by Jonathon Moseley, American Thinker:
Pam Bondi’s first confirmation hearing will likely ensure her confirmation by the U.S. Senate, but one exchange on Wednesday created or added to a controversy among MAGA-supporters and especially the community of January 6 defendants along with their families, friends, and supporters on principle.
The former attorney general of Florida is well qualified to be attorney general in the Trump administration. But Bondi’s confirmation hearing testimony let slip the mood from within the Trump transition team.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The controversy of the hour is whether Trump should pardon some January 6 defendants but not all. Bondi strongly endorsed the idea that anyone “accused” of violence against police must be considered one at a time, on a case-by-case basis.
Trump has repeatedly promised to pardon “all” January 6 demonstrators “on day one.” A few times, Trump has acknowledged that those who were violent toward police would have to be looked at more closely. But Trump correctly pointed out that January 6 demonstrators received sentences vastly longer, and some have already served more time, than most people prosecuted for similar behavior, such as brawling with police.
Bondi was legally wise to explain that she has not looked in the case files. The political world wants news reporting from the regime media to pass for facts. One worthy of being an attorney general thinks in terms of “I should read the actual documents first.” However, she gave a fiery, categorical declaration that she is absolutely opposed to anyone who is violent toward the police.
As always in life, the “devil” is in the (lack of) the definition. Are we thinking that January 6 defendants actually did what they were accused of? As an attorney who defended Proud Boys member Zachary Rehl and Oath Keepers member Kelly Meggs, I saw firsthand, including in still sealed court documents, that most of what the prosecutors claim is pure fantasy and conspiracy theory. Yes, you have to thoroughly read the case files, not the dishonest press releases.
About two weeks ago, one reporter asked about those “accused of” violence on January 6, while another asked about those “convicted of” violence. But these are two drastically different ideas. “Over-charging” is a common abuse in our modern legal system, in which prosecutors hurl accusations they know they cannot prove to frighten defendants into plea deals.
Donald Trump knows that he personally has been accused of dozens of things that never happened. So what exactly do we mean by those who were violent against police?
There are videos of a very few people battling with police. But when you see the entire video, including before and after, sometimes you see a very different scene. Sometimes demonstrators were blocking unprovoked and unnecessary blows from a few errant police.
Read More @ AmericanThinker.com
