Pam Bondi’s first confirmation hearing will likely ensure her confirmation by the U.S. Senate, but one exchange on Wednesday created or added to a controversy among MAGA-supporters and especially the community of January 6 defendants along with their families, friends, and supporters on principle.
The former attorney general of Florida is well qualified to be attorney general in the Trump administration. But Bondi’s confirmation hearing testimony let slip the mood from within the Trump transition team.
The controversy of the hour is whether Trump should pardon some January 6 defendants but not all. Bondi strongly endorsed the idea that anyone “accused” of violence against police must be considered one at a time, on a case-by-case basis.
Trump has repeatedly promised to pardon “all” January 6 demonstrators “on day one.” A few times, Trump has acknowledged that those who were violent toward police would have to be looked at more closely. But Trump correctly pointed out that January 6 demonstrators received sentences vastly longer, and some have already served more time, than most people prosecuted for similar behavior, such as brawling with police.
Bondi was legally wise to explain that she has not looked in the case files. The political world wants news reporting from the regime media to pass for facts. One worthy of being an attorney general thinks in terms of “I should read the actual documents first.” However, she gave a fiery, categorical declaration that she is absolutely opposed to anyone who is violent toward the police.
As always in life, the “devil” is in the (lack of) the definition. Are we thinking that January 6 defendants actually did what they were accused of? As an attorney who defended Proud Boys member Zachary Rehl and Oath Keepers member Kelly Meggs, I saw firsthand, including in still sealed court documents, that most of what the prosecutors claim is pure fantasy and conspiracy theory. Yes, you have to thoroughly read the case files, not the dishonest press releases.
About two weeks ago, one reporter asked about those “accused of” violence on January 6, while another asked about those “convicted of” violence. But these are two drastically different ideas. “Over-charging” is a common abuse in our modern legal system, in which prosecutors hurl accusations they know they cannot prove to frighten defendants into plea deals.
Donald Trump knows that he personally has been accused of dozens of things that never happened. So what exactly do we mean by those who were violent against police?
There are videos of a very few people battling with police. But when you see the entire video, including before and after, sometimes you see a very different scene. Sometimes demonstrators were blocking unprovoked and unnecessary blows from a few errant police.
The establishment regime accuses people of violating 18 USC 111:
a) In general.–Whoever–
(1) forcibly
- assaults,
- resists,
- opposes,
- impedes,
- intimidates, or
- interferes with
any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties … [shall be punished].
So if someone was convicted under 18 USC 111, did he “resist”? Did he “oppose”? Did he “impede”? Did he “interfere”? (Did he stick out his tongue?) He did not necessarily “assault” officers.
Richard Barnett was convicted for asking permission from officers to go back and get his flag. They said no. Barnett complied. But he was convicted of “interfering with” because the officers illogically claimed that they “had to” watch him.
Some officers whom defendants were accused of “assaulting” testified in court that they did not feel assaulted, don’t remember the defendant, or don’t remember being touched by the defendant. Some officers did not show up at trial at all.
Let’s say that at a protest, you step to one side to get a photograph, but, unknown to you, police are approaching from behind, and you stepped in their way. What if you ask an officer where the bathroom is when, unknown to you, the officer is responding to an emergency call? (Prosecutors are arguing right now for a January 27 trial that it doesn’t matter what Defendant Dahlquist knew.)
The statute is conditioned on “forcibly,” but prosecutors and judges pretend the word is not there. Kenneth Joe Thomas touched a police officer’s riot shield to try not to fall. One demonstrator ran a finger gently along a line of riot shields, suggesting (among too much noise for his words to be heard) that the demonstrators and the officers maintain a peaceful space between them. Were those done “forcibly”?
Joseph Biggs was accused of assaulting a policewoman because she was touching a bike rack, and Biggs was allegedly (disputed) touching the same bike rack — but not her. Under the old common law “extension” of the body idea, touching clothing or something in one’s hand was called assault.
Yet knowing that the statute has six different parts and that only one of them is “assaults,” the Department of Justice and politicians have counted everyone as committing violence, even if he only “resisted” or “opposed” or “impeded” or “intimidated” or “interfered with.” Why does the DOJ flagrantly lie? The prosecutors know that in the secrecy of the jury room, the jury is likely to compromise on the easiest explanation, like “resisted.”
We know that left-wing street thugs attacked Trump-supporters at every single event for years. So Trump-supporters prepared to defend themselves. And they had good reason. Yet the DOJ told juries that self-defense was an intent to initiate violence. Self-defense was used as evidence of violent goals. Prosecutors told juries that defendants came “prepared for violence” that day without honestly admitting that they came prepared to defend themselves against violence. Photos of demonstrators dressed like rural hunters — that is, dressed normally for the regions of their origin — horrified urbanite D.C. juries.
Officers committed perjury on the witness stand. Officer Anthony Campanale testified that Thomas cut a tarpaulin wrapped around the risers or bleacher seats. But when Roger Roots played the video on cross-examination, Campanale admitted that it was actually he, Officer Campanale, who cut the tarp, not the defendant. When he left the stand, he walked away as though he did that all the time — just another day’s work. There were no consequences. The judge refused to declare a mistrial.
Other officers testified dozens of times that they “were gassed” without honestly explaining that the police gassed themselves by firing huge gas cannons into the wind, which blew back upon them.
Thomas pushed police back who were trampling an old man on the ground. Another photograph showed Thomas holding his boot and knee up as if about to kick a police officer, but the entire video shows Thomas falling backward and raising his leg purely to regain his balance. And the officer was much farther away than the prosecutor’s photo suggested. One officer kicked an old woman down the stairs — not once, but three times in a row.
The same Biden regime that disparages “True the Vote’s” exposé 2000 Mules is using the same technology featured in that film in hundreds of January 6 prosecutions.
So how do we know who engaged in violence? In the trials, videos and chat conversations were altered, rearranged in a misleading order, and presented to deceive. Most of these, when they are sorted out, show the opposite of what was claimed.
The hypocrisy needs to be addressed. Left-wing street gangs and thugs attacked the White House in May to June 2020, with Trump inside. Leftists attacked Trump’s residence and the worldwide command center of the U.S. military and foreign policy. Imagine foreign leaders, allies and enemies, watching the White House under siege live on CNN. Nothing that happened on January 6 compares.
Leftists attacked Trump personally, physically, violently, including setting a historic church on fire. More police officers were injured in the attack on the White House than on January 6, 2021. Yet how did the Biden regime prosecute those who attacked Trump’s residence at the White House? The charges were mostly dropped. And when the rioters sued, the Biden Department of Justice paid them millions of dollars.
So should January 6 demonstrators have their charges also dropped and be paid millions of dollars by the DOJ? How do we have double standards?
In January 2017, rioters burned police cars, limousines, stores, and the like professing their plans to prevent President Donald Trump from assuming office. Hundreds were arrested. But then…“GOVERNMENT DROPS CHARGES AGAINST ALL INAUGURATION PROTESTERS.”
So how can we fix this? The only thing anyone can do now is apply the same standard to January 6 as the corrupt Merrick Garland DOJ applied to Antifa and leftist street gangs. But if Pam Bondi reviews the files, I hope the review includes disciplinary reviews of the DOJ prosecutors involved.
Pixabay, Pixabay License.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.