Latest in the case of Special Forces veterans, Fort Bragg soldiers who went to D.C. riot

WASHINGTON D.C. — Three men with ties to Fort Bragg who were charged in the Capitol riots either appeared in court or filed motions in their cases recently.

A Special Forces veteran accused of assaulting officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots is seeking to have charges dismissed or his trial moved out of Washington D.C.

Retired Sgt. 1st Class Jeffrey McKellop, of Virginia, is charged with:

• Four counts of assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers;

• two counts of assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers using a deadly or dangerous weapon;

• civil disorder;

• entering and remaining on restricted grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon;

• disorderly and disruptive conduct on restricted grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon;

• engaging in physical violence on restricted grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon;

• disorderly conduct within the Capitol grounds;

• and engaging in physical violence within the Capitol grounds.

McKellop pleaded not guilty to all counts.

The accusations

McKellop served more than 20 years in the Army, including nine years with Special Forces and served with Fort Bragg's 3rd Special Forces Group, his military records show.

The records indicate that while stationed at Fort Bragg he honorably retired Aug. 12, 2010.

According to court documents, McKellop is accused of wearing tactical gear during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and attacking law enforcement officers “who were attempting to keep the mob of rioters away from the United States Capitol, where constitutional proceedings were underway.”

Previous reporting: Fort Bragg soldier arrested, charged for alleged role in Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection

Court documents allege McKellop charged a line of officers, assaulted a police sergeant and later picked up a bottle and threw it at officers.

McKellop allegedly struck another sergeant and shoved an officer to the side, court documents say.

As a police captain sprayed repellent toward McKellop, McKellop allegedly picked up a flagpole to stab the captain in the face, court documents say.

McKellop also allegedly grabbed another officer who struggled to maintain the police line against rioters.

The defense

In a motion opposing pretrial detention, McKellop states he served nearly 22 years in active-duty service and about a year in inactive service.

The motion notes McKellop’s military decorations, including three Bronze Stars, and states he deployed twice to Iraq and twice to Afghanistan.

McKellop said he traveled to Washington, D.C., to the Jan. 6 rally for then-President Donald Trump with a friend and that McKellop was not armed and did not intend on rioting.

In a letter included in the record, the friend who was with McKellop, Scott Steiert, said McKellop was concerned that “anti-Trumpers” would attack him for his political views.

Steiert said McKellop brought his body armor with him as a defense against “any attack possibly from anti-Trumpers.”

“The strength of Mr. McKellop’s character is shown through his extensive and distinguished military service, his cooperation with the FBI as relates to his arrest, his lack of criminal record, his lack of involvement in organization involved in the riot, and his willingness to surrender himself and potential evidence,” the motion says.

In a response, acting U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips said that “despite many opportunities to reconsider his actions," McKellop continued his alleged assault.

"Jeffrey McKellop, weaponized his extensive military training and experience to attack the U.S. Capitol and facilitate its breach during Constitutional proceedings on Jan. 6, 2021,” Phillips wrote.

Moving the trial away from D.C.

In a March 27 motion for a change of venue, McKellop sought to move his trial out of Washington D.C.

McKellop claims he would not receive a fair trial and impartial jury there because about “93% of voters in Washington voted against Donald Trump” and the media coverage of the events surrounding Jan. 6, 2021, and related arrests, criminal charges and prosecutions.

“The antipathy towards Donald Trump and his supporters in the District is obvious,” the motion says.

The motion says that every potential juror in the district was impacted by the events, and the news coverage referred to protesters as “insurrectionists,” “white supremacists,” and even suggestions of a “race war.”

“Considering the local media’s focus on the events of Jan. 6, dramatically augmenting the national media coverage of political statements made about the Capitol defendants, there is little doubt that the District of Columbia is a hostile jurisdiction for the trial of Mr. McKellop,” the motion says.

The motion says that Democratic party leaders and President Joe Biden “control the political narrative and are sending a message to all prospective jurors that defendants like Mr. McKellop are ‘insurrectionists’ and ‘white supremacists.’”

“Democratic political leaders are signaling that anything but a guilty verdict would be unacceptable,” the motion says.

McKellop suggested the trial be moved to the Western District of Virginia.

“Residents of western Virginia have not been warned that domestic terrorists are threatening their hometown, nor is the area overrun by D.C. politics,” the motion says.

In an April 4 response, U.S. Attorney Matthew Groves opposed moving McKellop’s trial saying McKellop’s arguments are “without merit.”

Citing case law, Groves said that the “primary safeguard of the right to an impartial jury,” is the selection process to identify unqualified jurors.

He said the court should not presume every member of a particular party is biased.

“There is no reason to believe that the District’s entire population of 700,000 people was so affected by these events that the Court cannot seat an impartial jury here,” Groves said.

Groves said pretrial publicity also does not support a prejudice in the district and that courts have declined to transfer venues in prosecution cases of suspects of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspirators of the 9/11 attacks.

Case dismissed?

McKellop has also sought to have his indictment and charges against him dismissed because of “selective prosecution.”

In a March 27 motion to dismiss, McKellop said that even though a “substantial number” of Trump supporters breached and entered the Capitol building, he did not.

He said that he and the rest of the Jan. 6 defendants “are being prosecuted by a Democratic administration.”

The motion uses a May 2020 protest in Portland, Oregon, as an example.

The Portland field office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement was targeted by a Molotov cocktail, surrounding buildings were vandalized and damaged, and officers there were assaulted, the motion says.

More: How a Special Forces patch led to charges for former Green Beret related to Capitol riot

The motion said that Portland protesters were charged with misdemeanors, or had charges dismissed.

“These dismissals and resolutions have occurred under the same Democratic administration that continues to prosecute Mr. McKellop,” the motion says.

In an April 4 response, Graves opposed McKellop’s motion to dismiss.

The selective prosecution claim, Graves said, seeks to assert that a prosecutor brought forth charges against someone based on reasons prohibited in the Constitution like race, religion or other arbitrary classification

“McKellop fails to show that the government singled him out for prosecution,” Graves said.

Graves said the riots in Portland were different from “the uprising” in the nation’s capital, where it was daytime and hundreds of legislators and thousands of congressional staffers were present, as Congress feared physical attacks.

Graves said Portland defendants attacked at night in a largely vacant courthouse.

Graves said McKellop also failed to show that the “government harbored an improper motive in prosecuting him.”

“The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — as an officer of this Court — further represents that McKellop’s political views played no role in his office’s charging decisions in this case,” Graves wrote.

Jury selection in McKellop’s case is expected to begin July 7.

Attorneys had until April 21 to file any pre-trial motions and have until June 22 to disclose any witnesses in the case to the court.

Special Forces veteran regrets being at Capitol

Another Special Forces veteran who was at the Jan. 6 riot and later expressed regret for attending was retired Lt. Col. Lenoard Gruppo.

Gruppo pleaded guilty to misdemeanor parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol Building.

In November, he was sentenced to two years of probation and was ordered to pay $500 in restitution to the architect of the Capitol and a $3,000 fine.

According to a transcript from Gruppo’s Nov. 21 sentencing hearing, Chief District Judge Beryl Howell did not think Gruppo’s military service should be “used against him,” as the government recommended he be incarcerated for a month.

She said she understands that the government wanted to use him as an example to others with specialized military training to send a message that the training should not be “turned on Americans.”

Howell said she however thinks Gruppo recognizes his “grave mistake.”

Howell said Gruppo’s professional life of being in combat zones and being a medical professional merits respect, but as Gruppo acknowledged, he “should have known better.”

“I think you recognize that this was a grave mistake and are doing your work now, particularly by talking to members of Congress on the Select Committee to help deter other people with the specialized training you received in the military not to turn it against their fellow Americans,” Howel told Gruppo.

According to court documents Gruppo enlisted in the Army in 1986 and was sent to Fort Bragg in 1990 for Special Forces training, serving 14 years as a Green Beret.

Court documents say that Gruppo served in the military for 27 years including deploying to combat zones during first Gulf War as a medical sergeant and to Iraq in 2007 when he was attached to the 82nd Airborne Division. .

Gruppo traveled to the Capitol with a friend to hear then-president Donald Trump speak and heard Trump mention moving to the Capitol, court documents say.

Gruppo said he could not see much from where he was standing but did notice smoke and heard people on bullhorns urging the crowd to move forward.

Gruppo said he climbed a terrace as he noticed a “crush of people,” and decided that the safest way off a terrace he was on was through the Capitol.

“I could not comprehend the scope of what was happening that day from what I witnessed around me,” Gruppo said. “It was only during the days, weeks and months that followed, that it became more evident. Once inside, I made every effort to find a way out as quickly as possible.”

Gruppo said he was not inside to stop Congress from certifying the election.

Gruppo’s attorney said he immediately deleted photos after learning the extent of what happened out of shame, but turned himself into authorities once he realized he was in photos announcing the arrest of a friend he was with.

Gruppo’s attorney said he has cooperated with law enforcement to provide his phone and passwords to social media accounts and could have destroyed his phone or computer if he was trying to destroy evidence.

Howell said rioters attacking the Capitol were part of a “large mob” and were not “mere trespassers engaging in protected First Amendment protests,” or tourists.

Howell said the mob that Gruppo was with forced Congress and Vice President Mike Pence to evacuate or hide behind locked doors and desks.

“Mr. Gruppo, you did help facilitate that riot just by being there, adding to the numbers that overwhelmed law enforcement and disrupting the proceedings of Congress,” she said.

Howell said she took into consideration that Gruppo was in the Capitol building for less than seven minutes, did not attack any officers, did not damage property, did not carry posters or brandish a weapon, turned himself in and cooperated with law enforcement.

“The evidence, as I see it, points to a conclusion that this was a defendant who didn't deliberately intend or support the violence and destruction that has left such a dark stain on our democracy,” Howell said.

Howell said like other defendants of the Jan. 6 riot, Gruppo did not boast about his presence at the Capitol building on social media and did not recommend overturning the electoral process.

Gruppo’s attorney, Daniel Lindsey said that Gruppo originally tried to keep his military career quiet because he “felt like he dishonored that military service.”

“Everything that he did, all the good things that he did — there is going to be an asterisk there because he followed the recommendations of a president who was amoral and cannot tell the truth — a former president.”

During his sentencing hearing, Gruppo said that once he got back to his hotel Jan. 6, he realized he shouldn’t have gone to the Capitol.

“Clearly, this was a life-altering mistake and I take full responsibility for my actions …,” Grupo wrote in his sentencing memo. “I am not a conspirator, insurrectionist or anarchist … I was a peaceful participant in the chaos of the day. ... Still, I was there, and now I am answering for that in this court.”

Bragg soldier enters plea

A Fort Bragg soldier who also attended the riot accepted a plea deal Friday.

Spc. James Phillip Mault pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to assaulting, resisting or impeding officers and faces a maximum penalty of eights years in prison, the court record shows. In exchange for the plea, charges of civil disorder, tampering with a witness, three counts of entering and remaining in restricted grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon, and two counts of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds will be dismissed at sentencing July 15..

Mault was arrested Oct. 6 at Fort Bragg.

At the time of Mault's arrest an 18th Airborne Corps spokesman said Mault joined the Army in May, several months after the incident.

In the criminal complaint, Mault was accused of spraying a chemical agent at a crush of law enforcement officers attempting to stop throngs of protesters from entering the Capitol building where U.S. Congress was certifying the Electoral college votes naming Joe Biden president.

“A review of a body-worn camera from a Metropolitan Police Officer showed ... Mault spraying a chemical agent at law-enforcement officers with his left hand,” the complaint alleged.

Huge savings: $1 for 6 months

Subscribe today to support local journalism and enjoy unlimited digital access including videos, apps, sports news, and more. Special introductory offer for new subscribers only.

He was accused of confronting law enforcement officers at a barricade and ripping down the barrier which allowed protesters to access the grounds, according to the release.

Court documents allege that Mault and a friend traveled to Washington D.C. and that text messages say that Mault told his friend he brought pepper spray and a “legal baton.”

Mault allegedly told officers to join the rioters and allegedly said “your jobs will be here when you come back after we kick the (expletive) out of everyone," the record states.

He later told officers that was the rioters were doing was right “or there wouldn’t be this many (expletive) people here.”

Staff writer Rachael Riley can be reached at rriley@fayobserver.com or 910-486-3528.

This article originally appeared on The Fayetteville Observer: Special Forces veteran wants his Jan. 6 Capitol riot case dismissed