The videos released and played on Fox News DID NOT play a role in any "early release" for Jake Chansely.
Al Watkins claiming that to be the case is FALSE and is Watkins to continuing to deflect blame away from himself for his horrible work.
Jake's sentence was 42 months.
The final 6 months are ALWAYS in a Halfway House by BOP police. So total custodial time was going to be 36 months.
But there are programs in BOP that allow a prisoner to earn credit on his sentence beyond "Good Time" credit.
Jake took advantage of those opportunities.
He was arrested in Jan 2021, and was detained the entire time. He served 26+ months in custody.
When I first spoke with him in Nov. 2021, I told him his release date was likely Feb. 2023.
He thought it would be early 2024.
Al Watkins never explained to him how custodial time calculations work.
Jake was released on exactly the time frame that I predicted to him, and the slight delay was only from getting some paperwork processed internal to BOP to give him credit for a program he completed.
We have known the release date for a period of time, but kept it quiet so as to not have a crowd show up at either the BOP facility or the Halfway House.
Al Watkins deserves NO CREDIT nor is he absolved of his failures while representing Jake.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For the record:
Jake is out on schedule. I told him 16 months ago in our first conversation it would be Feb. or Mar. 2023.
BOP math.
I didn't do anything extraordinary--this was always the schedule, I just understood it and could explain it to him.
He was expecting 12 more mos.
But this is why the trust level between us is solid.
I told him the truth, and I told him what would happen.
We made several decisions after long discussions.
He's exactly where we both expected he would be.
The Tucker revelations are significant but Jake can't get the time back.
Understanding the schedule, we agreed to not rush our next step. Let's get accurate info on the videos, evaluate our options, then make a plan.
I could have rushed it out and run to the cameras. But that wasn't the right choice.
Please: before you donate your hard earned money to an attorney -- including me -- after you hear a sympathetic pitch on behalf of Jan6 clients, look to see what that attorney has ACTUALLY DONE. We are 26 months into this. Make the attorney "show their work."
What clients have they represented? What motions have they filed? What good outcomes have the accomplished? How many of their clients have pled guilty under favorable terms -- sometimes that's in the client's best interest and the client knows it.
Have they taken any cases to trial? What were the results?
Have any of their clients been sentenced? What did the Govt ask for? What did the client receive?
This video begins about 1:20 seconds before where it picks up here. Sills video starts with him following Mehaffie into the tunnel, separated by about 4-5 people. While in the tunnel Sills shut it off. Then it picks up again while they are standing outside the outer doors.
Mehaffie is pounding on the L door (as you face the building). There is a second BWC video of Sgt. Bogner, who opens the interior doors and looks out. You can see Mehaffie banging on the exterior doors -- so you can marry the two videos up in time. Mehaffie then steps away.
Another person steps up with an object in his right hand, and strikes the upper left-hand corner of the glass on the exterior door. The second blow creates a hole in the glass. Another person then uses a flagpole or some other object and breaks out a bunch of glass --
You and most other reporters covering the daily events in the DC Courthouse are quite consistent in closing up your notebooks when the Govt is done with its examination of witnesses, and presentation of evidence.
This was not shown by the Govt during the Govt case.
Since that is all you pay attention to, that explains why it was "the best footage" you saw of this particular sequence of events.
So, you might want to factor that into your world view about whether you -- a member of the mainstream press -- are seeing evidence in context...
Michael Cohen wanted to be a "cooperating defendant" against Donald Trump.
Michael Cohen -- a ner-do-well political "fixer" -- wanted a meaningful role in Trump's Presidential Admin. and was told "No."
When he was charged federally, he refused to fully cooperate with the FBI
He refused to provide information about the NY TaxiCab medallion fraud scheme he was involved in with is father-in-law which was the only actual source of his "wealth" -- from his wife's family.
You can't do that as a cooperator. "In for a dime, in for a dollar."
You cannot refuse on any subject if you are asked. A cooperator does not get to define the boundaries of cooperation.
He refused, so he was indicted and he pled guilty. He tried to get a benefit from the Govt and Judge for what he had said about Trump, but both told him no.
I had an encounter with this issue just recently in a case not involving a J6 client. I learned something I didn't know--that BOP facilities read all messages sent and received by prisoners on the BOP "Corr Links" email system, including emails with their attorneys.
A BOP legal advisor told me there is no mechanism in the system to filter out communications with their attorneys. BOP staff read incoming and outgoing messages, and where appropriate they send the communications to prosecutors. This is done by non-legal BOP staff.
They have no training in how to avoid legal communications. They are told to avoid them when possible but there is no actual mechanism in the system that would protect these communications from being read or shared with law enforcement or prosecutors.