?
And if Florida law ultimately says it is not, another question follows:
Who is the proper party for allegedly actionable conduct undertaken through the committee?
Three Courts, Different Consequences
The issue carries different consequences in each court.
Leon County: FHDCC affirmatively sought Party Defendant status, but Hawkes denied its intervention. Stark’s case is closed, and nothing in the Bush or Morales litigation currently changes that outcome.
Miami-Dade County: The consequences are immediate. Bush is seeking a $1 million final default judgment while FHDCC is attempting to set aside its default and arguing that it cannot be sued in its own name.
Orange County: The issue is prospective. If FHDCC raises the same capacity defense against Morales, Deen could be asked to examine the developing Stark and Bush records in determining whether FHDCC is a proper defendant.
One Political Committee, Three Florida Courts
The court records do not establish wrongdoing by FHDCC, Herron, Hunschofsky or their attorneys. Nor do they establish the merits of the Bush or Morales defamation claims.
What they do establish is an unusual litigation record involving the same political committee across three Florida circuit courts.
In Leon County, FHDCC asked to become a Party Defendant — and Hawkes denied the request.
In Miami-Dade County, FHDCC is fighting a clerk’s default and Bush’s request for a $1 million final default judgment while arguing that it cannot be sued in its own name.
In Orange County, FHDCC is now a named defendant in Morales’ defamation lawsuit.
The cases could ultimately put a fundamental question under scrutiny:
What is the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee’s legal status — and if FHDCC cannot be sued in its own name, who may be held legally accountable for actionable conduct undertaken through the committee if that conduct is ultimately proven?
Florida3 days ago[COURTS & LAW] Paula Stark Court Record Could Impact Daisy Morales, James Bush III Defamation Lawsuits Against FHDCC
Florida5 days agoFIU Becomes First Florida University to Launch CORE Emergency Management Partnership
Sports5 days agoCoke Zero Sugar 400 Race Weekend: NASCAR’s Chase Battle Heads to Daytona
Entertainment5 days agoDr. Phillips Center’s Free Frontyard Holiday Festival Returns to Downtown Orlando Nov. 27
Florida10 hours agoDemocratic Leaders Condemned Susan Valdés’ GOP Switch; Orange Democrats Later Appear Alongside Her
