Thread by @DempseyTwo

Listing in. One of the defendants attorneys argued they were exercising their 1st amendment rights. This was done as the judge was focused on a particular charge in the indictment (1512 c2). She may have just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory of having a count thrown out.

https://twitter.com/bennybryant17/status/1435602472689614851

Judge Mehta just said, let’s not pretend these were picketers.
Interesting to hear the judges thinking on this count. 1512c2 he says, pertains to shredding documents, that wasn’t what happened here.

It sounds like Judge Mehta wants to know why the Government chose certain statutes to bring about Obstruction charges, that weren’t actually charges of obstruction (i.e 18usc 1503, 1505).

It seemed like some of the charges were ‘place holders’ for arrests, but superseding indictments would be coming for more serious charges as evidence begins to emerge. If the Judge dismisses charges in the indictment, be careful not to get sucked into misinformation about it.

There are in fact other charges that would remain in play. And superseding indictments could come. This all shows that even though we saw what we saw, the laws violated need to be precise in the court room and may not fit what we see. It’s a protection of due process.

So when they yell about due process not being followed, it isn’t true. They are spending a ton of time hammering out if the counts are correct. Fascinating.

Regarding wether or not there should be a change in venue, Judge Mehta tells Defense attorney his argument ‘looks less like a legal brief, more something on a blog.’ The Lawyer argued the ‘people of DC despise traditional American values.’ Therefore they should not be jurors.

Attorney says his client is being painted as a white nationalist, racist and it is frustrating to his client. He blames the Attorney General, the President and the media for portraying his client in a negative light.

The venue will not be changed based on this argument, folks.

Judge Mehta continues admonishments, he tells Attorney Hernandez ‘deadlines matter’. He says you and I have a history. He tells her not to file 30 page briefs the night before the hearing again. Get them in timely. She is interrupted when she tries to contradict the judge.

After some administrative discussion about changes to policies at the jail regarding remote hearings, today’s arguments come to a close. Judge Mehta sets a status conference for Sept 16 at 11am.
Hearing is over.