The AP has a story out today detailing some of the struggles that the Justice Department is encountering in its efforts to prosecute hundreds of people who were in attendance at the protests in Washington, D.C., on January 6.
I’ve been watching this process from what I’d describe as a “macro” level for several weeks, trying to avoid getting sucked into focusing too much on one particular case or another. But yesterday, I did write this story about what I believe is the first substantive appeals court decision of significance on the government’s efforts, a case that concerned the nature of the presentation of evidence made by the government — as well as the conclusions drawn by the district court judge from that evidence — in connection with a decision to hold Eric Munchel and Lisa Eisenhart in custody pending trial. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the detention order entered against Munchel and Eisenhart and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing — which language strongly suggesting that appropriate terms and conditions of pretrial release pending trial should be determined by the District Judge.
The factual analysis of the Court of Appeals — that Munchel and Eisenhart didn’t actually do anything other than entering the Capitol through an open door where Capitol Police were standing and allowing the crowd to enter — reflects some of the problems which the AP story highlights, i.e., the evidence the government is bringing before the courts doesn’t measure up to the rhetoric used by prosecutors and federal agents in their early comments, both in the courtroom as well as sworn affidavits.
From the AP story:
Authorities are still combing through a sea of evidence in what they say is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Justice Department. More than 300 people are facing federal charges and more are expected. The most serious charges have been brought against 10 people described as members and associates of the Oath Keepers and several members of another far-right extremist group, the Proud Boys.
But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case.
This is where I have attempted to keep a “macro” focus. I was struck in the first few weeks, when arrests were taking place, by the repeated use by the government agents in sworn affidavits of the same 8-10 paragraphs of exposition on the events of January 6. The paragraphs — “scene setters” for lack of a better description — gave the reader the impression that the Country was imperiled in those hours on the afternoon of January 6, and it was only by the Grace of God that democracy wasn’t subverted and the government toppled.
These 8-10 paragraphs have become the fixed narrative of the DOJ that it has put out to the media through press releases, and has been the foundation of “proffers” made by prosecutors as part of efforts to hold as many defendants in custody pending trial as possible. Proffers are a process by which the prosecutors make representations to the Court about what evidence it possesses and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether the release of a defendant pending trial creates a threat to the safety of an individual or the community as a whole. The government doesn’t normally need to present witness testimony as part of a detention hearing because as officers of the court, and as official representatives of the Executive Branch, the prosecutors have legal and ethical obligations to not mislead the court about the nature of the evidence. The prosecution often submits documents and/or other physical evidence such as audio or video to back-up the proffer of what its evidence would show.
What is beginning to happen now, as some of the January 6 protest cases are moving further into the judicial process, is that when the evidence the government’s claims about what the evidence shows is subject to greater scrutiny, the evidence fails to live up to the hype of the narrative that the government sought to establish starting back on January 7 and thereafter.
read more here: https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/03/27/the-justice-department-is-struggling-with-january-6-protest-cases-an-overview-n351221
Replies
the only ones deserving of charges are the antifa thugs hired by devildemocommiecrats to riot so the criminal bureaucrats are in a pickle!!!!!!!!!!
It is time to stop this foolishness.
How can you stop this when Demon possessed people who is running everything?
The Justice Department, now headed by the corrupt Merritt Garland, is trying its best to pin anything on the supporters of President Trump. They won't bother with BLM and Antifa, but law abiding people who believe in the Constitution and are te true patriots of the USA, they will make up charges and fabricate evidence if they have to.
do we have a justice department anymore?
Jeff, NO WE DON'T. what We the People have is a bunch of corrupt new world order globalists serving satan in control of the nation!!!!!!!!!!
No.
We haven't had a "justice department" for several decades now.
What we have is a two tiered "legal system".
The must be having trouble making up the evidence. They're tryingto figure out out to claim patriots as terrorists and get away with it. BELIEVE IT!!!
We've been overthrown per Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 U.S. Constitution. It says it unquestionably.
I agree
Why the silence?Big tech colluding with our overthrowers to silence and spy on their opposition .All oppostition is erased! Soon it'll be US!
Guilty of "WRONG THINK"! They're Godless and will have no problem slaughtering millions of their own citizens. If you don't know who they are by now,shame on you!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next