Thread by @julie_kelly2

Ok 6th appellate court had wrong link for oral arguments in Fox/Croft Whitmer fednapping hoax.

Croft atty up 1st. He will discuss court's decision to prevent jury from seeing hundreds of incriminating comms btw FBI handlers and informants that demonstrated the entrapment scheme

Croft atty: "The judge really put the bar down on that."(There were roughly 200+ messages the defense wanted to enter into evidence. Judge said no.)

Croft points to appellate court ruling that supports disclosure of those messages to jury. "It is made for this case, where entrapment is so critical where you do have communication between govt agents."

2 Trump, one Biden judge on the panel btw.

Judge asks which messages should have been admitted. "All 3 informants?" Referring to Dan Chappel, Steve Robeson, and Jenny Plunk.

"Yes your honor."

Chappel and Robeson were primarily responsible for luring the targets into the trap, paying for food/booze/lodging, scheduling "training" camps and most importantly, organizing the "reconnaissance" trip to Whitmer's summer cottage in Sept 2020.

One judge (who apparently didn't read brief) compares the informants to a drug dealer off the street.

Croft atty points to informants' deep role, Chappel paid $50k (it was more) and notes 3,500 texts btw Chappel and his FBI handler, Jayson Chambers.

One was Chambers telling Chappel to orchestrate another fednapping plot in VA against Ralph Northam. "Mission is to kill the governor specifically," Chambers advised Chappel. This was to entrap a 70-year-old disabled Vietnam vet.

Judge Jonker (the trial judge) denied admitting almost all of those texts into evidence.

Croft: "This would have made the difference" btw a guilty and not guilty verdict.

Fox atty up now. He will discuss juror misconduct and Judge Jonker's refusal to hold a hearing to investigate jury misconduct.

This is related to accusations one juror told his co-workers he hoped to get on the jury after he received jury summons and wanted to convict Croft and Fox.

The juror also reportedly was tied to BLM. He became the foreman.

Jonker conducted in-chambers interview with juror, who denied accusations. Jonker then denied motion to hold "Remmer" hearing to involve defense attorneys

It does not appear that appellate attorneys will discuss Jonker's rare decision to set a timer on testimony of a key government witness--one of the co-defendants who pleaded guilty.

Jonker, GWB appointee, clearly had his thumb on the scale to help DOJ get a conviction.

Judge: If we agree with you on the Remmer hearing, what's the remedy?

Atty: A new trial

Now up--Nils Kessler, US Atty who prosecuted case.

Judge directs Kessler to "spend your time on hearsay" claims (which relates to messages denied to jury.) Oh.

Kessler argues concealed messages were irrelevant bc the jury still found Fox and Croft were "predisposed" to commit the fednapping.

Judge: "Isn't that not quite, right? The case law suggests it's a sliding scale. The more you are induced, the less predisposed you need to be. They are related, they're not separate."

BINGO.

Kessler explains that inducement requires "excessive pressure, repeated solicitation..."

Judge Larsen (Trump) interrupts: "But that's their point...the jury never heard all these statement, repeated pressure, that if they would have come in, they would have seen...this is their argument...the government informants pounding on them, 'make a plan, make a plan, you're just sitting around, you're all talk no action, make a plan.' Surely that's relevant?"

Kessler: "Theoretically, yes." LOL

Larsen and Kessler getting into it.

Larsen: "Our case law says things like encouragement, friendship." (This was KEY to Chappel entrapping Fox, whom he considered a father figure. Something like 10,000 messages btw Chappel and Fox.)

Nessler: It has to be more than friendship.

Larsen: That's not what the case law says.

Even the Biden judge (Davis) asks about judge's "blanket" denial of messages. (I will post separately.)

Now Judge Readler (Trump) is reading aloud two of the messages from FBI informants not allowed into evidence.

"There's a lot of stuff about 'we need to keep moving, we need to keep the plan going, come on guys," and "we are running out of time."

Kessler, whose mouth is becoming increasingly dry, claims those plans came from Adam Fox--the broke guy who lived in the basement of vacuum repair shop in Grand Rapids with no running water or toilet.

Chappel on at least 4 occasions offered Fox a credit card with a $5k limit (courtesy of the FBI) Fox said no.

OOF.

Larsen and Kessler at it again. Kessler claims Jonker's decision to conceal messages from informants that didn't specifically regurgitate what an FBI agent said is consistent with a ruling in their circuit.

Larsen: Oh come on, really?

She says she reads the texts btw informants and agents as "we need to make a plan."

Judge Readler asks who was responsible for attempting to execute the "plan" before Election Day over fears Whitmer might be appointed to Biden cabinet and get Secret Service protection.

Kessler claims one of the cooperating witnesses did it. This is provably FALSE.

Appellate atty back up. He is asked about Nessler's claim a co-defendant who pleaded guilty brought up the Secret Service matter.

Atty says he doesn't know (not good) but it demonstrates an interest in who established the timeline which resulted in Oct 2020 arrest.

Atty tells judges the missing messages "highlights the conduct of the government agents" and represent the difference between acquittal and conviction.

"It was going on relentlessly."

"There's got to be fairness and there wasn't here. I think this case needs to be reversed and sent back for a new trial for that reason."

2nd atty addresses judge Q about who brought up timing related to Whitmer possible cabinet nomination.

He points to evidence proving Dan Chappel, the lead informant, raised the pre-election date.

I'm thinking it's probably not a good idea for a DOJ atty to lie to an appellate court?