Iowa’s most infamous Capitol insurrectionist may go back to jail because of Mike Lindell.
According to federal court documents, Doug Jensen of Des Moines violated his home-monitoring release, a condition of which prohibits the use of the internet, so he could stream Lindell’s cyber symposium, which promised and failed to deliver evidence the 2020 election was rigged against Donald Trump. Jensen’s lawyer argued back in June that he was “recognizing that he bought into a pack of lies.”
Jensen stormed through the US Capitol Building in a Q-Anon T-Shirt and was captured on film chasing Capitol Officer Eugene Goodman. Lindell is a noted election conspiracy theorist, and CEO and Founder of My Pillow, a Minnesota-based bedding company. Lindell is also slated to headline a 9/11 remembrance event in Davenport.
Jensen was in a Washington, DC, jail for months until July 13 when the federal government agreed to release him into his wife’s custody with a number of conditions including random visits by a probation officer, no-internet access, and undergoing mental health and substance abuse screening.
Jensen swore under oath to abide by those conditions. A month later he was found in his garage using an iPhone to stream news on Rumble—essentially a far-right version of YouTube—and later confessed to watching Lindell’s event a week before he was caught.
When questioned, the 41-year-old said the phone belonged to his teenage daughter, who later denied it was her device and told a pretrial service officer she had a new phone. Jensen then changed his story and said his wife leaves the news on for him when she goes to work in the morning. He also claimed he did not know the password to unlock the iPhone before proving he did by unlocking the device.
Jensen faces seven federal charges for his role on Jan. 6.
During a July 27 hearing where some of Jensen’s home confinement restrictions were loosened under the premise of being able to do yard work, Judge Timothy J. Kelley of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said he heard the defendant was “doing awesome.”
Before he risked it all for Lindell, Jensen was close to reaching a plea deal with the federal government and had a Sept. 24 court date on the docket.
In the filing, prosecutors urged the court to place Jensen back in jail because he can’t be trusted to abide by the stipulations of his home release.
“To allow Jensen to remain on pretrial release would be to repose trust in an undeserving individual who has already proven himself unwilling to modify, much less rethink, his behavior after January 6,” the filing states.
“Jensen remains a danger to the community and cannot be trusted by this Court to abide by any conditions of release.”
by Ty Rushing
8 Comments on "Iowa Insurrectionist may go Back to Jail Over Mike Lindell Video"
The FBI has confirmed that there was no insurrection on Jan. 6. Iowa Starting Line should correct the title of this story. https://washex.am/3szaRUp
Per an earlier reader comment regarding the headline of this ISL story — whoa.
I took grad-school courses in propaganda and public relations. So I am impressed by the use of weasel words and careful verbal dancing in that WASHINGTON EXAMINER story. Nicely done, WE! That story is very consistent with your reputation and history.
However, the WE insurrection story does not provide evidence to back up the assertion that “the FBI has confirmed that there was no insurrection on Jan. 6.” Read the story carefully. The story first provides one dictionary definition of the word “insurrection,” and then asserts that according to that definition, what happened was not an insurrection, “according to the FBI.” But that phrase, “according to,” refers to the way the FBI described the events of January 6th, NOT to the FBI saying that the events were not an insurrection.
The story also contains the thoughts of several anonymous current and former law enforcement officials, which is fine. But that is very far from quoting the FBI. That is not how attribution works. A newspaper news story can’t just report that an agency said something because the newspaper strongly believes that the agency should have said it.
The headline that takes liberties with reality, not to mention journalistic integrity, is the headline in the WASHINGTON EXAMINER.
Whoops! Sorry, I was so fascinated by the rest of the WE story that I didn’t notice that it is labeled as an opinion piece. It seems like a mighty big stretch to state in a headline, as an opinion, that the FBI said something that the FBI did not, in fact, say. But that’s the WE.
“WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) – The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.“ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
Look it up on whatever news source you wish. No insurrection.
The definition of “insurrection” is “a violent uprising against an authority or government.” The definition is not “an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result.”
I found several news sources, including THE BOSTON GLOBE and CNN, that referred to the events at the Capitol as an “insurrection.” I’m sure I could find more. But I’d rather go by the definition of the word. It fits, and the Iowa Starting Line headline is entirely appropriate.
Most importantly, Iowa Starting Line, what exactly are the specific charges this man faces and how do they equate “insurrection” according to the law? I think the laws regarding insurrection and the legal consequences for anyone guilty of insurrection are the most relevant context.