Tag Archives: #CapitolKerfuffle

Posted on by

When family members play heroes of the Soviet Union

Pavel Trofimovich Morozov (Па́вел Трофи́мович Моро́зов) was a supposed hero of the Soviet Union:

In 1932, at the age of 13, Morozov reported his father to the political police (GPU). Supposedly, Morozov’s father, Trofim, the chairman of the Gerasimovka Village Soviet, had been “forging documents and selling them to the bandits and enemies of the Soviet State” (as the sentence read). Trofim Morozov was sentenced to ten years in a labour camp, where his sentence was changed to death, which was fulfilled. However, Pavlik’s family did not take kindly to his reporting his father and on 3 September of that year, his uncle, grandfather, grandmother, and a cousin murdered him, along with his younger brother. All of them except the uncle were rounded up by the GPU and sentenced to “the highest measure of social defense” – execution by a firing squad.

Thousands of telegrams from all over the Soviet Union urged the judge to show no mercy for Pavlik’s killers. The Soviet government declared Pavlik Morozov a glorious martyr who had been murdered by reactionaries. Statues of him were built, and numerous schools and youth groups were named in his honour. An opera and numerous songs were written about him. The Gerasimovka school that Morozov attended, became a shrine, and children from all over the Soviet Union went on school excursions to visit it.

The entire story may have been a fabrication by the Soviet Communist Party under Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, yet another of the typical propaganda stories. Who, after all, could imagine a 13-year-old denouncing his own father to the police?

And so we come to the story of former January 6th political prisoner John M Cameron. Mr Cameron told us on Twitter:

I am a J6er!
I am no longer banned from traveling to DC!
I can get my Guns back!
I can travel anywhere without reporting in or needing to ask permission!
I am no longer subjected to random piss tests!
I am no longer subjected to random searches of my residence!
Am I free? Only time will tell.

Like the vast majority of the Capitol kerfufflers, Mr Cameron was initially charged with:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) – Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority. For those not accused of harming anyone or carrying a deadly weapon, the maximum punishment under (b)(2) is a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2) – Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds. Those not not accused of harming anyone or carrying a deadly weapon, the maximum punishment under (b)(2) is a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
  • 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D) – Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building: utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; The penalty for violating 40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(2) is a misdemeanor conviction punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 fine or up to six months in prison, or both.
  • 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G) – Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building; The penalty for violating 40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(2) is a misdemeanor conviction punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 or up to six months in prison, or both.

And, like most of them, he was allowed to plead guilty to one count of Parading, demonstrating, or picketing. In August of 2022, he was sentenced to to three years of probation, including 30 days of intermittent confinement in a halfway house, a $1,000 fine, and $500 of restitution for damages.

All that for being in the Capitol building for 19 minutes.

Mr Cameron has indicated that his “fight for truth, transparency, and electoral integrity can continue without the overhang of legal repercussions.” Translation: now he can say what he wants, without a probation officer trying to send him back to jail.

The worst part? Like the tale of young Mr Morozov, Mr Cameron was turned in by his father’s stepson.

I cannot imagine any circumstance which would cause me to turn in a family member for a crime, including murder. I would not turn in my wife, my daughters, my sisters, my brother-in-law, my nieces or nephews, no one, nor turn state’s evidence against them. To quote (fictitious) New York City Police Commissioner Frank Reagan, “Family comes first.” Mr Cameron’s father’s stepson is a scumbag, the equivalent of that (probably faked) Mr Morozov, a hero of the Soviet Communists, but scum to any and all free people.

Mr Cameron lost two fathers and a wife over the Democrats political crime persecutions.

The persecutors? Thanks to former President Biden’s — and I dearly love being able to type former President Biden! — pre-emptive pardons of the entire banana republic political persecution staff, they’ll suffer nothing. The most we can do is refer to them as confessedly guilty, and shun them as much as possible.

 

 

Posted on by

The Justice Department said that pardons do not mean innocence . . . when it comes to the J6 defendants. The same must hold true for those pardoned by Joe Biden

After Donald Trump won the 2024 election, with an open promise to pardon the Capitol kerfufflers, the Department of Justice, under President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, a man who hates Republicans for denying him a seat on the Supreme Court, wanted to let the January 6 political prisoners that the acceptance of a pardon on their part was an admission of guilt.

Justice Department: Jan. 6 defendants who accept pardons will make ‘a confession of guilt’

Some defendants claim that Trump can issue “pardons of innocence,” but federal prosecutors told a judge that pardons would not wipe away their guilt.

by Kyle Cheney | December 11, 2024 | 3:57 PM EST

The Justice Department sent a message Wednesday to Jan. 6 defendants: Accepting a pardon from Donald Trump is “a confession of guilt” for your crimes.

“[A] pardon at some unspecified date in the future … would not unring the bell of conviction,” federal prosecutors argued in a Jan. 6 case before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols. “In fact, quite the opposite. The defendant would first have to accept the pardon, which necessitates a confession of guilt.”

The pronouncement is the latest attempt by the Justice Department to salvage the legacy of its Jan. 6 investigation, which leaders say is the most sweeping criminal probe in American history. Trump has pledged to unravel that probe with the stroke of his pen by granting clemency to many of the nearly 1,600 people who have been charged for their roles in the attack on the Capitol four years ago.

The legal significance of presidential pardons, and whether they imply guilt, has been debated in courts for decades. The Supreme Court has opined that pardons often carry an “imputation of guilt” even if the consequences for that guilt are erased. And the Justice Department has previously concluded that even if pardons eliminate criminal consequences, those convicted of crimes can still face punishment in other forums, like professional ethics boards.

“A pardon … does not erase the conviction as a historical fact or justify the fiction that the pardoned individual did not engage in criminal conduct,” the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote in a 2006 opinion.

It’s more than just the Department of Justice. In Burdick v United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), the Supreme Court stated:

A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.

A presidential pardon is, the court held, the property of the person to whom it was delivered, and the recipient had the sole discretion as to whether to accept or reject it.

Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve. Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right, and a right is often best tested in its extreme. “It may be supposed,” the Court said in United States v. Wilson, “that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. A pardon may be conditional, and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment.”

As it happens, two of the condemned prisoners whose sentences President Biden commuted from death to life in prison without the possibility of parole, Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis, rejected the commutations on the basis that they were appealing their convictions on the basis of innocence, and that to accept the commutations would jeopardize their appeals.

It is true we have said (Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 601, 161 U. S. 605) that the law regards only mere penal consequences, and not “the personal disgrace or opprobrium attaching to the exposure” of crime, but certainly such consequence may influence the assertion or relinquishment of a right. . . . .

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

The Supreme Court stated that yes, the acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt.

The Department of Justice was acting against the potential pardons of the kerfufflers:

have increasingly been seeking “pardons of innocence,” claiming Trump has the authority to grant them clemency without forcing an admission of guilt. Those who haven’t been convicted are hoping Trump’s Justice Department simply drops their charges, obviating the need for a pardon altogether.

The Justice Department’s comments on the effect of Jan. 6 pardons came in a court filing in the case of Dova Winegeart, who is seeking to delay her imminent jail term in anticipation of a possible pardon from Trump. Nichols, a Trump appointee, convicted Winegeart for damaging government property after a brief bench trial in October and acquitted her of several misdemeanor counts. On Monday, he sentenced her to four months in prison but agreed to hear arguments on whether the sentence should be delayed to await a potential pardon.

Winegeart is one of many Jan. 6 defendants who have been seeking to delay their sentences or pause their cases in light of Trump’s electoral victory and the potential for him to issue mass pardons when he returns to office.

Prosecutors sharply opposed Winegeart’s request and warned of far-reaching consequences to criminal justice if she is granted a delay based on speculation about a future pardon.

Naturally, the Department of Injustice wanted Miss Winegeart to go straight to jail, to have to serve out at least part of her four month sentence before President Trump took office and could pardon her. And the Attorney General and his minions want to have the record state that if the Capitol kerfufflers are pardoned, while their convictions would be legally wiped away and any punishments not already served wiped away, they would still be guilty, guilty, guilty.

President Biden tried to wipe that away for the individuals he pardoned:

“The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing,” Biden wrote each announcement, “nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.”

Nope, sorry, wrong answer. Both the Supreme Court, whose rulings he cannot change, and his own Justice Department, have claimed that acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt. If any of the kerfufflers who accept the pardons are confessing their guilt, then so are those Mr Biden pardoned; he doesn’t get to have it both ways.

Personally, I’m glad Mr Biden pardoned so many people. They are now guilty under the eyes of the law, and the left can’t say anything about the kerfufflers being pardoned. Many, of course, have already served their sentences and paid fines — fines which should now be returned — but some are still in jail, and we will be as happy to see them released as the Israelis were when the hostages held by Hamas started coming home. Sadly, we can’t give them back their time.

Posted on by

A 2020 George Floyd rioter is sentenced to five years in federal prison This is a very good thing

I have a bunch of stories under the category Capitol kerfuffle, because that is exactly what I think of it, a frat party that got out of control. I have said that the next Republican President, whom I very much hope will be inaugurated on January 20, 2025, should immediately pardon all of the Capitol kerfufflers. He won’t be able to give them their lost time back, but at least the fines that some have to pay would be restored to them, and their convictions expunged.

But that seems unlikely to happen, which makes this good news!

A Philly man will serve five years in federal prison for the torching of a cop car during racial justice protests

Khalif Miller, 27 — who had previously been critical of his prosecution — told a judge Monday that he was sorry for his actions during the demonstrations in 2020.

by Chris Palmer | Monday, April 3, 2023

A Southwest Philadelphia man was sentenced Monday to five years in federal prison for his role in the torching of a police car outside City Hall during the 2020 racial justice protests.

Note how the very woke Philadelphia Inquirer calls them “protests,” instead of what they really were, riots.

Khalif Miller, 27, told the judge he was sorry for his actions, which prosecutors described as throwing papers into a burning cruiser as dozens of demonstrators gathered nearby. For that conduct, U.S. District Chief Judge Juan R. Sánchez imposed a 61-month penalty.

Thankfully, this was a federal case, which kept Philadelphia’s George Soros-sponsored District Attorney Larry Krasner from giving a slap on the wrist instead of prison time.

As recently as last year, Miller had been harshly critical of the case against him, casting himself as a political scapegoat being unfairly targeted. But Monday, he told Sánchez he now believes his behavior during the May 2020 demonstration — sparked by the murder of George Floyd — may have taken away from the reason he attended in the first place: to raise awareness about the need for better integration of mental health professionals within law enforcement.

“I regret it,” Miller said. “Honestly, I really regret it.”

Well, I’m sure he regrets getting caught, anyway, but maybe taking a selfie in front of a police car you’ve torched wasn’t the wisest idea.

Mr Miller got off lightly: he was allowed to plead down, when he was charged with arson, which carries a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence.

A bit further down came the money paragraph:

Sánchez also told Miller he believed the punishment was necessary due to the severity of the offenses. In addition to admitting he obstructed law enforcement during a civil disorder, Miller pleaded guilty to illegally possessing firearms when federal agents searched his house to arrest him in October 2020. Miller was ineligible to possess guns because of a 2015 conviction for involuntary manslaughter.

So, Mr Miller wasn’t just someone who got “swept up in the pandemonium of the situation,” but a criminal who previously killed someone, and was knowingly in possession of firearms when he was legally barred from doing so as a previously convicted felon.

Under federal law, while prisoners can earn time off for good behavior, convicts are normally required to serve at least 85% of their sentences in custody.

Posted on by

The Feds admit it: they are trying to force guilty pleas by the Capitol kerfufflers through intimidation

The money line was six paragraphs down:

Prosecutors are hopeful many will be incentivized to plead to help manage the crush of cases.

“The crush of cases”? Yup, you guessed it, this is a reference to the ridiculous prosecution of the Capitol kerfufflers, the out-of-control fraternity keg party in the Capitol on January 6, 2021. With almost a thousand people already charged, the Justice Department wants to charge maybe another thousand people. From The Washington Post:

The Jan. 6 investigation is the biggest in U.S. history. It’s only half done.

Nearly 1,000 people have been charged to date, and a federal courthouse strains to handle what may be years more of trials

By Spencer S. Hsu, Devlin Barrett and Tom Jackman | Saturday, March 18, 2023 | 9:00 AM EDT

The city’s federal court system is bracing for many years more of trials stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, with new charges possible against as many as 1,000 more people. Continue reading →

Posted on by

The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Washington show trial

Though he has been out of office for 17 months now, Donald Trump lives on, rent-free, in the skulls of the left. Four of the lovely Amanda Marcotte’s last five Salon articles are all about Trump, Trump, Trump!,, and, as always, the editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer feel Mr Trump knocking on the inside of their skulls as well. I will admit it: I missed this bit of dumbness from the Inky on Tuesday, but they were good enough to tweet about it to alert me:

Liz Cheney’s lonely fight against the extremist wing of the GOP | Editorial

Cheney’s work on the committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, has come at great professional and personal cost, including death threats.

by the Editorial Board | Tuesday, June 14, 2022

It shouldn’t make headlines when a member of Congress upholds their sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But Rep. Liz Cheney (R., Wyo.) stands out as one of the few elected Republicans in Washington willing to put country before party.

The vice chair of the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol understands that the peaceful transfer of power is the linchpin of our democracy. She also fully grasps the historic importance of ensuring accountability for the months-long effort by Donald Trump and his minions to steal the 2020 presidential election that culminated in the deadly insurrection at the Capitol.

Can we tell the truth here, since the Inky omitted it? Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) is not on the committee because the GOP appointed her, but because Speaker Nancy Pelosi did, to try to make it seem as though this was bi-partisan. There are two, and only two, Republican members, Miss Cheney and Rep Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) on the committee, the only two Republicans who voted to establish it in the first place. Mr Kinzinger, one of just ten Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump, could see the handwriting on the wall, and decided not to seek re-election.

Also see: Robert Stacy McCain: The J6 Smear Machine

I can’t just copy-and-paste the entire editorial, but you can read it if you follow the embedded link. The Editorial Board lament that Miss Cheney has lost power and prestige within the Republican caucus, and that she’s very likely to lose the Republican primary for re-nomination for Wyoming’s at-large House of Representatives seat.

The Inquirer Editorial Board does not typically agree with Cheney’s policy positions. She is a hard-line conservative who voted with Trump 93% of the time. But we agree that Trump is a danger to democracy, which is why we’re taking the unusual step of endorsing Cheney in the upcoming congressional primary.

This is where it truly got funny. The Editorial Board absolutely refused to endorse any Republican candidates in the Pennsylvania GOP primaries, due to their pro-life positions, but here they’ve endorsed Miss Cheney, who is pro-life herself, because Mr Trump is living so loudly within their skulls.

While most of our readers can’t vote for Cheney, they can donate to her campaign, send a message of support, encourage friends in her district to vote for her, and talk with friends and family about the ongoing threat to democracy that the Trump wing of the GOP represents.

In the 2020 presidential election, President Trump received 193,559 votes, 69.94% of the total, compared to Mr Biden’s 73,491, or 26.55%, and the Cowboy State provided Mr Trump’s largest percentage margin in 2020. The vast majority of Wyoming’s residents will never read or even hear of the Editorial Board’s position, and even if they do, the silly thing is behind the Inquirer’s paywall!

Friday will mark the 50th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, which led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation. Nixon’s abuse of power and obstruction of justice were also a threat to democracy and the rule of law, but Republicans in Congress placed the Constitution and country above politics. Their actions were bolstered by public opinion shaped by the same set of facts. In today’s America, where right-wing pundits spin the truth Trump’s way on Fox News and the internet, it’s more difficult to reach consensus.

Watergate was an actual, serious — and completely unnecessary — crime, something that the Capitol kerfuffle really isn’t. The left want to call it treason, sedition, an insurrection, but the kerfufflers weren’t even armed. It’s kind of difficult to stage some sort of coup d’etat without any guns. Even Adolf Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch was better planned than January 6th as far as insurrections go.

Cheney’s lonely fight for her fellow Republicans’ support suggests Congress cannot be counted on this time. If the House Select Committee’s attempt to bring Trump to justice fails, it will be left to voters to remind candidates and incumbents who have dismissed the ongoing attack on our democracy that the people will have the last word.

Of course, the neither the House Select Committe, nor the House of Representatives as a whole, nor the Congress as a whole, can “bring Trump to justice”. The Congress has no power to issue indictments, and the two futile impeachments have demonstrated that a third attempt would be just as much of a waste of time and money. Meanwhile, the public are suffering under an 8.6% inflation rate, the economy contracted 1.4% during the first quarter, and store shelves are occasionally empty. This House Select Committee farce is very much about trying to deflect the voters’ attention away from the failures of the Biden Administration today by trying to focus them on 17 months ago. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who absolutely hates Republicans for denying him a Supreme Court seat, and his minions at the Department of Justice, do have the power to indict former President Trump on whatever crimes for which they can find evidence, but it’s laughable to picture being able to seat an impartial jury against him.

Republicans agitated for President Trump’s entire term to bring Hillary Clinton and her minions to justice, and it never happened. President Gerald Ford, with his pardon of former President Richard Nixon, pretty much established that the United States was not going to put former Presidents on trial, so the House is now engaged in something not that dissimilar from the Moscow show trials.

From 1861 to 1865, we were engaged in what Abraham Lincoln called a “great Civil War,” but, after the defeat of the Confederacy, no one was brought to trial for treason or revolution against the United States. Robert E Lee was charged, but never tried. Confederate President Jefferson Davis was captured, and held in irons in a casemate at Fort Monroe for two years before any trial, but was eventually released on bail; no trial was ever held, as President Andrew Johnson, on Christmas Day of 1868, issued a blanket “pardon and amnesty” for treason to “every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion.”

The Editorial Board and the Democrats want to treat the Capitol kerfuffle more harshly than the Civil War, which saw a million Americans, civilian and military, sent early to their eternal rewards.

The Editorial Board concluded:

(I)t will be left to voters to remind candidates and incumbents who have dismissed the ongoing attack on our democracy that the people will have the last word.

In the end, that much is true. And while the general election is still 4½ months away, and anything can happen, the probabilities are that the voters will have that last word by ending the Democrats’ majority in the House of Representatives and quite possibly the Senate as well. If the Republicans regain control of the Congress, will they hold show trial hearings over the Mrs Clinton and her campaign and the faked ‘Russian collusion’ scheme? They could, and today’s Democrats have set the precedent to allow them to do so.

Posted on by

Another Capitol kerfuffler sentenced

We have previously noted the hypocrisy of the Lexington Herald-Leader in refusing to publish the mugshot of Brent Dyer Kelty, a man previously convicted of “several prior felonies in Fayette County since 2010,” in their story about him being indicted for the murder of an infant, but publishing the photo of Gracyn Dawn Courtright, one of the Capitol kerfufflers. In that, the newspaper followed the McClatchy Mugshot Policy, despite the fact that Mr Kelty, even if acquitted of murder, is still a multiply convicted felon, while Miss Courtright was convicted of a single misdemeanor count.

Now, the former University of Kentucky student has been sentenced:

    UK student gets 30-day sentence for involvement in Jan. 6 Capitol riot

    by Christopher Leach and Bill Estep | Friday, December 17, 2021 | 2:48 PM EST | Updated: 3:50 PM EST

    A former University of Kentucky student who unlawfully entered the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot has been sentenced to 30 days in jail followed by a year on probation, according to her attorney.

    The sentence for Gracyn Courtright also includes 60 hours of community service and a $500 restitution payment, according to her attorney, Thomas Abbenante.

    The government sought a sentence of six months in prison for Courtright, arguing she was one of the few people who went onto the Senate floor during the “violent attack” that threatened the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election, injured more than 100 law enforcement officers and did more than $1 million in property damage at the Capitol.

    Courtright did not engage in violence, but witnessed others damaging property and continued inside the building, Assistant U.S. Attorney Rachel A. Fletcher said in a sentencing memorandum.

There’s more at the original.

So, Miss Courtright did nothing violent herself, as the government conceded, but “witnessed others damaging property,” yet the government wanted to lock her up for half a year. The kerfuffle included damages to property and some police officers were injured, but Miss Courtright personally did neither of those things.

If that’s the standard, then every single #BlackLivesMatter demonstrator who participated in any Mostly Peaceful Protest™ in which any bystander or law enforcement officer was hurt, or any building burned, or any store looted, should be jailed, in the government’s view, for six months, regardless of whether the government can prove that a specific individual perpetrated any of those acts.

The real truth is that the Capitol kerfuffle wasn’t that serious, and no one should have been charged with any crimes. The next Republican president won’t be able to give any of the kerfufflers their time back, but he should pardon every last one of them.

Posted on by

Guilty until proven innocent That's how the Feds are treating the Capitol kerfufflers

On March 11, 2021, Kenneth Harrelson, 41, allegedly a member of the Oath Keepers, was arrested for his part in the January 6th Capitol kerfuffle.

Federal agents arrested an Army veteran with ties to the far-right Oath Keepers paramilitary group on Thursday on conspiracy and other charges connected to the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Kenneth Harrelson, 41, made his initial appearance in federal court Thursday in Orlando, Fla. He was ordered to be held pending a detention hearing Monday.

Harrelson faces four counts, including obstructing an official proceeding, destruction of government property, entering a restricted building and conspiracy.

He is accused in an FBI affidavit of conspiring with nine individuals, all of whom are affiliated with the Oath Keepers and are facing federal charges for allegedly coordinating to storm the Capitol.

At a hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, prosecutors said they anticipate up to six or more additional defendants could be added to that conspiracy case.

On Friday, November 26th, federal prosecutors once again filed a motion to deny Mr Harrelson’s petition for pretrial release. As of Friday, Mr Harrelson has been kept behind bars for 261 days, which works out to 37¼ weeks, or 8½ months, and he has been convicted of absolutely nothing.

Mr Harrelson is charged with five violations:

  • 18 USC §371: Conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States
    • If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    • If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
  • 18 USC §§ 1512 (c)(2),2: Obstruction of an Official Proceeding or aiding and abetting
    • (c)(2) Whoever corruptly (or) (2) 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.
  • 18 USC §§ 1361: Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting
    • Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:
      • If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both;
      • if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
  • 18 USC § 175 (a)(1); Knowing Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Ground Without Lawful Authority:
    • Whoever knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so.
    • A misdemeanor conviction punishable by a fine or up to one year imprisonment, or both.
  • 18 USC §§ 1512 (c)(1): Obstruction of an Official Proceeding or aiding and abetting
    • (c) Whoever corruptly
      • (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
      • (2) 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.

That final count is for Mr Harrelson allegedly deleting from a cell phone potentially incriminating media, files and communications.

The government has been seriously overcharging the arrested individuals, but note: none of the crimes are crimes of violence, and the government does not allege that Mr Harrelson personally damaged any government property in the third count, only that he aided and abetted others in doing so.

So why are the Feds insisting on keeping Mr Harrelson locked up before he’s brought to trial? He could be fitted with an ankle monitor so law enforcement could keep track of him, and his passport — if he ever had one — taken away. If Mr Harrelson owns any firearms, they could be removed from his home. There is really no reason to keep deny Mr Harrelson reasonable bail, no reason to keep him locked up without being actually convicted of a crime, other than the federal government wanting to punish him before he is convicted of anything. How will Mr Harrelson be compensated for losing almost a year out of his life if he happens to be acquitted?

This ought to be illegal, ought to be unconstitutional, and Mr Harrelson should be released pending his trial.

So far, Mr Harrelson’s trial is set for, maybe, January 31, 2022, but the Feds are concerned that they might not be ready that soon. If Mr Harrelson’s trial starts on January 31, and he is not granted bail, he will have been locked up for 327 days, or 10½ months, without ever having been convicted of anything,

Posted on by

District of Columbia Chief Judge admits bias against January 6th defendants She should be removed from all cases against the Capitol kerfufflers

Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell, from her government biography.

We have spent a fair amount of bandwidth on the January 6th “insurrection,” an event that I have called the Capitol kerfuffle, because it was really no more serious than a fraternity keg party gone a bit out of control. And we have said that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan needs to be removed from all of the kerfuffle cases, because he has demonstrated a clear bias against the defendants.

Well, now his boss has added her 2¢, and she, too, has demonstrated clear bias. From The Washington Post:

Chief federal judge in D.C. assails ‘almost schizophrenic’ Jan. 6 prosecutions: ‘The rioters were not mere protesters’

by Rachel Weiner | October 28, 2021 | 5:55 PM EDT

The chief judge presiding over the federal court in Washington on Thursday unleashed a blistering critique of the Justice Department’s prosecution of Capitol rioters, saying fiery rhetoric about the event’s horror did not match plea offers involving minor charges. Continue reading →

Posted on by

Two Capitol kerfufflers sentenced The January 6 'insurrection' was so serious that they received probation!

We have previously noted the tremendous, tremendous! seriousness of the January 6th ‘insurrection’ in our nation’s capital, what I have frequently called the Capitol kerfuffle.

And now we see the draconian sentence to which Thomas and Lori Vinson were subjected following their guilty plea three months ago:

    Kentucky couple who were part of mob that stormed the Capitol receive sentence

    By Karla Ward | Friday, October 22, 2021 | 8:22 PM EDT

    A Western Kentucky couple who participated in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol were sentenced Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

    Both Thomas and Lori Vinson were sentenced to five years’ probation, fined $5,000 and ordered to pay restitution of $500, court records show.

    U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton also ordered the Vinsons to perform 120 hours of community service, the Associated Press reported.

There’s more at the original.

Like the majority of the Capitol kerfufflers, Mr and Mrs Vinson were initially charged with four offenses:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) – Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority. Since the Vinsons were not accused of harming anyone or carrying a deadly weapon, the maximum punishment under (b)(2) is a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2) – Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds. Since the Vinsons were not accused of harming anyone or carrying a deadly weapon, the maximum punishment under (b)(2) is a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
  • 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D) – Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building: utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; The penalty for violating 40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(2) is a misdemeanor conviction punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 fine or up to six months in prison, or both.
  • 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G) – Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building; The penalty for violating 40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(2) is a misdemeanor conviction punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 or up to six months in prison, or both.

The Vinsons were allowed to plead to only the fourth listed offense, which has been the case with almost all of the kerfufflers. The Vinsons said that they were very sorry for their actions, and the judge found their actions so serious that they were sentenced to spend exactly zero days in jail.

Attorney General Merrick Garland absotively, posilutely hates Republicans, because then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to allow the Senate to even consider President Obama’s nomination of then-Judge Garland to the Supreme Court seat left empty when Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died, yet even Mr Garland couldn’t find the ‘insurrection’ serious enough to seriously push felony charges against most of them.

Lori Vinson provided this photo of herself and Thomas Ray Vinson outside the U.S. Capitol to a local news station, according to the FBI. Photo via an FBI Statement of facts.

We have previously noted the McClatchy Mugshot Policy, and the Herald-Leader’s very biased choices in making exceptions to it. The paper decided against publishing mugshots of two black accused murderers on the loose, but has been perfectly willing to publish photos of white criminal suspects who are already in custody.

And so we have the photo to the right of Lori and Thomas Vinson. Yes, they have now been convicted, but the Herald-Leader published the same photo in their story of their arrest, before they were convicted of anything.

Marlon Griffin. October 19, 2021. Photo by Fayette County Detention Center, and is a public record.

Still, the Vinsons have been convicted of a single misdemeanor count, sentenced to probation, and what my late best friend used to call the Herald-Liberal went ahead and used their photo, again. Yet the paper declined to post the mugshot of Marlon Griffin, 23, charged with eight felony counts for shooting two people on Endon Drive, and Mr Griffin is already a convicted felon with at least two prior arrests.[1]One of Mr Griffin’s prior arrests occurred just three months after he turned 18. Juvenile records are, of course, sealed, and while it’s not a matter of public record, I would say that … Continue reading

Why, it’s almost as though the only real newspaper in Kentucky’s second largest city, which covers most of central and eastern Kentucky, has an agenda or something!

Amusingly enough, the Herald-Leader is running a fund-raising campaign, saying:

    Your friends and neighbors — people across our communities — are seeking complete and accurate information as they navigate the news, their lives and the changes around us.

    And information is more complex than ever. That’s why we at the Lexington Herald-Leader are launching a new fall fundraising campaign to boost our coverage. We are asking for your support of our health reporting as well as Eastern Kentucky coverage in partnership with Report for America.

    Your tax-deductible donation can help make it happen.

    What this means for you, our readers: More eyes on issues that need more attention. More fair and measured coverage of all of our communities. A boost to our clear-headed watchdog approach.

    And we’re stronger when the voices of all members of our community are part of the conversation.

    Will you join our newsroom campaign to help support more local journalism in this critical area?

    Thank you for supporting our newsroom and the future of local journalism. And thank you for being a contributor to this community-funded effort on local reporting.

“More fair and measured coverage of all of our communities,” huh? It seems as though the newspaper’s coverage is anything but fair, exhibiting a distinct and documented, by me, lack of fairness.

I would love to see the Herald-Leader have some expanded coverage, but it needs to be fair coverage, unbiased coverage. I’m not seeing that yet.

References

References
↑1 One of Mr Griffin’s prior arrests occurred just three months after he turned 18. Juvenile records are, of course, sealed, and while it’s not a matter of public record, I would say that the probability of him having a juvenile record is not low.