Tag Archives: January 6th defendants

Good News For The January 6th Political Prisoners

Posted on by

Reader alert: this is one of those stories I occasionally post that I really don’t understand the repercussions of.

On Wednesday, The Epoch Times posted an article about the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s ruling involving obstruction charges against the January 6th defendants.

The article reports:

U.S. prosecutors have started dropping obstruction charges against defendants alleged to have been involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, in the wake of a crucial Supreme Court decision.

Government prosecutors informed defendants and the judge overseeing the defendants’ cases that it will drop charges brought under federal law Section 1512(c)(2) in light of the ruling from the nation’s top court, according to a July 15 filing.

“This decision was made in order to avoid disruption to the trial schedule for a five-defendant case, and the dismissal eliminates the need for additional litigation as to the sufficiency of the Section 1512 charge as applied to these defendants,” the prosecutors told the judge.

…“Given the length of time this case has been pending, the specific facts of this case, the other relevant charges, the current trial date, and the need to promote judicial economy and efficiency, the United States requests that Count One be dismissed without prejudice in the interests of justice and that trial proceed on the remaining counts on August 12, 2024,” prosecutors said.

Defendants in other cases, and multiple people who have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing, have asked judges to consider the effect of the ruling. Some of the judges have ordered prosecutors to file briefs presenting their positions on what impact the ruling has on charges against the defendants.

The article notes:

Supreme Court justices said in the ruling, released June 28, that federal prosecutors went overboard in their application of Section 1512, which was approved by Congress in the aftermath of the Enron scandal and bars altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing records.

The law also says that a person who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Prosecutors said that the latter part of the law cover various crimes carried out by Jan. 6 defendants, a view rejected by the court’s majority.

It’s interesting that some of these charges are being dropped in view of a possible election victory by President Trump in November. Will the people who actually riot on President Trump’s inauguration day (as they did in January 2017) actually be put in jail?

The Search For Equal Justice Under The Law

Posted on by

On Saturday, PJ Media posted an article about the misplaced priorities of the current FBI.

The article reports:

Just The News reported Saturday that the feds have “politicized cases regarding Jan. 6 defendants and pro-lifers while retaliating against internal whistleblowers” as some of those same whistleblowers testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. And Fox News reported Thursday that according to another whistleblower, “the FBI created a threat tag following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year, but it later ‘shifted’ to focus on pro-life individuals,” as if they were the real threat.

George Hill, a retired supervisory intelligence analyst in the FBI’s Boston field office, testified that “the Washington Field Office pressured other field offices to investigate citizens for activities protected by the First Amendment.” The Washington feds wanted the Boston office “to open cases on, first, seven individuals who came up in a sweep of bank records served up by the Bank of America, and then a larger group of 140 Americans guilty of nothing more than riding buses to D.C. to attend former President Trump’s Stop the Steal rally on Jan. 6, 2021.” Nor was this pressure singular: “Washington, Hill believes, applied similar pressure on the Philadelphia Field Office.”

Hill testified that on a nationwide call with all 56 FBI field offices, Steve Jensen, who was at that time the chief of the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Operations Center Section, asked the Philadelphia feds about their investigations of three individuals. “The Philadelphia office said the individuals had posted on social media about being pro-Second Amendment and anti-abortion, but that it didn’t mean they were ‘insurrectionists seeking to overturn our democracy,’ Hill recalled.” This cut no ice with Jensen, who shot back: “I don’t give a blank, they’re all bleeping terrorists, and we’re going to round them up.”

That last sentence is frightening.

The article continues:

When the feds did round them up, they did so in the most brutal manner possible. Former FBI SWAT team member Steve Friend testified “that after raising concerns about using a SWAT team to arrest a subject of the Jan. 6 investigation, he was ordered off the job for a day. Friend explained that the Jan. 6 subject was cooperating with the FBI and willing to surrender voluntarily, so he was concerned that the bureau wasn’t using the least intrusive methods possible to arrest them.” Clearly the feds were not interested in being non-intrusive. They wanted to send a message, and they did with the arrests of pro-life activist Mark Houck.

Meanwhile, another FBI whistleblower, Garret O’Boyle, was suspended after he testified to Congress about the feds’ politicization. He explained: “I thought the FBI was being weaponized against agents or anybody who wanted to step forward and talk about malfeasance inside the agency prior to this. But now, after what has happened to me, I don’t think I can ever be convinced that it’s anything different than that.”

It may be time to end both the FBI and the CIA as both have greatly overstepped their bounds.