Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Defendant Moves to Dismiss Jan. 6 Case Based on Newly Disclosed Footage, FBI Testimony

The Left tried to make a mountain out of a molehill where the Jan. 6 events were concerned. But now that more of the evidence has come out, the accusations are revealed as a typical Leftist pack of lies

A defendant in the Proud Boys trial over Jan. 6, 2021, charges moved on March 9 to dismiss the case, after some footage from the day of the breach was shown for the first time.

Dominic Pezzola is one of the Proud Boys members on trial for obstruction of an official proceeding and other charges. The newly disclosed footage, shown on Fox News this week, “is plainly exculpatory,” Pezzola’s lawyers said in the new motion.

“It establishes that the Senate chamber was never violently breached, and—in fact—was treated respectfully by January 6 protestors,” the motion reads.

Among the clips Fox’s Tucker Carlson broadcast was one of Jacob Chansley, another defendant who’s serving a jail sentence after pleading guilty, walking around accompanied by police officers. The officers didn’t stop Chansley and even tried to open doors for him.

He eventually made it into the Senate chamber, where he and others later knelt and prayed. Chansley, during the prayer, gave thanks to the officers for “letting us into the building.”

Pezzola also entered the Capitol, and prosecutors have argued that he and others being inside forced Congress, which was certifying electoral votes from the 2020 election, to go into recess.

However, the new footage shows that members “could have continued proceedings,” Pezzola’s attorneys said.

“It was not Pezzola or codefendants who caused the Congress to recess,” the attorneys said. “Congress interrupted its own proceedings.”

The lawyers are asking U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee overseeing the case, to dismiss it. He’s asked in the motion to declare a mistrial if he rejects that request.

Prosecutors must not withhold evidence that can be exculpatory. The rule was crystallized in Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court decision.

“Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution,” the decision states.

Zachary Rehl, another Proud Boys defendant, requested all information regarding Congress going into recess on Jan. 6, 2021, in late 2021.

“While Brady obligations do not extend to the entirety of the government, they do include investigative agencies or agencies closely related who knew or should have known that information would be material to a prosecution arising from their direct involvement. Here the U.S. Capitol Police are directly related and fully aware of the events of January 6, 2021,” lawyers for the defendants said.

They cited previous court decisions, including one that found that a prosecutor “has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police.”

“We will respond through the court,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia told The Epoch Times via email.

The U.S. Capitol Police didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Attorney Albert Watkins, who represented Chansley, said on Fox on March 8 that the footage the media outlet aired this week hadn’t been provided to him.

“The government knew that Jake had walked around with all of these police officers. They had that video footage. I didn’t get it. It wasn’t disclosed to me. It wasn’t provided to me,” Watkins said. “They had a duty, an absolute duty, with zero discretion to provide it to me so I could share it with my client.”

Another development supports a dismissal, according to the new motion. FBI special agent Nicole Miller is being accused of hiding a tab in a spreadsheet that showed some of her emails.

Miller was testifying on March 8 when Nick Smith, a lawyer representing Proud Boys member Ethan Nordean, revealed the secret tab, leaving more than one thousand hidden rows of messages, Nordean’s attorneys said in a separate filing.

Miller wrote in one email, “My boss assigned me 338 items of evidence i [sic] have to destroy.”

In another, an agent wrote to Miller that she should go into a confidential human source report and “edit out” that an agent was present, according to the filing.

The hidden emails show that Miller “admitted fabricating evidence and following orders to destroy hundreds of items of evidence,” Pezzola’s lawyers said. “If justice means anything, it requires this case to be dismissed.”

The FBI declined to comment.

Erik Kenerson, an assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case, said in court on March 8 that even if there were missing messages, the defense could have asked the government to produce them. He said prosecutors decide which messages to provide to the defense, so it wasn’t appropriate to imply that the agent hid them.


What Andrew Tate teaches us

Catrina Prager

No, this is not an essay in defense of Tate. Nor is it denunciation. It’s an analysis of what his rise means for our society, and to an extent, how we can prevent others in his image from dominating our virtual space in the future.

Personally, I think Tate had some good points, but also some terrible ones. Obviously, there are those who lean quite heavily toward either side. According to CNET, Andrew Tate’s official @cobratate Instagram account boasted 4.5 million followers, with more than 600,000 on YouTube (before being taken down). Those are big numbers.

So the question we should be asking is, why did 4.5 million people (and countless more non-followers) relate so heavily with Tate’s “teachings”?

A sizable chunk of his following can be surely attributed to money-hungry youth. In a sense, Tate rose to be an “idol” for many young men because he represented what they wanted to have. Tate’s ethos seemed to be “look at all this luxury”, and that’s not new. It’s been the driving principle of tabloids and celebrity press for generations. We’re enthralled by the bling, and automatically assume it lends one authority.

However, it wasn’t Tate’s luxurious fast-cars-pretty-women lifestyle that sparked controversy. It was his concept of masculinity.

Tate rang the alarm for the masculine man.

It’s not me saying it. It’s almost five million people. It’s the countless fan pages abounding on the Internet. While still in good standing, Tate was a big proponent for more clearly defined gender roles. He embodied the persona of a manly man. Muscular and authoritative. Strong and confident in his masculinity.

And I believe that’s what his followers responded to most keenly. After all, if all he’d been was an entrepreneur/success guru, I don’t think Tate would’ve had such roaring success. There are simply too many of those, already.

But he drew an audience by reminding us of previous generations, and people seemingly liked what he had to say.

What the Tate critics get wrong

This is the part where every Tate-hating keyboard warrior goes “oh, but he only attracted the toxic, abusive, sexist men”. That’s a simple-minded take, though, and we should be aiming toward a more nuanced discourse.

I’m sure some of Tate’s followers were sexist assholes. It’s highly likely. Except not all of them could have been. And even beyond those 4.5M, many more non-followers only agreed with some of Tate’s reasoning. In other words, some resonated with his understanding of the “manly man”, without thinking women were in some way inferior.

And that’s what we need to take into account. In a society starved of traditional gender roles, particularly one in which old-school masculine men are vilified and ostracized, we risk breeding monsters.

If masculinity had been the evil, destructive force that modern voices claim it is, then people like Tate wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Obviously. In modern rhetoric, one can hardly speak the word masculinity without the rider ‘toxic’. It has become an evil, cruel thing that everyone will be better off without. Including the men.

Not to mention the women.

Yet it seems both men and women resonated with Tate’s idea of the more traditional, masculine man, for some reason. Were they brainwashed? Blind to the toxicity of manliness? Or were they driven toward an extreme figure like Andrew Tate by an equally extreme and polarizing society?

Andrew Tate is why we need to reintroduce and decriminalize masculinity in our world. Clearly, there’s a need for it. Like a petulant, recalcitrant adolescent, the modern Western world tends to cast off any and every thing the past has to teach us. Very rarely does it stop to consider that maybe our species developed in a certain way for evolutionary purposes, and not just for the love of patriarchy.

Right now, the argument pro-masculinity has been deceptively reduced to “oh, you support wife beaters, and rapists, do you?”. But it’s naive, not to mention offensive, to assume that’s all masculine men are. For a very long time, women have taken great offense at being reduced to dishwashers, and homemakers. For good reason. We have so much more to give, our personalities infinitely more nuanced than those two reductive, discriminating terms.

Why, then, knowing this struggle and this hurt, are we so keen on subjecting the men to the same? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. It’s an old phrase, so of course, we’ve thrown that out the window as well.

Except I’d alter it.

An eye for an eye makes the world turn to extremist, unhelpful social figures, like Tate. It might not have the same ring, but it’s true. Our youth doesn’t need people like Tate. What it does need is good masculine role models who strive to benefit the community.

And feminine models. And models that say it’s okay to be a manlier girl or a more effeminate man. That’s what the 21st century was supposed to be about, showing people it’s okay to be a bunch of things. It seems so far, we’ve only traded one oppressed group for another. It doesn’t take a historian to see that didn’t turn out so great the last time. For anyone.

The reason Andrew Tate was so wildly successful was that he was not a nice man. But guess what, we alienated and derided all the nice manly men. We shamed them and bullied them until only the nastier ones like Tate could brave the vitriol. We still have time to turn the 21st century around. Though not as much as we might like to think.

Even now, somewhere out there, a new Andrew Tate is amassing followers. Think about it.


Democrats Are Clearly Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public

It’s a strange time in the United States, where one political party is actively engaged in a series of actions to keep as many people as possible ignorant. Ignorant not of one particular event, study, or story, but of so many topics that reality itself” is what they’re ultimately attempting to obscure. It’s evil, honestly, and it begs the question "What are Democrats so afraid of?” The only answer is simple: an informed public.

Communists in the old Soviet Union were terrified that their citizens would discover how well people in the free west were living. There were no bread lines, there were options – lots of options, for everything. This reality worried the communist leadership and would have confused their subjects, much like Bernie Sanders in 2015 lamented the idea that there were too many choices for deodorant and shoes. “You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” he famously said.

The great thing about capitalism is you can have both choices and charity. Options matter, and an educated public, free from government tyranny, make choices about those options that is best for them rather than a faceless bureaucrat thousands of miles away imposing what they think is best for you.

The only way that second prospect gains any traction is ignorance. Ignorance of history and how that model has failed every time it’s been tried, and ignorance of information where people are kept in the dark about reality and, therefore, draw manipulated and pre-selected conclusions and act accordingly. This is where Democrats live.

I’ve known Tucker Carlson since we met back in 2008, and I never noticed the horns. Granted, I’ve never touched his head, but next time I see him I will pat it down since I need to know if I’m hanging out with the Devil, as I’ve been told by Democrats, and, while it would be awkward to run my hands through his hair, it beats patting his ass to check for a tail.

What was his sin? Providing more information to the American public on something Democrats do not want us to have more information on: January 6th. He played more video, un-Democrat-approved video, of people in the Capitol building. He exposed truth that contradicted what Democrats have gotten so much political mileage out of, thereby exposing them as liars, both by commission and omission.

You’d think this would be a big story – Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th committee manipulated the public, weaponizing Congress and its subpoena power to influence an election. The Democrats were Putin without invading Ukraine.

Nope. The media – the people who throw out their shoulders patting themselves on the back over their “speaking ‘truth’ to power” tramp-stamp tattoo – had no interest.

Rather than demanding answers from Democrats, who so obviously lied that even Stevie Wonder could see it, the press-credentialed class were incredulous toward Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy for releasing the footage. Journalists upset over the public gaining access to more information, which used to be what they lived for. No questions for any member of the committee, Pelosi, or prosecutors who put a guy away for 4 years claiming he was some sort of violent ringleader, when new footage proved he was escorted by police alone and confronted exactly no one. Cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is a figure worthy of sympathy and support – hell, he’d have a show on MSNBC right now if he were out of prison – but Jacob Chansley needs to spend every second of his sentence in prison because he dressed weird and upset Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin.

To call the press the flying monkey army of the DNC is to insult fictional flying monkeys.

But it’s not just January 6th the left is circling the wagons to keep people ignorant of, it’s everything. Not a single Democrat asked any serious questions designed to gain information about the origins of COVID at a hearing this week. Those who bothered to show up did all they could to protect Tony Fauci’s reputation. Not a single Democrat expressed any concern for government bureaucrats pressuring social media companies to censor American citizens because they found what they were saying to be inconvenient or wrong. None gave a damn about the express violations of the First Amendment, not one.

It’s not that they do not care – indifference isn’t nefarious, and what Democrats are doing is evil – it’s that they benefit from the lies and ignorance. Most of the left-wing attacks on Tucker and conservative media aren’t on substance – Democrats don’t engage in substantive arguments, they simply dismiss with contempt and move on, preaching only their ignorant choir – they are designed to prevent people from consuming unapproved information. They couch it as “We watch conservative media so you don’t have to” but it’s really “We watch conservative media and lie about it in the hope you never do it yourself.”

Make up your own damn mind. I encourage you to flip on MSNBC every once in a while, if only to keep up with what the enemy is doing. Like visiting a zoo when you’re likely never going to run the risk of being trampled by an elephant, you should at least know what one looks like and is capable of. And when it comes to politics, Democrats are capable of anything. There is no bottom for them, no line they won’t cross. And the only way that works is with an ignorant public. Explains the schools in every left-wing stronghold in the country, doesn’t it?


Our Christophobic Ruling Caste

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley last week persistently questioned Attorney General Merrick Garland about the FBI’s over-reaction last September in its heavily armed arrest of pro-life Catholic Mark Houck at his home––for an alleged assault that local law enforcement had already declined to prosecute. Houck was tried, and a jury acquitted him in just an hour.

For citizens of faith, the raid and trial demonstrate how many “public servants” in our federal agencies have an animus against Christians, a peculiarity given that the DOJ and other agencies are so vigorous in protecting Muslims from alleged Islamophobic persecution. Christophobia, on the other hand, apparently is okay, and Christians’ First Amendment rights can be violated to serve partisan political agendas.

Once again, the self-styled “brights,” the technocratic, progressive ruling elite who “follow the science,” are abusing their power to intimidate and marginalize Christians while violating their 1st and 14th Amendment rights in order to discredit Christianity, long a threat to the technocracy and its authority.

The Houck case is not an outlier in the Feds’ sorry record of targeting Christians. In January there surfaced an FBI field office’s report called “Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities,” which was disavowed only after an FBI whistleblower exposed it.

Or consider the FBI’s double standards in pursuing attacks on reproductive services offices, which are violations of the FACE Act used to charge Houck. According to the Heritage Foundation, “The DOJ charged 26 pro-life activists with FACE Act violations in 2022 alone, but did not charge a single pro-abortion activist with FACE Act charges in 2022, despite over 100 apparent pro-abortion attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches across the nation, according to Catholic Vote trackers.”

Nor is this a recent development. During the Obama administration, starting in 2010 the IRS targeted conservative and Christian non-profits. Losing a subsequent lawsuit did not slow the IRS down. In 2021, the agency pulled a Texas prayer group’s tax-exempt status because it “benefits Republicans.” As Ohio Senator Jim Jordan commented, “The Obama/Biden IRS targeted conservatives for their political beliefs. It looks like the Biden/Harris IRS is already up to no good as well. Every American should be concerned, but sadly, not surprised.”

This disdain for Christianity has been intensifying for a century, and goes back even farther to the 18th century Enlightenment. When not atheists, many of the new rationalists were Deists, reducing God to the “first mover” responsible for the created world. The theology of Christ’s divinity, incarnation, death, and resurrection, and the miracles attending Christ’s mission, was rejected. Christians, when not decried as tyrannical, intolerant instigators of slaughter, were patronized as “shamans or witch doctors from savage tribes whom one humors until one can dress them in trousers and send them to school,” as Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz satirized this attitude.

By 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche memorably expressed this new sensibility and its cause: “Wither is God?” the madman in a fable asks. “I will tell you. We have killed him––you and I. All of us are his murderers . . . . God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” The only question left is, what will take God’s place as the foundational source of our ideals like virtue or human rights, if these can even survive.

The progress of science and the new technologies that followed, and the spread of political structures like political freedom and equality, human rights, and social justice gave one answer: The new authority of science based on its material improvements changed radically human existence, and disproved the Christian doctrine of mankind’s innate corruptibility. The dream of endless progress brought on by education and scientific new knowledge, took hold and started the long process of secularization. The new knowledge and “human sciences” could now improve human nature and usher in an age freed from the destructive behaviors that once blighted human life.

It didn’t take long for that dream to become a nightmare. Yet not even the 20th century’s gruesome catalogue of industrialized slaughter, genocide, and gulags written by political religions like fascism, Nazim, and communism has weakened this faith among our cognitive elites.

For Americans in particular, this growing authority of science and distaste for religion began to erode the 1st Amendment’s rights of free speech and religion. The provision was distorted to mean a “wall of separation of church and state,” a phrase created by Thomas Jefferson. The “establishment clause” proscribed a church established the federal government with authority over the whole nation, like England’s Anglican Church. State-level established churches already existing in many states were left alone. Now they are forbidden by Supreme Court rulings that extended the 1st and 14th amendments to the states.

Today this misreading of the Constitution has been used to justify banning any public connection of politics to religion, which of course violates the 1st Amendment’s freedom of religion and speech. But this unwarranted interpretation conflicts with the thinking of the Founders about the viability of the Constitution’s freedoms given the destructive “passions and interests” and lust for power that all humans are prey to.

As John Adams expressed this importance of religion for the new nation’s success in his 1798 “Letter from John Adams to Massachusetts Militia”:

“Because we have no government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by Morality and Religion, Avarice, Ambition, Revenge, or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Indeed, even atheists like Voltaire acknowledged the utilitarian value of religion in his famous quips, “If God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him,” and “God is dead, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.” Or as Napoleon put it, “Religion is a kind of vaccination, which, by satisfying our natural love for the marvelous, keeps us out of the hands of charlatans and conjurers. The priests are better than the Cagliostros [famous occultists and frauds, Andrew Roberts’s gloss], the Kants, and all the visionaries of Germany.”

As advanced materially as we are, as successful as our science has been at unlocking the secrets of nature and using its powers to create life-changing technologies, our science still can’t give us an answer to the question why we shouldn’t just follow our impulses and appetites, no matter how evil. Instead, it falls back on dubious Darwinism like the “God gene,” or various forms of determinism like Freudianism or Marxism, both of which have been dead-ends in the attempt to find a substitute for God. At least Nietzsche was honest, acknowledging that God’s death has undercut all our virtues like charity and empathy for our fellow humans that make us humane rather than just clever chimps.

Finally, the discrediting of faith and the idealization of science as the royal road to ultimate happiness on earth, has created an emptiness in our civilization, which lacks a convincing story of who we are and what is best for us, how we should live and act, what is good for us and what we are good for.

Into that void have stepped cults and political religions like Marxism, which has co-opted much of Christian salvation theology. Only now, original sin is called the “alienation” of people from nature, their fellow man, and their labor, a fallen condition that the abolishing of capitalism and private property will redeemed. And the “born-again” Christian will be the “new man” communism creates through revolution, inheritors of a new “salvation” here on earth––“a higher sociobiological type, a superman . . . . Man will become incomparably stronger, wiser, more subtle,” as Leon Trotsky preached. As the Catholic thinker Andre de Lubac asked, “On which side are the miracles greater?”

We know the cost of this low-rent religion––100 million killed by famine, torture, gulags, and mass murder. Yet still the Left promotes the false knowledge about people and their natures that contributed to such carnage and cruelty. The history of communism alone answers the question that Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov raises: whether “without God and immortal life . . . all things are permitted.”

Yet science still has not been able to give a convincing answer to that question, as all around us belief in more and more secular “miracles” proliferate.


Panelist calls out Australian TV for being too white as local shows are branded a 'neo-Nazi's wet dream'

The rave below offers no statistics or evidence. It is in fact a very strange thing to say about Australia's politically correct media

By contrast, Malcolm Smith has given examples to show that minorities are OVER-represented on Australian TV.

So the unhappy lady is probably peeved only because HER minority group is little mentioned. She is simply over-generalizing. Ironic that the the host of the TV program where she made her accusations is in fact an Aborigine, a dark minority group

In any case Australians are overwhelmingly of European ancestry so that is the group that advertisers or others would reasonably aim to reach. Targeting such people is simply what you have to do if you want your messages to have maximum reach and impact

And the big irony is that the Arab population that produced the angry lady REALLY IS NAZI. The antisemitism of Islamic countries is well known.

A guest on ABC's Q+A has branded Australian television a 'neo-Nazi's wet dream' after Indigenous host Stan Grant slammed it for being dominated by white faces.

Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf - whose parents moved Down Under from Lebanon in the 1970s - blasted networks for being stuck in the era of the 1960s' White Australia policy.

Ms Lattouf lashed out at the representation of multicultural Australia on mainstream local television shows, saying it was now badly lagging behind the rest of the world. 'Australia's really far behind the UK or the US,' she raged on Monday night's show.

'We still have networks or programs that look like a neo-Nazi's wet dream. We still do despite the fact that more than half of the population are culturally diverse. '[But] we're just gonna kind of ignore those voices.'

Her comments came after Grant hit out at the lack of representation for people of colour on local television.

Monday night's show featured an otherwise all-white line up of 80s British pop star Billy Bragg, Labor MP Josh Burns, economist Gigi Foster, and Senator Perin Davey.

Grant claimed the lack of diversity was giving viewers a false impression of the multicultural society they actually live in.

'People like you and I are still rare on our screens,' the veteran broadcaster and outspoken racism activist told Ms Lattouf. 'And stories are still told by people who look like other people on the panel here tonight. 'What does it take to break through, because the world doesn't look like that? It looks like us!'

Grant, along with Ten's The Project host Waleed Aly and Malaysian-born ABC newsreader Jeremy Fernandez, are among the few people of colour regularly seen on mainstream Australian TV.

Ms Lattouf, a mother-of-two who founded Media Diversity Australia in 2017, said it required grit-teethed determination to succeed as a non-white in Australia. 'It takes patience. It takes a thick skin,' she told Grant. 'It takes having to fight the urge to go into Tourette-style swearing spiel when you get the opportunity. 'Because sometimes it's frustrating that the change is glacial. You take one step forward, four steps back.

'Even in the year of the referendum [on the Voice to Parliament], we still have all-white panels discussing things like the referendum. 'We still have all-white panels talking about refugees and asylum seeker policy - that baffles me.'

She added: 'At least in the UK, when you see politicians when you flick on the telly, even the Prime Minister, though arguably he's not a great win for progressive politics.

'All our all our storytellers, all our institutions of power - they have all been largely white men. 'There's a bit of progress now. We've got white women. And so there is a lot more work to be done.'


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs


No comments: