In an effort to stem a flood of requests by J6ers serving time for 1512c2, the obstruction count pending before SCOTUS, DOJ and DC US Atty Matthew Graves now warn if it’s reversed and those convicted seek reduced or vacated prison sentence, the govt will ask for MORE time:
This is why exuberance over recent appellate court ruling overturning a sentencing enhancement for 1512c2 was unwarranted. DOJ and judges have plenty of options to extend prison time—either based on offense or “upward departures.”
Make no mistake—this is Graves’ way of threatening J6ers sentenced for DOJ unlawful use of 1512c2: if you ask for release or reduced sentence based on SCOTUS’ likely reversal of obstruction count, we’ll figure out a way to make you serve MORE time.
And most DC judges will be only too happy to comply:
The judge in this cited case—former chief judge Beryl Howell, the source of the rot in DC legal/judicial system—recently acknowledged the forthcoming tsunami of court motions if 1512c2 is reversed this summer.
She suggested the new enhancements also cited in the screenshot above. They will not accept defeat on 1512c2—in fact, they will instead punish those seeking justified relief.
Shut down this court and US Atty office.
So to recap: if a J6er is in prison now on 1512c2 and other offenses (mostly misdemeanors) and asks for release, DOJ will respond with request for consecutive (not concurrent) sentences and enhancements where applicable on other offenses.
For now, those seeking release under Brock (the appellate order reversing one enhancement), DOJ will respond with a request for other enhancements.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: Judge Cannon continues to squeeze DOJ to define the vague terms in the Espionage Act. She just ordered Jack Smith and Team Trump to file proposed jury instructions by April 2 on how jurors should interpret "unauthorized possession" of national defense files.
She attempted to get an answer on this element last week...
Cannon repeatedly asked prosecutors to explain which official and/or agency determines "unauthorized possession" of a document. DOJ admitted NARA has no law enforcement role in assessing who--esp a former president or VP--is keeping a record without authority.
Plenty of debate about presidential v personal.
Keep in mind as she mentions Presidential Records Act--she has not yet ruled on Trump's motion to dismiss based on protections of the PRA. I don't know if she is pressing DOJ for this particular jury instruction to help her decide on the motion?
She also hasn't set a hearing on the pending motion to dismiss case on selective prosecution--perhaps DOJs jury instructions/verdict form will help animate her thinking on that matter, too.
It's extremely early to ask for preliminary jury instructions considering a new trial date hasn't been set.
Given her focus on the vague terms of the Espionage Act--including when the taking of papers represents a crime (the day after Trump left office)--and DOJ's unsatisfactory answers, this is one way to force DOJ to define the terms on paper and possibly defend them during a hearing.
"The Court finds that the evidence did not establish the District Attorney’s receipt of a material financial benefit as a result of her decision to hire and engage in a romantic relationship with Wade. This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing."
"Even after considering the proffered cellphone testimony from Defendant Trump, along with the entirety of the other evidence, neither side was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the relationship evolved into a romantic one."
McAfee gave Willis so many outs here including her racist screed at church:
"The District Attorney ascribed the effort as motivated by 'playing the race card.' She went on to frequently refer to SADA Wade as the 'black man' while her other unchallenged SADAs were labeled 'one white woman' and 'one white man.'
The effect of this speech was to cast racial aspersions at an indicted Defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion. However, the speech did not specifically mention any Defendant by name."
NEW: From FLA courthouse in Trump's classified documents case with a prediction.
Robert Hur report and testimony is the biggest elephant in the room. The term "arbitrary enforcement" used frequently by both the defense and Judge Aileen Cannon.
Cannon hammered the fact no former president or vice president has been charged under Espionage Act for taking and keeping classified records including national defense information--which represents 32 counts against Trump in Jack Smith's indictment.
Prediction: Cannon won't dismiss the case based on the motions debated today--vagueness of Espionage Act and protection under the Presidential Records Act.
But it's very likely she will dismiss the case based on selective prosecution, a motion still pending before her.
Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the "crime" of willful retention of national defense information begins--she noted the date in Jack Smith's indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act.
January 20, 2021, the day he left office
Jay Bratt, representing special counsel office, confirmed the "crime" began that day because as a former president, he was entitled to retain the documents.
Cannon again asked for historical precedent as to when a former president or vice president faced charges for similar conduct. Bratt of course said there is none.
She added "vice president" on numerous occasions for a reason--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all skated on criminal charges. Trump is the only one who has not.
Cannon: "Arbitrary enforcement...is featuring in this case."
Cannon also addressed the "foreseeability" as to Trump's awareness he was committing a crime by keeping classified/national defense information.
"Given the constellation of what happened before"--meaning no criminal prosecution of former presidents including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and vice presidents--Cannon suggested Trump could have reasonably expected he was in the clear.
Now I understand why more than 3 years later, the FBI arrested the individual who shot a pistol in the air on January 6--even though NBC News and Sedition Hunters had the guy identified long ago.
Here's why--Trump posted this during SOTU on Thursday. Dude was arrested Friday
We are supposed to believe the FBI let this troubled homeless guy WHO STABBED SOMEONE TO DEATH in July 2021 but faced no charges then got arrested TWO MORE TIMES after that he committed that murder IS A BIG TRUMP SUPPORTER the FBI just couldn't get their hands on until this week?
Banuelos was protected for more than 3 years as he committed murder and other assaults. He also has a criminal record in 2 states.
During his arrests for post-J6 crimes, he told police about his involvement in Jan 6. Law enforcement knew, the media knew, Sedition Hunters knew.
We now are supposed to believe this criminal wasn't acting on behalf of some bad actor (FBI) on J6 but went as a TRUMP SUPPORTER who was let off the hook until now?
Pour one out for the list of self-important "former officials who worked in the last six Republican administrations, senior officials in the White House and Department of Justice" who filed amici briefs in CO SC case including @gtconway3d @judgeluttig @RosenzweigP
ACB doesn't like the tone of the written opinion. She thinks the role of the court is to moderate the political temperature of the country? Um no that's not your job last time we checked...