DOJ shattered that norm. I've defended the FBI on this practice because once a Judge issues and arrest warrant, individual FBI agents do not have the discretion to decide to "not arrest."
This is a DOJ -- PROSECUTOR -- issue, not an FBI issue.
But the hysteria over Tyler Bensch and the four people he's alleged to have been with -- and what they did -- is comical.
I KNOW better than you or any reporter what the evidence shows happened inside that tunnel starting at 2:32.
The inanity of the WaPo story and your Tweets are so irritating that I think I'm going to publish a detailed Substack story on the EXACT timeline and what went on. It was all laid out in U.S. v. McCaughey, et. al., last Aug. and Sept.
A lot went on in the tunnel between 2:42 and 3:30. But I'd cut up on cross the FBI agent who signed the affidavit for Bensch because much of what is in that affidavit is out of context and hyperbolic -- it is not strictly factual.
You know why?
Because he didn't write it.
It was written by a prosecutor and given to the Agent to sign.
This is exactly the circumstance that has contributed to acquittals at trial in a few cases -- the prosecutors overplay the facts in individual instances and can't back them up in court.
If they were concerned about the destruction of evidence on the GoPro, solve that problem with a search warrant. It doesn't mean you take the defendant into custody at gun point, handcuff them and put them in jail until they see a judge.
At least it never did before Biden's DOJ
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, DOJ made a database of videos available to defense attorneys in filed cases.
BUT ...
DOJ could only put into the database what Congress gave DOJ.
If Congress/Pelosi held back video then DOJ would not have it to put in the database.
All videos from body worn cameras of USCP and CCTV are the property of Congress, not DOJ.
That is a separation of powers issue.
Whether DOJ was obligated by Brady to get videos from Congress was litigated, and Judges held that DOJ didn't have any way to force Congress to produce videos it didn't want to produce, even if they were Brady material.
My client, Jake Chansley, was a big part of Tucker's first big rollout of video tonight.
There is a story beyond just the fact that the Govt had video Jake's attorney never looked at.
Jake is set to be released from custody soon.
He's going to tell his story.
But Jake has also committed himself to helping me raise money so I can get into cases for J6 defendants earlier than I was able to get into his.
I've spend 20 or more hours talking to Jake by phone.
He's a very interesting young man and I look forward to meeting him in person.
It is quite fortuitous that these videos are coming out around the same time as he might first be able to address them himself.
She retired out of disgust for what the Bureau became in the second half of her career.
She's the daughter of a 35 year Air Force Veteran who was a pilot in the Pacific in WWII.
She's more conservative than I am -- really.
But @lauraloomer is a complete nut-job fraud and @CaliKidJMP is incompetent.
The NCLU is a complete grift that accomplishes nothing of value with the money people waste when they contribute.
I'm informed that Loomer receives a % of every dollar raised -- do donors know that?
So -- writing over on Substack (Shipwreckedcrew@substack or something like that) I announced that I'm going to resume publishing articles but the site will now be by subscription. The funds generated will go to my J6 defense work.
Fundraising on the GiveSendGo site has slowed significantly since the first of the year. The account balance has steadily declined as my expenses being in trial almost continually since Thanksgiving have taken their toll.
A monthly base of subscriber income will make the ups and downs of online fundraising a bit easier to navigate. I hate spending this much time on making sure the bills get paid, but the alternative is to do less J6 defense work.
Among Phil Mickelson's big complaints before leading players to the LIV Tour was 1) purse sizes, 2) having cuts in events that sent some players home with nothing, and 3) not having "name and likeness" rights to video of themselves during PGA events for promotional purposes.
Re purse sizes, the PGA's claim was the millions they give away to local charities where events are held took money away from purses. Mickelson's point was "We all give to charities from our earnings. Don't hold down purses when players do it themselves. Then we are giving twice"
Smaller fields with no cut: Many don't realize that under prior rules, players who missed the cut get nothing. They incur the expenses of traveling and playing, but for them it is a money-losing weekend. It is the only "pro" sport where there is a risk of not getting paid.
I've set my account to private again for a poll -- want to limit answers to followers.
I've been fundraising to support my J6 legal efforts for about 10 months. The success tends to ebb and flow.
Unfortunately, the costs of the work don't ebb and flow in the same fashion.
Contributions have slowed some in 2023. I'm not sure what propelled some very good fundraising periods in 2022, and it may be nothing more than folks who see the messages have already given so the potential new donor pool is just shrinking as time passes.
One stream of revenue I have not pursued is making my Substack subscription based. The reason for not doing so is I haven't written on Substack for almost a year.
The reason I stopped was I didn't want to take time away from working on J6 legal cases when I was taking them on.