Episode 6: EYEWITNESS STATEMENT Served on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
https://exopolitics.blogs.com/time_bandits/2022/06/episode-6-served-on-the-.html
|
|
Here is the eye-witness Statement of former WBAI-FM reporter Mary Houston, eye-witness on January 6, 2021: A Miracle happened END OF STATEMENT Dr. Simone Gold sentenced to PRISON for speaking at U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021
06/20/2022 / By Ethan Huff / Comments
Bypass censorship by sharing this link:
 ADVERTISEMENT One of the faces of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) has been sentenced to prison after she pleaded guilty back in March to a class A misdemeanor. Dr. Simone Gold, we reported back in January of 2021, was arrested after she entered the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, and delivered a speech via megaphone about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.” She further discussed viable remedies such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, urging listeners to protect their natural DNA and immune systems rather than take an experimental injection that could – and likely will in the coming years for everyone who took it – kill them. For the “crime” of entering the People’s building through the neatly positioned velvet ropes that were placed almost as a guide for those herded inside by law enforcement assets, Gold will now have to serve a two-month prison sentence. Her guilty plea in March of this year admitted to “entering and remaining in a restricted building.” She clearly would have been better off burning down a small business or a target like Black Lives Matter (BLM) terrorists did without penalty. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., also sentenced Gold to 12 months of supervised release following her 60-day prison term and ordered her to pay a $9,500 fine. Judge called it “unseemly” that AFLDS raised money for Gold’s salary by telling supporters her arrest was unfair prosecutionThe judge told Gold that her statements about Fauci Flu shots did not factor in to her sentencing. According to him, Gold was not a “casual bystander” on January 6, but rather an “insurrectionist.” 
Cooper did accuse AFLDS, Gold’s organization, of “misleading” supporters into believing that her prosecution was politically motivated and that it trampled her First Amendment rights. Cooper went on to call it “unseemly” that AFLDS is using the Capitol “riot” as a means of raising money, including for Gold’s personal salary. “I think that is a real disservice to the true victims of that day,” he stated.
Gold traveled to the Capitol on Jan. 5, 2021, to speak at Freedom Plaza. Her intent was simply to deliver a medical speech – and when the gates were opened, so to speak, into the Capitol building, she simply brought her message inside. Gold never committed any acts of violence, just to be clear. She simply spoke through her megaphone about the scam of the plandemic, and for this she was placed on the FBI’s most wanted release. “I was paid a visit by the FBI in a Roger Stone kind of takedown moment, which is quite uncalled for,” Gold said about her prosecution. “You know, if anybody wanted to get a hold of me, they could have picked up the phone and called. I’m very easy to find. But there were literally twenty guys with guns blazing, [and they] broke down my door.” The FBI essentially raided Gold’s home, all because she spoke her mind about the plandemic and the serious crimes against humanity that were, and still are, being committed in the name of “public health.” “It was dramatic and what I want to say is that I weep for our country,” Gold added about her mistreatment at the hands of the state. “If you can pull in a person like me … [and] have the FBI break down your door with 20 guns, shackle you [in] handcuffs [and] drag you off, I mean it was really terrible … I’m telling you, America: this can happen to you.” More related news about Gold’s arrest and sentencing and other acts of government tyranny can be found at Overlords.news. Sources for this article include: |
https://exopolitics.blogs.com/tracking_666_antichrist/
TIME BANDITS: Episode 5 - How Donald J. Trump is Indicted for Sedition, Tried, Convicted, Flees to Non-Extradition & Was Framed
How Donald J. Trump Is Indicted for Sedition by the US Department of Justice
Former prosecutors say January 6 hearings have delivered ‘compelling evidence that Trump committed crimes’
The searing testimony and growing evidence about Donald Trump’s central role in a multi-pronged conspiracy to overturn Joe Biden’s election in 2020 presented at the House January 6 committee’s first three hearings, has increased the odds that Trump will face criminal charges, say former DoJ prosecutors and officials.
The panel’s initial hearings provided a kind of legal roadmap about Trump’s multi-faceted drives – in tandem with some top lawyers and loyalists – to thwart Biden from taking office, that should benefit justice department prosecutors in their sprawling investigations into the January 6 assault on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.
Ex-justice department lawyers say new revelations at the hearings increase the likelihood that Trump will be charged with crimes involving conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding or defrauding the United States, as he took desperate and seemingly illegal steps to undermine Biden’s election.
Trump could also potentially face fraud charges over his role in an apparently extraordinary fundraising scam – described by House panel members as the “big rip-off” – that netted some $250m for an “election defense fund” that did not exist but funneled huge sums to Trump’s Save America political action committee and Trump properties.
The panel hopes to hold six hearings on different parts of what its vice-chair, Liz Cheney, called Trump’s “sophisticated seven-part plan” to overturn the election.
Trump was told repeatedly, for instance, by top aides and cabinet officials – including ex-attorney general Bill Barr – that the election was not stolen, and that his fraud claims were “completely bullshit” and “crazy stuff” as Barr put it in a video of his scathing deposition. But Trump persisted in pushing baseless fraud claims with the backing of key allies including his ex-personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and lawyer John Eastman.
“The January 6 committee’s investigation has developed substantial, compelling evidence that Trump committed crimes, including but not limited to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct official proceedings,” Michael Bromwich, a former inspector general at the DoJ told the Guardian.
Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, told the Guardian that “the committee hearings have bolstered the need to seriously consider filing criminal charges against Trump”.
The crux of any prosecution of Trump would hinge heavily on convincing a jury that Trump knew he lost the election and acted with criminal intent to overturn the valid election results. The hearings have focused heavily on testimony that Trump fully knew he had lost and went full steam ahead to concoct schemes to stay in power.
New revelations damaging to Trump emerged on Thursday when Greg Jacob, the ex-counsel to former vice-president Mike Pence, recounted in detail how Eastman and Trump waged a high-pressure drive, publicly and privately, even as the Capitol was under attack, to prod Pence to unlawfully block Biden’s certification by Congress on January 6.
The Eastman pressure included a scheme to substitute pro-Trump fake electors from states that Biden won for electors rightfully pledged to Biden – a scheme the DoJ has been investigating for months and that now involves a grand jury focused on Eastman, Giuliani and several other lawyers and operatives.
Eastman at one point acknowledged to Jacob that he knew his push to get Pence on January 6 to reject Biden’s winning electoral college count would violate the Electoral Count Act, and that Trump, too, was told it would be illegal for Pence to block Biden’s certification.
Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of the DoJ’s fraud section, said: “It is a target-rich environment, with many accessories both before and after the fact to be investigated.”
But experts caution any decision to charge Trump will be up to the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, who has been careful not to discuss details of his department’s January 6 investigations, which so far have led to charges against more than 800 individuals, including some Proud Boys and Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy.
After the first two hearings, Garland told reporters, “I’m watching and I will be watching all the hearings,” adding that DoJ prosecutors are doing likewise.
Garland remarked in reference to possibly investigating Trump: “We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead … to hold all perpetrators who are criminally responsible for January 6 accountable, regardless of their level, their position, and regardless of whether they were present at the events on January 6.”
But Garland has not yet tipped his hand if Trump himself is under investigation. Despite that reticence, justice department veterans say the wealth of testimony from one-time Trump insiders and new revelations at the House hearings should spur the department to investigate and charge Trump.
Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan, said the panel’s early evidence was strong, including “video testimony of Trump insiders who told Trump that he was going to lose badly, and that with regard to claims of election fraud, there was ‘no there there’,” as Trump’s ex-chief of staff Mark Meadows acknowledged in one exchange made public at the hearings.
McQuade added that Barr’s testimony was “devastating for Trump. He and other Trump insiders who testified about their conversations with Trump established that Trump knew he had lost the election and continued to make public claims of fraud anyway. That knowledge can help establish the fraudulent intent necessary to prove criminal offenses against Trump.”
In a novel legal twist that could emerge if Trump is charged, Bromwich said: “Bizarrely, Trump’s best defense to the mountain of evidence that proves these crimes seems to be that he was incapable of forming the criminal intent necessary to convict. That he was detached from reality, in Barr’s words. But there is strong evidence that he is not crazy – but instead is crazy like a fox.
“How else to explain his attempts to pressure the Georgia secretary of state to ‘find the votes’ necessary to change the result? Or his telling DoJ officials to simply declare the election ‘corrupt’ and leave ‘the rest to me’ and Republican House allies?”
Bromwich added: “All of this shows not someone incapable of forming criminal intent, but someone who understood what the facts were and was determined not to accept them. Because he couldn’t stand to lose. That was far more important to him than honoring our institutions or the constitution.”
Former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said Trump could face charges over what Cheney called the “big rip-off”, which centers on the allegation that “Trump raised money from small-dollar donors after the election under false pretenses”.
Zeldin said: “Specifically, he asked for money to fight election fraud when, in fact, the money was used for other purposes. This type of conduct could violate the wire fraud statute.”
Ayer cited the importance of a justice department regulation identifying factors to consider in deciding whether to charge, and noted three of particular relevance to Trump – the nature and severity of the offence, the important deterrent effect of prosecutions, and the culpability of the individual being charged.
But it might not be all plain sailing.
Simmering tensions between the panel and the justice department have escalated over DoJ requests – rebuffed so far – to obtain 1,000 witness transcripts of committee interviews, which prosecutors say are needed for upcoming trials of Proud Boys and other cases. However, the New York Times has reported some witness transcripts could be shared next month.
Nonetheless, as Garland weighs whether to move forward with investigating and charging Trump, experts caution a prosecution of Trump would require enormous resources, given the unprecedented nature of such a high-stakes case, and the risks that a jury could end up acquitting Trump – which might only enhance his appeal to the Republican base. Yet at the same time ,the stakes for the country of not aggressively investigating Trump are also extremely high.
“No one should underestimate the gravity of deciding to criminally charge an ex-president,” said former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut.
For Aftergut, though, charging Trump seems imperative.
“Ultimately, the avalanche of documents and sworn testimony proving a multi-faceted criminal conspiracy to overturn the will of the people means one thing: if no one is above the law, even an ex-president who led that conspiracy must be indicted.”
