|
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
07 July 2026
VERSE AND VOICE FROM SOJOURNERS 7JUL26
06 July 2026
VIDEO & ARTICLES: SO YOU SAY YOU "BACK THE BLUE" AND DRUMPF'S/TRUMP'S 6JAN PARDONS? MEET OFFICER CAROLINE EDWARDS & WATCH: Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards gives opening statement in Jan. 6 committee hearing .....
Who is Caroline Edwards and why did she testify in the Jan. 6 hearings?
Edwards was on duty at the Capitol on Jan. 6 when pro-Trump rioters attacked the Capitol as Congress was in the process of certifying electoral college votes in the 2020 presidential election.
Edwards detailed her injuries for the committee, and the work she did despite those injuries to protect parts of the Capitol from rioters.
"What I saw was just a war scene. It was something like I had seen out of the movies. I couldn't believe my eyes. There were officers on the ground. You know, they were bleeding. They were throwing up," Edwards said. .
"I saw friends with blood all over their faces. I was slipping in people's blood. I was catching people as they fell. It was carnage. It was chaos. I can't, I can't even describe what I saw."
Edwards was a four-year veteran of the U.S. Capitol Police when the Jan. 6 attack took place, according to USA Today. However, she told the committee nothing in her training would have prepared her for the events of that day.
"Never in my wildest dreams did I think that as a police officer, as a law enforcement officer, I would find myself in the middle of a battle. You know, I'm trained to detain, you know, a couple of subjects and handle a crowd. But I'm not combat trained," she said.
"And that day it was just hours of hand-to-hand combat, hours of dealing with things that were way beyond any law enforcement officer has ever trained for."
Edwards was present at the Capitol steps when members of who she identified at Thursday's hearing as the Arizona Proud Boys and one of their leaders, Joseph Biggs, began to approach the building.
Edwards said Biggs began to shout at her, "turning the tables on us" something she identified because she had worked hundreds of "civil disturbance events."
"I know when I'm being turned into a villain. That is when I turn to my sergeant and I stated the understatement of the century. I said 'Serg., I think we are going to need a few more people down here,'" she said.
Edwards said Biggs and the other Proud Boys began to confer amongst themselves, approached a police barricade made of bike racks, before charging ahead.
She testified on June 9 about how she worked to keep the Proud Boys contained next to the bike racks. Though she knew she did not have the strength to stop them, she hoped to delay them long enough for more police to arrive for back up. As the barricade was forced forward, she fell backward and was knocked unconscious.
Edwards was the first law enforcement officer injured by rioters who attacked the Capitol, leaving her with a brain injury, according to a statement issued by the Jan. 6 Committee. Though injured, she continued to patrol the Capitol and prevented more rioters from entering the building.
Edwards has already made official statements on what happened to her on the day, including in court documents filed in the case of one of the Jan. 6 rioters who allegedly attacked her.
25 June 2026
VIDEOS: 8MAI26 NATIONAL GUARD SOLDIERS IN D.C. TACKLE & HANDCUFF WOMAN OUTSIDE HER HOME & Video shows National Guard members detaining woman. Here's what we know & The Posse Comitatus Act, Explained 5&12JUN26 & 29SEP25
Video shows National Guard members detaining woman. Here's what we know
Published June 12, 2026
- In June 2026, social media users shared a video they claimed shows three National Guard members arresting a woman for holding a sign on her own front porch on May 8.
- The video is authentic and displays no signs of digital manipulation. Snopes was able to geolocate it to an address in the Truxton Circle neighborhood of D.C.
- A statement from the Metropolitan Police Department identified the woman in the video, whom National Guard personnel detained, as Anna King. According to the online military publication Task and Purpose, King is a 44-year-old Army veteran who served in Iraq.
- The District of Columbia Joint Task Force and Metropolitan Police confirmed King was a suspect in an assault against National Guard personnel two days earlier, on May 6, an allegation outlined in court records. However, we could not independently corrborate the account of the altercation. Because the federal government has repeatedly provided accounts of arrests that contradict available evidence, we've left this story unrated until we can independently confirm the events leading up to her arrest through additional video footage, eyewitness interviews or anyone who could provide King's side of the story.
Metropolitan Police said King had been charged with two counts of assault on a police officer for alleged actions while she was being detained on May 8. Court records did not show any charges for the alleged previous assault on May 6. In early June 2026, social media users shared a video (archived) they claimed shows three National Guard members in Washington, D.C., throwing a woman to the ground and arresting her for holding a sign on her own front porch.
The video circulated online shortly after federal officials announced they would double the National Guard's presence in D.C. to 5,000 personnel ahead of the United States' 250th birthday. President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to D.C. in August 2025 as part of an effort that he said was aimed at curbing crime.
In the video shared on social media, a woman sits on a yellow bench. After a cut, she is seen holding a sign as three people in uniform, who appear to be National Guard members, surround her. A frame-by-frame analysis showed that the woman's sign, which is visible at the 17-second mark, read "Trump out, F*** ICE." The cut obscures the moment that the apparent National Guard members approach the woman.
The woman then tells the three to get away from her and that they have "absolutely no authority to detain" her. After a brief verbal escalation, the three wrestle the woman to the ground and handcuff her. She is yelling profusely throughout the video. At the end of the video, the woman is heard claiming that National Guard personnel "came onto her property."
Snopes readers wrote in looking for more information about the video, which was reportedly sent to a website called Film the Police DC on June 2.
We confirmed that the video is authentic and shows National Guard personnel detaining a woman, whom the Metropolitan Police Department later identified as 44-year-old Army veteran Anna King, in the Truxton Circle neighborhood. As part of our reporting we contacted the National Guard, the Metropolitan Police, the nonprofit organizations who originally shared the video on social media and King's lawyer for comment on the story.
In statements to Snopes, both the District of Columbia Joint Task Force — to which the National Guard referred us — and Metropolitan Police claimed King assaulted National Guard personnel before the detainment shown on video, suggesting she was not arrested simply for holding a sign. The assault allegation is also outlined in court documents, though Snopes could not independently corroborate the account of the altercation.
We had not heard back from anyone who could provide King's account by the time of publication.
Because federal officials have
repeatedly provided statements about arrests that contradict available evidence, and the moment where National Guard personnel approached King is missing from the footage shared online, Snopes has elected not to apply a rating to this story until we can independently confirm the events leading up to her arrest through video footage, eyewitness interviews or anyone who can provide King's side of the story. Geolocating the video to D.C. neighborhood
The footage of King's detainment was originally posted on social media by Film the Police DC, the nonprofit organizations Free DC and Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network, and the community defense organization Harriet's Wildest Dreams. Film the Police DC is a joint project between Harriet's Wildest Dreams and the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network, according to its website. It's unclear who provided the organizations with the footage.
We reached out to the above organizations to request more information about the incident, including why the National Guard members approached King, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Snopes geolocated the video to an exact address in D.C.'s Truxton Circle neighborhood, confirming comments that it was filmed there.
We first noticed that the street visible in the background of the video had at least three lanes of traffic. Google Maps' satellite imagery revealed only a few roads in the neighborhood with that many lanes, greatly reducing the number of possible locations. Next, the video showed a unique concrete median with plastic bollards, which narrowed the location to exactly one block on New York Avenue. From there, we were able to match the sidewalk planters, details on the building facades and parking signs to pinpoint the exact address.
The government's explanation
The National Guard referred our request for comment on the incident to the District of Columbia Joint Task Force, which told Snopes via email that the woman was a suspect "from a previous assault against National Guard service members in the District." After National Guard personnel detained the woman, they notified Metropolitan Police, "who quickly responded and arrested the suspect," the task force said.
The Department of Defense website notes that National Guard personnel are not legally allowed to make arrests themselves, despite online claims. They can only "temporarily detain individuals to prevent imminent harm, ensuring that custody is promptly transferred to law enforcement authorities," the DOD says.
The task force did not confirm the woman's identity or provide additional details about the alleged assaul t, and directed further questions to the Metropolitan Police Department. Metropolitan Police's statement to Snopes identified King as the woman arrested, claiming she had assaulted National Guard members on May 6, 2026, before fleeing. According to police, King also allegedly assaulted two National Guard members while being detained May 8 —
the incident shown in the video . Neither the task force nor Metropolitan Police provided further information about the alleged previous assault.
According to court documents, the previous assault occurred when King allegedly
threw an "unknown liquid" onto three National Guard members. (The three National Guard members from the May 6 incident all separately identified King as the person who threw liquid at them after she was detained on May 8.) As of this writing, there was no evidence King had been charged for her alleged actions on May 6. The documents also claimed that while King was being detained on May 8, she punched on National Guard member in the chest or shoulder and kicked another in the groin, causing minor pain to both.
The footage does not clearly show the alleged incidents described in the court records. The closest thing Snopes found was King smacking the back of one National Guard member with her sign at the 16-second mark.
"As a result of the investigation, 44-year-old Anna King of Northwest, D.C., was charged with two counts of Assault on A Police Officer for assaulting National Guard service members, who were deputized by the United States Marshals Service," the Metropolitan Police statement read. Those charges were related to King's alleged actions on May 8, according to court documents. According to an article published by the online military publication Task and Purpose, which spoke to King's lawyer, she is a 44-year-old Army veteran who served in Iraq. King could be heard claiming in the video that the National Guard was stepping on to her property and did not have the jurisdiction to detain her.
D.C. property records showed that King rented, not owned, the property, a detail that her lawyer confirmed to Task and Purpose. King's lawyer also claimed that the law makes no difference between the two and that the National Guard members still needed a warrant to come onto her property.
For further reading, we compiled 10 rumors about the National Guard that we've investigated over the years.
The Posse Comitatus Act, Explained
The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law. This nearly 150-year-old law embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty. However, recent events have revealed dangerous gaps in the law’s coverage that Congress must address.
More on Domestic Deployment of the Military >>
What does the term “posse comitatus” mean?
In British and American law, a posse comitatus is a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county. In any classic Western film, when a lawman gathers a “posse” to pursue the outlaws, they are forming a posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because one of the things it prohibits is using soldiers rather than civilians as a posse comitatus.
What are the origins of the Posse Comitatus Act?
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and the return of white supremacists to political power in both southern states and Congress. Through the law, Congress sought to ensure that the federal military would not be used to intervene in the establishment of Jim Crow in the former Confederacy.
Despite the ignominious origins of the law itself, the broader principle that the military should not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian government is a core American value. It finds expression in the Constitution’s division of power over the military between Congress and the president, and in the guarantees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, which were in part reactions to abuses committed by the British army against American colonists.
Today, the Posse Comitatus Act operates as an extension of these constitutional safeguards. Moreover, there are statutory exceptions to the law that allow the president to use the military to suppress genuine rebellions and to enforce federal civil rights laws.
What does the Posse Comitatus Act say?
The Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
In practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution.
Are all members of the military covered by the Posse Comitatus Act?
No, only federal military personnel are covered. The Coast Guard, though part of the federal armed forces, has express statutory authority to perform law enforcement and is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act.
Members of the National Guard are rarely covered by the Posse Comitatus Act because they usually report to their state or territory’s governor. That means they are free to participate in law enforcement if doing so is consistent with state law. However, when Guard personnel are called into federal service, or “federalized,” they become part of the federal armed forces, which means they are bound by the Posse Comitatus Act until they are returned to state control.
What are the main statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act?
There are many statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, but the most important one is the Insurrection Act. Under this law, in response to a state government’s request, the president may deploy the military to suppress an insurrection in that state. In addition, the Insurrection Act allows the president — with or without the state government’s consent — to use the military to enforce federal law or suppress a rebellion against federal authority in a state, or to protect a group of people’s civil rights when the state government is unable or unwilling to do so.
What are the constitutional exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act?
There are no constitutional exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The law allows only for express exceptions, and no part of the Constitution expressly empowers the president to use the military to execute the law. This conclusion is consistent with the law’s legislative history, which suggests that its drafters chose to include the language about constitutional exceptions as part of a face-saving political compromise, not because they believed any existed.
This has not stopped the federal government from claiming that constitutional exceptions to the law exist. The Department of Defense has long claimed that the Constitution implicitly gives military commanders “emergency authority” to unilaterally use federal troops “to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” when doing so is “necessary” and prior authorization by the president is impossible. The validity of this claimed authority has never been tested in court.
In the past, the Department of Defense also claimed an inherent constitutional power to use the military to protect federal property and functions when local governments could not or would not do so. The regulation asserting this authority was repealed in 2018, but the Trump administration recently raised the argument again in court, arguing that this so-called “protective power” provided legal authority for the administration’s use of federalized National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles. In that case, a federal judge ruled that the deployment there violated Posse Comitatus Act and ordered the Trump administration to end it.
What are the weak points in the Posse Comitatus Act?
The first and most obvious weakness in the Posse Comitatus Act is that there are too many statutory exceptions that collectively sweep far too broadly. Including the Insurrection Act, a total of 26 distinct statutes expressly authorize the military to execute the law in one circumstance or another. Many of these are outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.
Events in recent years have also highlighted two loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act, both of which concern the National Guard. The first involves the District of Columbia National Guard. Unlike all other state and territorial National Guards, the DC Guard is always under presidential control. Despite this, the Department of Justice has for years asserted that the DC Guard can operate in a non-federal, “militia” status, in which it is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act. By this interpretation, presidents can use the DC Guard for law enforcement whenever they choose. President Trump has exploited this loophole twice, both in the summer of 2020 during his first term and through the ongoing deployment of the DC Guard that began in August 2025.
The second loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act arises from the law that allows the National Guard to operate in “Title 32 status.” Under this status — a middle ground between purely state operations and federalization — Guard personnel are paid with federal funds and may perform missions requested by the president, but they remain under state command and control. That means they are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, even though they are serving federal interests. The first and second Trump administrations similarly exploited this loophole to bring out-of-state National Guard personnel into DC in the summer of 2020 and as part of the ongoing deployment there.
The Posse Comitatus Act is also plagued by ambiguity originating from two main sources. First, what qualifies as “law enforcement” under the law is not always apparent. The statute itself offers no definition. After a series of court decisions in the 1970s served only to muddy the waters, Congress stepped in to authorize specific kinds of indirect military support to law enforcement while prohibiting activities that courts and the executive branch have deemed “core” law enforcement functions, such as executing warrants and making arrests. But whether these laws should be viewed as statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act or as falling outside the law’s prohibition because they do not permit direct participation in those core law enforcement activities is itself a source of ambiguity. Moreover, permitting a wide range of activities characterized as indirect “support to law enforcement,” as opposed to direct “participation in law enforcement,” has made military involvement in civilian law enforcement in certain areas, especially at the U.S.–Mexico border, routine.
Second, the Posse Comitatus Act’s reference to potential constitutional exceptions — even though, as noted above, nothing in the text of the Constitution suggests that there are any such exceptions — creates unnecessary ambiguity as to the scope of the president’s authority, and invites dubious assertions of inherent powers like those the Trump administration has put forward in California’s lawsuit challenging deployment around LA.
How should the Posse Comitatus Act be reformed?
The Brennan Center has proposed a set of comprehensive reforms to the Posse Comitatus Act and related laws. First, Congress should rein in the law’s statutory exceptions. The most important step in this process will be reforming the Insurrection Act, which the Brennan Center has likewise published a comprehensive reform proposal for. Congress also should eliminate outdated and unnecessary exceptions, such as the one concerning federal timber in Florida, the one concerning unlawful enclosures on public lands, and the one concerning guano islands.
Second, Congress should extend the Posse Comitatus Act to cover federally requested deployments of the National Guard in Title 32 status. In virtually all respects save command and control, these missions resemble the federal military operations that the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to restrict, and they should not lie outside its scope. Congress also should either extend the law’s coverage to include the District of Columbia National Guard, currently under the control of the president, or transfer control from the president to the mayor of Washington except when the Guard is federalized.
Third, Congress should eliminate the Posse Comitatus Act’s reference to constitutional exceptions, which serves only to create unnecessary and potentially dangerous ambiguity as to the scope of the president’s authority.
Fourth, Congress should abolish the amorphous distinction between direct “participation in law enforcement” and indirect “support to law enforcement.” Instead, the Posse Comitatus Act should explicitly cover the military’s engagement in, participation in, or direct or indirect support to law enforcement activities.
Finally, Congress should address the Posse Comitatus Act’s lack of meaningful enforcement mechanisms. To do so, Congress should provide for an exclusionary rule that bars the introduction in criminal prosecutions of evidence obtained through any violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Congress should also create a private cause of action that would allow individuals who have been injured by a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act to sue for damages. People who are harmed by soldiers acting as police in violation of the law should be compensated for their injuries.