Post

More from @julie_kelly2

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Oct 22

After a nearly 11-month delay, the DC appellate court finally issued its ruling on Couy Griffin appeal of common J6 misdemeanor. Despite clear consensus during oral arguments 1752 charge required foreknowledge of USSS protectee, the 2 Dem judges affirmed conviction. Trump appointee Greg Katsas, who authored the key dissent that led to SCOTUS overturing 1512c2, again dissented.

Griffin never entered the building. So let's understand what this ruling means--a US citizen cannot protest on government grounds paid for by taxpayers if someone in Secret Service protection is somewhere on the premises. (Pence had been evacuated to an underground garage by this point.)

Absolutely outrageous decision again demonstrating a rigged system controlled by Democrats in our nation's capital to set dangerous precedents for DOJ and judges to continue distorting laws to criminalize political dissent.

As I've noted here repeatedly--oral arguments, where Judge Pillard clearly conveyed deep skepticism as to how DOJ applied 1752, were held a week before SCOTUS granted cert in Fischer.

The announcement signaled the court might overturn DOJ's most common felony.

So the Dem-led DC appellate court slow walked this decision for more than 10 months. And now 2 weeks before Election Day, DC circuit (led by Obama judge) publishes the opinion upholding Griffin's conviction.

Keep in mind-- the "restricted' area was not cordoned off by Secret Service but by Capitol Police (and a weak barrier at that). The snow fencing was not related to Jan 6 protest but to protect inaugural set up.

So DOJ and Dem judges took a statute intended to "better protect the President and other national leaders from assassination, kidnapping, and assault" and used it against Americans protesting on federal property OUTSIDE the building.

Read it and weep:

Greg Katsas (Trump) in his dissent raised the very same question that Judge Pillard (Obama) did during oral arguments: a concern innocent people walking on "restricted grounds" could be prosecuted under 1752, which the DOJ conceded was true.

Read 4 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Oct 1

Today by noon ET, Donald Trump's lawyers will file under seal objections to proposed redactions in Jack Smith's novel (that's being nice) "Motion for Immunity Determinations" currently under seal as well.

Unlike Smith's position in FLA docs case--where DOJ wanted to keep basically all discovery including grand jury testimony and other records under seal over unsubstantiated fears of "witness" intimidation--Jack Smith now is prepared to post what he otherwise refers to as "sensitive" material in an effort to weaponize J6 against Trump as Americans start to vote.

Judge Aileen Cannon routinely denied Smith's broad sealing requests. Here she is in April 2024:

In DC J6 case, Smith is ready to post grand jury testimony, FBI 302s, etc--records he wanted sealed in the FLA case when Trump.

Judge Cannon ultimately ruled that some evidence could be posted with names, identifying info mostly redacted.

Here was Smith in FLA in Feb 2024:

Here is Jack Smith's top prosecutor explaining to Judge Chutkan last month what this massive motion will entail. DOJ using SCOTUS immunity ruling to justify its new stance about sealing discovery and protecting witnesses.

Does anyone believe Jack Smith will fight to keep this stuff redacted? NO. What Smith just set up is a redaction fight where Trump looks like the one wanting to keep evidence under wraps.

And as far as not including names of witnesses--between the indictment, the J6 committee report, and media coverage--it will take about 6 seconds to figure out who said what to investigators.

Read 4 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Sep 25

Jim Jordan opens Weaponization committee hearing today with DOJ IG Michael Horowitz by noting the FBI has not yet found the J6 pipe bomber.

The committee, Jordan notes, is investigating the "double standards" at the "Biden/Harris DOJ."

LOL major dbag Glenn Kirschner a witness in weaponization committee. Bragging about his prosecutorial record--he has been tip of the spear in attempted character assassination and harassment of Judge Aileen Cannon.

Kirschner now talking about Project 2025 and bringing up Jeff Clark being charged in Georgia. LOL Kirschner claims Project 2025 threatens the "independence and apolitical work" of the DOJ.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I hope someone on @Weaponization asks Kirschner about his coordinated targeting of Cannon.

It got so bad that the 11th Circuit stopped accepting complaints that Kirschner publicly helped organize

GeneralOrder2024-J.pdf ()uscourts.gov

Read 4 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Sep 24

In the most sneering tone possible, Tanya Chutkan as predicted grants Jack Smith motion to file a gargantuan 180-page “brief” in Trump’s J6 case.

Chutkan HERSELF described Smith's proposed brief explaining why DOJ believes the new indictment is not covered by presidential immunity as "irregular" and outside the "ordinary course" of court procedure.

She again says the election is of no concern to her--which is bullshit

It is this type of glibness and quite frankly, laziness, that got Chutkan smacked down by SCOTUS. Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly criticized Chutkan for her lack of fact finding and due diligence before hastily issuing her Dec 2023 denying all forms of presidential immunity for Trump in the J6 case.

Chutkan now is saying--ok SCOTUS you want a "careful" assessment of immunity in existing indictment? Fine--I will let Jack Smith do it first.

Read 4 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Sep 19

And so it begins.

As I have reported, DC US Attorney Matt Graves is using a new charge in the J6 prosecution to work around SCOTUS decision in Fischer, which overturned how DOJ applied 1512(c)(2).

Yesterday, Graves filed a superseding indictment against a California woman on 18 USC 372, "conspiracy to impede officers."

To my knowledge, this charge has not been brought in the nearly 4-year criminal prosecution of J6ers. (If it has, it applied only to a handful.)

Graves is now referring to elected members of Congress as "officers."

It's hard to overemphasize how cynical, defiant, and deceptive this is.

Graves indicted Christina Kelso on 1512(c)(2) on 5/15/24--ONE MONTH AFTER SCOTUS ORAL ARGUMENTS IN FISCHER.

Everyone knew SCOTUS would reverse DOJ but Graves didn't care. In a solid stick in the eye to the court, Graves continued to bring the obstruction felony.

So now Graves is (1) dismissing the count but asking for same prison sentence in existing cases or (2) filing superseding indictment to drop 1512c2 but add another felony in its place.

To put this in perspective--Graves brought the 372 charge in high profile cases such as Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

He is now using it against a 46-year-old woman who never went inside the building, is not accused of assaulting police, or destroying property.

Read 5 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Sep 17

Getting up to speed on this batshit crazy lawsuit @nataliegwinters posted earlier today.

A Michigan "welfare rights" organization, 3 black Michigan voters, and NAACP filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump and RNC in WASHINGTON DC in Nov 2020 claiming Trump/RNC violated the Voting Rights Act and Ku Klux Klan act by attempting to uncover election fraud.

Of course the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Trump-hating DC federal court. It was initially given to Judge Emmet Sullivan--he went on senior status so it was transferred to Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, in Feb 2023.

Then MAGICALLY--at the same time she was handling Jack Smith's J6 indictment and addressing unprecedented questions of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution--the case was reassigned to Judge Tanya Chutkan.

The courts claimed Reyes had a "conflict" but it took Reyes 8 months to mention it?

Sounds legit

Sullivan refused to toss the case out of DC.

The lawsuit is rife with allegations that are now covered by presidential immunity per SCOTUS. But that isn't stopping the defendants or Judge Chutkan from advancing the case.

When the issue of presidential immunity was raised during a Nov 2023 hearing on the lawsuit, Chutkan said the immunity matter would be "at least resolved in the lower courts shortly."

She issued her order denying immunity one week later.

Of course she was overturned by SCOTUS on July 1; Chief Justice Roberts criticized Chutkan for her hasty handling of the unprecedented issue.

She knew at this point she planned to deny Trump's immunity claims from criminal prosecution thereby greenlighting (at least temporarily) the civil suit.

So after SCOTUS opinion on immunity, the Michigan plaintiffs came back to court asking Chutkan to allow them to file a THIRD amended complaint.

They essentially want Chutkan to approve any efforts by Trump campaign and/or RNC to LAWFULLY investigate voting fraud.

Chutkan has not ruled on a Jan 2023 motion by Trump to dismiss the case.

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @julie_kelly2

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!