The Truth Behind The Jan 6th Capitol Event And Prison Sentencing?

[Pommer]

The federal prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in discovery from Jan 6th defendants lawyers prior to sentencing "Unlawful"

Tucker Carlson interviews Chansley's lawyer, exculpatory video surveillance was withheld by the federal prosecutors prior to sentencing

Mr Chansley had ineffectual counsel?
Why is that the government’s fault?

 

[Truth7t7]

But that case doesn't have anything to do with any "narrative" false or otherwise. That appeal is really about whether obstruction of a proceeding under Title 18 of the US Code, Section 1512(c)(2) requires "some action with respect to a document, record or other object" to be obstruction. (I.e., is this a document tampering statute, or is it more broad.) Since there aren't many of the rioters who interfered with documents (perhaps none), under the ruling of one District Court Judge, it doesn't apply, but every other judge in the court and the appeals panel disagreed with the narrow view.

Federal Judges have and are releasing many in jail sentenced under the "obstruction law", they also are delaying future prosecution of such cases until the Supreme Court ruling expected in June 2024

Politico​

Obstruction statute under review​

1-18-2024

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this spring on whether prosecutors have stretched the meaning of the federal obstruction law. A decision will follow by June. But already, the high court’s decision to scrutinize the law has begun rippling through dozens of felony riot cases and threatens to upend even more.

Last week, for example, a federal judge sprung a Jan. 6 defendant from jail five months into his sentence, citing the justices’ consideration of the statute.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta released defendant Thomas Adams, who had been convicted of obstruction and related misdemeanors. Mehta noted that Adams would likely have received a significantly shorter sentence without the obstruction charge and therefore should be freed until the justices rule on the validity of the charge.

Prosecutors urged Adams be kept in jail, but Mehta disagreed, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case suggests the outcome is, at minimum, a “close question.”

U.S. District Judge John Bates the next day similarly ordered the release of another defendant, Alexander Sheppard, when his misdemeanor sentence expires, until the resolution of the Supreme Court case.

Three other federal judges — Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and colleagues Richard Leon and Dabney Friedrich — have postponed pending Jan. 6 cases in which obstruction is the only felony charge.

More than 30 Jan. 6 defendants have similarly asked to delay their trials, sentences or prison report dates.

The Justice Department has already agreed to pause appeals related to the obstruction issue. In a slew of filings, prosecutors said the outcome of those appeals could “plainly” be affected by the high court’s ruling.

 

[Truth7t7]

But that case doesn't have anything to do with any "narrative" false or otherwise. That appeal is really about whether obstruction of a proceeding under Title 18 of the US Code, Section 1512(c)(2) requires "some action with respect to a document, record or other object" to be obstruction. (I.e., is this a document tampering statute, or is it more broad.) Since there aren't many of the rioters who interfered with documents (perhaps none), under the ruling of one District Court Judge, it doesn't apply, but every other judge in the court and the appeals panel disagreed with the narrow view.

Politico​

Wide prosecutorial net​

1-18-2024

The former prosecutor who oversaw the initial response to the Capitol Riot in early 2021, Michael Sherwin, said he had rejected many potential trespass cases at the outset of the investigation because suspects did not engage in violence, property damage or pushing over barricades.

“That changed when I left. I don’t know who authorized it, but I refused,” Sherwin said in an interview. “I had a bright-line rule … that people should not have been charged if they just walked in through an open door.”

 

[Hans Blaster]

Federal Judges have and are releasing many in jail sentenced under the "obstruction law", they also are delaying future prosecution of such cases until the Supreme Court ruling expected in June 2024

I didn't say anything different. But what I did say is that the use or non-use of this statute (or rather the appropriateness of it as a charge for the actions of the defendants inside the Capitol) is what is at issue, and it has exactly nothing to do with "The Truth Behind the Jan 6th Event" nor with the sentences of dozens of misdemeanor charged and convicted persons who were not convicted of it (and in most cases not even charged with it). Do you not understand that?

 

[Truth7t7]

I didn't say anything different. But what I did say is that the use or non-use of this statute (or rather the appropriateness of it as a charge for the actions of the defendants inside the Capitol) is what is at issue, and it has exactly nothing to do with "The Truth Behind the Jan 6th Event" nor with the sentences of dozens of misdemeanor charged and convicted persons who were not convicted of it (and in most cases not even charged with it). Do you not understand that?

You have been shown that the Federal prosecutors over stepped their bounds in political motivation IMHO, "Obstruction" and "Tresspass" as the federal district judges clearly explained, and the initial federal prosecutor of Jan 6th clearly identifed, no prosecution of anybody who entered an open Door, who wasn't violent or destroying property, a far cry from rants of everybody in the building is guilty, do you know of any persons like that?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Those Jan 6th rioters were as peaceful as a Russian Tank Division taking a leisurely stroll in the Ukrainian countryside, and met the same fate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You have been shown that the Federal prosecutors over stepped their bounds in political motivation IMHO,

I have been shown by your opinion that prosecutors overstepped? Why should I care about anyone's opinion. (That is what IMHO means, after all.)

"Obstruction" and "Tresspass" as the federal district judges clearly explained, and the initial federal prosecutor of Jan 6th clearly identifed, no prosecution of anybody who entered an open Door, who wasn't violent or destroying property, a far cry from rants of everybody in the building is guilty, do you know of any persons like that?

Your sentence is difficult to parse. Only one Judge has ruled that the 18 USC 1512(c)(2) charge is misapplied. Not sure what you are talking about with the initial prosecutor.

And I'm sorry if you don't get it, but anyone who entered the Capitol without authorization was in violation of the law.

 

[7thKeeper]

Those Jan 6th rioters were as peaceful as a Russian Tank Division taking a leisurely stroll in the Ukrainian countryside, and met the same fate.

Considering how he likes to spread Russian misinformation and propaganda, I'm starting to believe even this is motivated by Russia in some way as Russia/Putin in the current situation benefits from this by muddying and destabilising the US political situation.

 

[Truth7t7]

And I'm sorry if you don't get it, but anyone who entered the Capitol without authorization was in violation of the law.

The initial leading federal prosecutor regarding the Jan 6th Capitol event "Michael Sherwin" has stated otherwise, your opinion is silenced

Politico​

Wide prosecutorial net​

1-18-2024

The former prosecutor who oversaw the initial response to the Capitol Riot in early 2021, Michael Sherwin, said he had rejected many potential trespass cases at the outset of the investigation because suspects did not engage in violence, property damage or pushing over barricades.

“That changed when I left. I don’t know who authorized it, but I refused,” Sherwin said in an interview. “I had a bright-line rule … that people should not have been charged if they just walked in through an open door.”

 

[Hank77]

The initial leading federal prosecutor regarding the Jan 6th Capitol event "Michael Sherwin" has stated otherwise, your opinion is silenced

Politico​

Wide prosecutorial net​

1-18-2024

The former prosecutor who oversaw the initial response to the Capitol Riot in early 2021, Michael Sherwin, said he had rejected many potential trespass cases at the outset of the investigation because suspects did not engage in violence, property damage or pushing over barricades.

“That changed when I left. I don’t know who authorized it, but I refused,” Sherwin said in an interview. “I had a bright-line rule … that people should not have been charged if they just walked in through an open door.”

Where does prosecutor Michael Sherwin say that entering the Capital building without authorization was Not a violation of the law, was Not trespassing?
I don't see in this quote where he says that.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Yes, instead he wanted to charge them with Seditious Conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_conspiracy

 

[Truth7t7]

Yes, instead he wanted to charge them with Seditious Conspiracy.
Seditious conspiracy - Wikipedia

You aren't responding to a post, your words have no foundation

Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin who oversaw initial Jan 6th prosecution statement is below

The former prosecutor who oversaw the initial response to the Capitol Riot in early 2021, Michael Sherwin, said he had rejected many potential trespass cases at the outset of the investigation because suspects did not engage in violence, property damage or pushing over barricades.

“That changed when I left. I don’t know who authorized it, but I refused,” Sherwin said in an interview. “I had a bright-line rule … that people should not have been charged if they just walked in through an open door.”

 

[Arcangl86]

The initial leading federal prosecutor regarding the Jan 6th Capitol event "Michael Sherwin" has stated otherwise, your opinion is silenced

Politico​

Wide prosecutorial net​

1-18-2024

The former prosecutor who oversaw the initial response to the Capitol Riot in early 2021, Michael Sherwin, said he had rejected many potential trespass cases at the outset of the investigation because suspects did not engage in violence, property damage or pushing over barricades.

“That changed when I left. I don’t know who authorized it, but I refused,” Sherwin said in an interview. “I had a bright-line rule … that people should not have been charged if they just walked in through an open door.”

That's not him stating that it wasn't in violation of the law, but rather that he had set up a policy that they wouldn't charge people in those particular cases. Not the same thing.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I wonder, Grey or Timneh?

 

[Pommer]

I wonder, Grey or Timneh?

Grey, (timnehs aren’t known for their “talking”.)

 

[The Barbarian]

I know some people saw it as a real attempt to over throw the government, if so it was a very feeble attempt.

Donald Trump told them to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell" to stop the certification of a fair and legal election. He overestimated how effective that would be. It wasn't for lack of trying. As you probably know, Trump has failed at most everything he's tried to do in his life, lacking the self-discipline to be an effective criminal.