FBI makes arrest in investigation into pipe bombs placed in DC on eve of Jan. 6 riot, AP source says

posted in: All news | 0

By ERIC TUCKER and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI made an arrest on Thursday in its nearly 5-year-old investigation into who placed pipe bombs in Washington on the eve of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

FILE – Images from an FBI poster seeking a suspect who allegedly placed pipe bombs in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (FBI via AP, File)

The arrest marks the first time investigators have settled on a suspect in an act that had long vexed law enforcement, spawned a multitude of conspiracy theories and remained an enduring mystery in the shadow of the dark chapter of American history that is the violent Capitol siege.

The official who described the arrest was not authorized to publicly discuss a case that has not yet been made public and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The arrest took place Thursday morning, and the suspect is a man, the official said. No other details were immediately available, including the charges the man might face.

The pipe bombs were placed on the evening of Jan. 5, 2021, near the offices of the Democratic and Republican national committees in the District of Columbia. Nobody was hurt before the bombs were rendered safe, but the FBI has said both devices could have been lethal.

Related Articles


US filings for jobless benefits fall to 191,000, lowest since September of 2022


Today in History: December 4, ‘Pizzagate’ shooting


Ex-Missouri officer pleads guilty to searching women’s phones for sexual photos during stops


Ex-missionary from Ohio charged with sexually abusing 4 children in Haiti


Americans gave $4B on GivingTuesday 2025 as donations and volunteering gain big over last year

In the years since, investigators have sought the public’s help in identifying a shadowy subject seen on surveillance camera even as they struggled to determine answers to basic questions, including the person’s gender and motive and whether the act had a clear connection to the riot at the Capitol a day later when supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the building in a bid to halt the certification of the Republican’s 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Seeking a breakthrough, the FBI last January publicized additional information about the investigation, including an estimate that the suspect was about 5-foot-7, as well as previously unreleased video of the suspect placing one of the bombs.

The bureau had for years struggled to pinpoint a suspect despite hundreds of tips, a review of tens of thousands of video files and a significant number of interviews.

In the absence of harder evidence, Republican lawmakers and right-wing media outlets promoted conspiracy theories about the pipe bombs. House Republicans also criticized security lapses, questioning how law enforcement failed to detect the bombs for 17 hours. Dan Bongino, the current FBI deputy director, floated the possibility last year before being tapped for his job that the act was an “inside job” and involved a “massive cover-up.”

But since arriving at the FBI in March, he has sought to deliver action to a restive base on the far right by promising that the pipe bombs investigation would be a top priority and defending the bureau’s work.

“We brought in new personnel to take a look at the case, we flew in police officers and detectives working as TFOs (task force officers) to review FBI work, we conducted multiple internal reviews, held countless in person and SVTC meetings with investigative team members, we dramatically increased investigative resources, and we increased the public award for information in the case to utilize crowd-sourcing leads,” he wrote in a long post on X last month.

Lawmakers will hear from Navy admiral who ordered attack that killed boat strike survivors

posted in: All news | 0

By STEPHEN GROVES and LISA MASCARO, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Navy admiral who reportedly issued orders for the U.S. military to fire upon survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat is expected Thursday on Capitol Hill to provide a classified briefing to top congressional lawmakers overseeing national security.

Related Articles


Trump hosting the leaders of Congo and Rwanda to sign key deal for peace in eastern Congo


Affordable Care Act premiums are set to spike. A new poll shows enrollees are already struggling


Putin says there are points he can’t agree to in the US proposal to end Russia’s war against Ukraine


Trump is fighting the Institute of Peace in court. Now, his name is on the building


Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang visits Republicans as debate over intensifying AI race rages

The information from Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who is now the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, comes at a potentially crucial moment in the unfolding congressional investigation into how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth handled the military operation in international waters near Venezuela. There are mounting questions over whether the strike may have violated the law.

Lawmakers are seeking a full accounting of the strikes after The Washington Post reported that Bradley on Sept. 2 ordered an attack on two survivors to comply with Hegseth’s directive to “kill everybody.” Legal experts say the attack amounts to a crime if the survivors were targeted, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are demanding accountability.

Bradley will speak to a handful of top congressional leaders, including the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate committees on Armed Services, and separately to the GOP chairman and Democratic vice chairman on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“This is an incredibly serious matter. This is about the safety of our troops. This is an incident that could expose members of our armed services to legal consequences,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a floor speech Wednesday. “And yet the American public and the Congress are still not hearing basic facts.”

As Bradley appears for questions in the classified setting, lawmakers will be seeking answers to key questions: What orders did Hegseth give regarding the operations? And what was the reasoning for the second strike?

Democratic lawmakers are also demanding that the Trump administration release the full video of the Sept. 2 attack, as well as written records of the orders and any directives from Hegseth. While Republicans, who control the national security committees, have not publicly called for those documents, they have pledged a thorough review.

“The investigation is going to be done by the numbers,” said Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We’ll find out the ground truth.”

Pressure builds on Hegseth

President Donald Trump has stood behind Hegseth as he defends his handling of the attack, but pressure is mounting on the defense secretary.

Hegseth has said the aftermath of an initial strike on the boat was clouded in the “fog of war.” He has also said he “didn’t stick around” for the second strike, but said Bradley “made the right call” and “had complete authority” to do it.

Also on Thursday, the Defense Department inspector general was expected to release a partially redacted report into Hegseth’s use of the Signal messaging app in March to share information about a military strike against Yemen’s Houthi militants.

The report found that Hegseth put U.S. personnel and their mission at risk by using Signal, according to two people familiar with the findings. The Pentagon, however, has cast the report as an exoneration of Hegseth.

Who is Adm. Bradley?

At the time of the attack, Bradley was the commander of Joint Special Operations Command, overseeing coordinated operations between the military’s elite special operations units out of Fort Bragg in North Carolina. About a month after the strike, he was promoted to commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

His military career, spanning over three decades, was mostly spent serving in the elite Navy SEALs and commanding joint operations. He was among the first special forces officers to deploy to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. His latest promotion to admiral was approved by unanimous voice vote in the Senate earlier this year, and Democratic and Republican senators praised his record.

“I’m expecting Bradley to tell the truth and shed some light on what actually happened,” said Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, adding that he had “great respect for his record.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, described Bradley as among those who are “rock solid” and “the most extraordinary people that have ever served in the military.”

But lawmakers like Tillis have also made it clear they expect a reckoning if it is found that survivors were targeted. “Anybody in the chain of command that was responsible for it, that had vision of it, needs to be held accountable,” he said.

What else are lawmakers seeking?

The scope of the investigation is unclear, but there is other documentation of the strike that could fill in what happened. Obtaining that information, though, will largely depend on action from Republican lawmakers — a potentially painful prospect for them if it puts them at odds with the president.

Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he and Wicker have formally requested the executive orders authorizing the operations and the complete videos from the strikes. They are also seeking the intelligence that identified the vessels as legitimate targets, the rules of engagement for the attacks and any criteria used to determine who was a combatant and who was a civilian.

Military officials were aware that there were survivors in the water after the initial strike but carried out the follow-on strike under the rationale that it needed to sink the vessel, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. What remains unclear — and what lawmakers hope to clarify in their briefing with Bradley — was who ordered the strikes and whether Hegseth was involved, one of the people said.

Republican lawmakers who are close to Trump have sought to defend Hegseth this week, standing behind the military campaign against drug cartels that the president deems “narco-terrorists.”

“I see nothing wrong with what took place,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican, as he argued that the Trump administration was justified in using war powers against drug cartels.

More than 80 people have been killed in the series of strikes that started in September. And for critics of the campaign like Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the pressing questions about the legality of killing survivors are a natural outgrowth of military action that was always on shaky legal ground. He said it was clear that Hegseth is responsible, even if he didn’t explicitly order a second attack.

“He may not have been in the room, but he was in the loop,” Blumenthal said. “And it was his order that was instrumental and foreseeably resulted in the deaths of these survivors.”

Remembering David Richards, 1933-2025

posted in: All news | 0

On November 13, surrounded by family and listening to Guy Clark songs in the capital of the state on which he left such an enormous mark, David Richards left us at the age of 92.

How to capture the life of such a man in such a small space? 

The obituary his daughter, Ellen Richards, wrote follows David and Ann Richards from law school in Austin to Dallas, where David joined the Mullinax & Wells law firm, then back to Austin, leaving behind what David would later describe as a right-wing hysteria that made Dallas “a scary place.” 

In Austin, he joined Sam Houston Clinton’s law practice—the office also housed the ACLU and the Texas Observer—and he and Ann quickly found their way to Scholz Garten, the gravitational center of a wildly eclectic universe of lawyers, legislators, writers, and agitators. There, Ellen writes, David would spend hours holding court. 

Holding court. David Richards knew how to tell a story. A story that grabbed you and didn’t let you go. 

A Rio Grande whitewater trip gone bad with overturned canoes washing downstream into the Santa Elena Canyon. Grabbing Molly Ivins by her lifejacket and hoisting her back onto the raft as she tumbled into a roaring rapid at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. An impulsive decision to throw in with Gary Cartwright, Jodie and Pete Gent, and Bud Shrake in a plan to buy the town of Sisterdale. His only meeting, as a young man in D.C., with LBJ, who ripped into him after he mentioned an article from this publication, forgetting that the author wasn’t sufficiently flattering to the great man. 

Captivating, funny, profane, contemptuous of establishment figures who busted unions, shut minorities out of power, and claimed ownership of the state’s Legislature and executive mansion, David always left you wanting more. One more dinner gathering. One more night with the tab open at Shorty’s in Port Aransas. One more story.

In November 2017, the LBJ Presidential Library held a discussion about gerrymandering and voter ID including Norma Cantú, professor of law and education at UT-Austin, and David Richards (right). (LBJ Library, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

As a lawyer, David devoted a career to dragging those establishment figures into court, methodically putting together a string of judicial victories that dramatically changed the political and economic landscape of what his friend Molly Ivins referred to as the Great State.

“If there’s anything good in Texas—academic freedom, labor, voting rights, education, politics—his litigation facilitated it. He did all that,” said George Korbel, who tried numerous cases with David. 

Overstated? Only slightly. David Richards filed and won lawsuits in every category Korbel mentions. And a few more. 

Labor causes of action in Dallas. Mexican-American furniture workers getting their day in court in Austin. Farmworkers in the Rio Grande Valley (with David joining their weeks-long pilgrimage from the Valley after Governor John Connally and then-Speaker Ben Barnes confronted them to warn that they marched on to Austin at their own risk.) Voting rights cases in East Texas, where attorney Otto Mullinax carried a pistol for protection. What Korbel described as “drive-by lawsuits when West Texas got to be as dangerous as East Texas and we would only meet with clients when it was daylight.” And half a dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (the only lawyer Korbel ever knew who could dictate a Supreme Court brief in one take).

“If he’d quit after Regester, he would have accomplished more than most lawyers do in a lifetime,” Guy Herman, a Travis County judge, observed at the gathering celebrating David’s ninety-second birthday.

Regester v. White, ultimately decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, was the most consequential and far-reaching lawsuit David filed. The political and business establishment had used multi-member districts to shut Black and Latino candidates out of the state Legislature. Dallas County was about fifteen-percent Black, yet it went decades without electing a Black state legislator because in county-wide elections white voters supported white candidates. In Bexar County, Mexican-American candidates in San Antonio faced the same demographic dead end. The lawsuit was such a big threat to the state’s business and political elite that Leon Jaworski, later of Watergate fame, signed on pro-bono to defend the status quo.

As lead counsel, working with Ed Idar of the The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, David prevailed. When the top court ruled for the plaintiffs, the roadblock Black and Latino Texans faced in the state Legislature was dismantled. Racial barriers began to come down across Dixie and beyond, as Korbel explained: “Lawyers across the country went to court and used the basis David came up with in Regester v. White.”

St. Mary’s law professor Al Kaufman said of David, “He covered so much. Labor law, voting rights, education funding.” Kauffman worked alongside him on many cases, including the complicated and belabored Edgewood v. Kirby lawsuit that compelled the state to more equitably fund public education.

Kauffman credits Richards with devising the “efficiency argument” that persuaded the Texas Supreme Court. “He saw issues that others didn’t see, and he articulated them so well, and he had a good sense of how law relates to politics and movements and labor.”

David would later find delight when critics from rich districts bemoaned a “Robin Hood” lawsuit that would move their tax dollars to poor districts. Since he was a child, he’d considered Robin Hood his personal hero. 

And David never quit. 

“You know, David and I redistricted the City of Austin [after the 2020 census]. He did it over the phone, most of it. I attended the meetings and he would do the districts. And he was perfect,” Korbel said.

David’s life was long and varied, as his daughter’s remembrance lays out; he married Sandy Hauser after Ann and, in 2016, his last life partner, Nancy Novack. “On quiet evenings, David, cocktail in hand, would sit with Nancy on the patio watching as the last birds visited the feeder and the sun dipped beyond the horizon,” the obituary—which asks that memorial contributions be made to the Texas ACLU or Democracy Forward—reads.

How, then, to remember David Richards? Consider this for a moment. 

East Texas in the 1970s was firmly in the grip of Jim Crow Democrats who owned their elected offices because no Black candidate could win an at-large election. Politically and culturally, the counties east of the Pine Curtain felt like a westward extension of the Mississippi Delta, where Black neighborhoods were known as “the colored quarters” and Klansmen openly gathered in their favorite coffee shops. 

David was part of a suite of lawsuits and went to William Wayne Justice’s courtroom to break the white establishment’s lock on political power. His description of one initial hearing, if you were lucky enough to hear him tell it, was riveting and cinematic. 

“The courtroom was divided. Blacks on one side, Whites on the other. Divided like a wedding party, bride’s family and groom’s family,” as he told the story once in 2000. “I sat with Arthur Weaver beside me, his Black supporters filling our side of the courtroom. On the other side, the defendants and their supporters, their Stetsons sitting on the bench behind them, their red necks bulging over shirts and ties they almost never wore. They sat listening to the ‘amens’ from our Black supporters every time we made a point. And you could sense they were beginning to understand that they were looking up at a judge named William Wayne Justice who was about to hand down a ruling that would change life as they knew it forever.”

After Judge Justice ruled for the plaintiffs, Pastor Amos Henderson became the state’s first Black candidate elected to county office in the twentieth century.

David would turn the Nacogdoches lawsuit into a litigation roadshow, working with other lawyers, finding plaintiffs, filing a string of lawsuits that knocked down Jim Crow barriers that stood against Black political representation in East Texas since Reconstruction.

Half a century ago in deep East Texas, David Richards was a beacon of light in a dark corner of a dark state at a dark moment in its history. Two months before he died, over lunch, he said that as dark as Texas is today, he saw a few glimmers of hope.

Glimmers. Go out and find one. Make one happen. Paint a sign and take it into the street to speak truth to power. Write a check to an organization fighting for your values. Stand between ICE agents and decent people facing deportation. Go to the polls. Take your neighbors with you.  

An authentic American hero has departed.

The post Remembering David Richards, 1933-2025 appeared first on The Texas Observer.

Trump hosting the leaders of Congo and Rwanda to sign key deal for peace in eastern Congo

posted in: All news | 0

By CHINEDU ASADU, RUTH ALONGA and AAMER MADHANI, Associated Press

GOMA, Congo (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump will host the leaders of Congo and Rwanda on Thursday for a deal signing aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Congo and opening access to the region’s critical minerals for the U.S. government and American companies.

Lauded by the White House as a “historic” agreement brokered by Trump, the so-called Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity between Presidents Felix Tshisekedi of Congo and Paul Kagame of Rwanda follows monthslong peace efforts by the U.S. and partners, including the African Union and Qatar, and finalizes an earlier deal signed in June.

The Central African nation of Congo has been battered by decadeslong fighting with more than 100 armed groups, the most potent being the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels. The conflict escalated this year, with M23 seizing the region’s main cities of Goma and Bukavu in an unprecedented advance, worsening a humanitarian crisis that was already one of the world’s largest with millions displaced.

‘We are still at war’

Fighting, meanwhile, continued this week in the conflict-battered region with pockets of clashes reported between the rebels and Congolese soldiers, together with their allied forces. Trump has often said that his mediation has ended the conflict, which some people in Congo say isn’t true.

FILE – M23 rebels enter the centre of east Congo’s second-largest city, Bukavu, and take control of the South Kivu province administrative office, Sunday, Feb. 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Janvier Barhahiga, File)

Analysts say Thursday’s deal also isn’t expected to quickly result in peace. A separate peace deal has been signed between Congo and the M23.

“We are still at war,” said Amani Chibalonza Edith, a 32-year-old resident of Goma, eastern Congo’s key city seized by rebels early this year. “There can be no peace as long as the front lines remain active.”

Rare earth minerals

Thursday’s pact will also build on a Regional Economic Integration Framework that officials have said will define the terms of economic partnerships involving the three countries as agreed upon in November.

In search of ways to circumvent China in acquiring rare earth minerals, the Trump administration has capitalized on Congo’s need for security support to gain access to its minerals which are essential to manufacturing fighter jets, cellphones and more, and dominated by China.

China already accounts for nearly 70% of the world’s rare earth mining and controls roughly 90% of its processing globally.

Trump is expected to hold separate meetings with both Congolese and Rwandan leaders before three-way talks followed by the signing scheduled to take place at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington. Several African leaders are expected to attend the signing.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will on Thursday also host an event that will bring together American business leaders. The Congolese and Rwandan delegations will focus on potential investment opportunities in critical minerals, energy and tourism, according to Yolande Makolo, a senior adviser to Kagame.

Ongoing clashes

In eastern Congo, meanwhile, residents reported pockets of clashes and rebel advances in various localities. Both the M23 and Congolese forces have often accused each other of violating the terms of the ceasefire agreed earlier this year.

Related Articles


Affordable Care Act premiums are set to spike. A new poll shows enrollees are already struggling


Putin says there are points he can’t agree to in the US proposal to end Russia’s war against Ukraine


Trump is fighting the Institute of Peace in court. Now, his name is on the building


Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang visits Republicans as debate over intensifying AI race rages


US opens massive $796M consulate in Irbil to strengthen Kurdish ties

In the central plateaus across South Kivu province, fighting continued in recent weeks with thousands often on the run.

The hardship in the aftermath of the conflict has also worsened following U.S. funding cuts that were crucial for aid support in the conflict.

In rebel-held Goma, which had around 2 million people and was a regional hub for security and humanitarian efforts before this year’s escalation of fighting, the international airport is still closed, government services such as bank operations are yet to resume and residents have reported a surge in crimes and in the prices of goods.

“We are waiting to see what will happen because so far, both sides continue to clash and attack each other,” said Moise Bauma, a 27-year-old student in rebel-held Bukavu city.

Both Congo and Rwanda, meanwhile, have touted American involvement as a key step towards peace in the region.

“We need that attention from the administration to continue to get to where we need to get to,” Makolo said. “We are under no illusion that this is going to be easy. This is not the end but it’s a good step.”

Conflict’s cause

The conflict can be traced to the aftermath of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where Hutu militias killed between 500,000 and 1 million ethnic Tutsi, as well as moderate Hutus and Twa, Indigenous people. When Tutsi-led forces fought back, nearly 2 million Hutus crossed into Congo, fearing reprisals.

Rwandan authorities have accused the Hutus who fled of participating in the genocide and alleged that elements of the Congolese army protected them. They have argued that the militias formed by a small fraction of the Hutus are a threat to Rwanda’s Tutsi population.

Congo’s government has said there can’t be permanent peace if Rwanda doesn’t withdraw its support troops and other support for the M23 in the region. Rwanda, on the other hand, has conditioned a permanent ceasefire on Congo dissolving a local militia that it said is made up of the Hutus and is fighting with the Congolese military.

U.N. experts have said that between 3,000 and 4,000 Rwandan government forces are deployed in eastern Congo, operating alongside the M23. Rwanda denies such support, but says any action taken in the conflict is to protect its territory.

Chinedu Asadu reported from Abuja, Nigeria, and Aamer Madhani from Washington. Justin Kabumba contributed to this report from Goma.