Saturday, September 30, 2023
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor
From a Political trial to a Political Media

May 19, 2023 --

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LINK

Julie Kelly, writing at American Greatness, May 5, on the Proud Boys convictions, leaves readers to appreciate that the five Prpud Boys defendants, convicted of seditious conspiracy and other offenses, May 4, in federal court in Washington, did not get a fair trial.

Ms.Kelly points out in her important article that these Proud Boys defendants , who were not carrying weapons outside the Capitol on January 6, 2021, but were engaging in, "political dissent, " face long prison terms.

She writes:

"Until 2022, no American had been convicted of the post-Civil War statute. But Joe Biden’s Justice Department seized on the law’s vague language—the same manner in which top officials weaponized an untested post-Enron evidence tampering felony—to criminalize political dissent. Six members of the Oath Keepers were found guilty of seditious conspiracy at two separate trials and four other defendants, including one member of the Proud Boys, have pleaded guilty to the offense. Both seditious conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding are felonies punishable by up to 20 years in prison each.

"Most of the government’s evidence consisted of inflammatory text messages posted in group chats, which included the presence of an unknown number of FBI informants. No defendant was accused of bringing weapons to the Capitol or assaulting a police officer. Tarrio, the group’s leader, was in a Baltimore hotel on January 6, having left Washington under court order following his arrest on January 4, 2021 for an unrelated incident." [Emphasis added.]

Sadly, Ms. Kelly seems only the sole media person with courage to inform the American people how rigged the Proud Boys trial was against the five defendants. (That fact by itself illustrates how bizarre was the Biden/Garland contention that these unfortunate few constituted an insurrection. An insurrection by five unarmed protesters?). Her courage extended to criticism of the judge's pro-government stance during the trial. The members of the House Judiciary Committee should take particular notice how the unconstitutional Jan. 6 House Select Committee of the 117th Congress created the hyper-partisan atmosphere in which the Jan. 6 trials are being conducted in the nation's capital -- and, at long last, decry the proceedings of that rogue panel an insult to the democratic traditions of the House of representatives. The following paragraphs from Ms. Kelly's May 5 American Greatness article amount, sadly, to the equivalent of the samizdat that told the truth in the Soviet Union where the truth was suppressed by state and government controlled outlets, like Pravda and Izvestia -- as there can be no doubt that our major media outlets perform the service for Biden that Pravda did for the Soviet dictators.

"Judge [Timothy] Kelly, a former federal prosecutor and Trump appointee, acted as an extra lawyer for the prosecution, routinely rubber-stamping government motions that make the convictions ripe for appeal. He repeatedly denied the defendants’ release from jail—Biggs, Rehl, Nordean, and Pezzola have been in custody under pretrial detention orders since early 2021—while refusing to move the trial out of D.C. as the Justice Department racked up convictions in record time against January 6 defendants.

"At least one court observer noted the jury’s troubling political bias. “Six jurors had participated in liberal-leaning protests or marches, while none mentioned conservative-leaning demonstrations,” Lawfare writer Roger Parloff reported after the jury was selected. “The protests included, in two cases, ‘women’s marches’; in two cases, ‘anti-gun’ marches; and, in four cases, protests related to Black Lives Matter or George Floyd’s murder, which, as we’ll see, are of particular concern in this case. One sitting juror had a Black Lives Matter sign in her yard.”

"Public meetings held by the January 6 select committee coincided with jury selection in the case, but Kelly was unpersuaded that the committee’s work would influence a highly-partisan jury pool in Washington even as committee members singled out the Proud Boys during nighttime televised hearings." [Emphasis in the original]

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LINK

On media bias, how can investigative reporters continue look the other way as Biden/Garland trash the democratic concept that officials will honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? As Michael Goodwin, in the New York Post, May 7, pointed out: the media "serves as the [Democrat] party's echo chamber," while whatever Trump "says and does is instantly caricatured as evidence of a crime or his unfitness." (Or of his plans to lead a mass movement to overthrow democracy. See this politically-hysterical New York Times bit of deceptive writing, May 6: "After Jan. Sedition Convictions, Threats From Far-Right Remain." This example of journalistic tripe suggested that the ordinary people of America pose a far-right threat to the country.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LINK

In his May 7 column, Goodwin reported that Rep. James Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley, citing a whistleblower, learned that "the FBI has a document that links Joe Biden to a 'criminal scheme' involving 'money for policy decisions.'" (Or, in common parlance, taking bribes.)

Towards the end of his May 7 column, Goodwin noted: 'Without Joe, the influence peddling wouldn't be possible. No one would pay Hunter Biden tens millions if Joe's participation was in doubt." [Aha! So that was what Impeachment I was all about -- drawing attention away from President Trump's concern that Hunter Biden's $83 thousand-a-month Burisma deal was an improper bonanza for his father, too.]
Goodwin is hopeful that the media will not be able to ignore, indefinitely, the "drip-drip - drip about Biden's corruption." But it is difficult to imagine the anti-democracy Democrats and their media supplicants breaking ranks. Besides, was the president shrewd in choosing Kamala Harris as vice president -- see her as insurance against ouster by impeachment and Senate trial -- or by forced resignation?