Home » The feds try try again – and succeed in getting guilty verdicts for the remaining two Whitmer kidnapping defendants

Comments

The feds try try again – and succeed in getting guilty verdicts for the remaining two Whitmer kidnapping defendants — 14 Comments

  1. I can’t imagine them not appealing on the issue of being limited in their time for cross-examination. Limiting the defense seems rather extreme.

  2. One of the few recent stories which might perhaps give one hope that our legal system is not broken beyond all possible repair (as the verdict in the Whitmer entrapment fiasco would seem to suggest) involved the excellent opening statement by Natasha Taylor-Smith, the public defender (black and probably not conservative) working on behalf of J6 defendant Kyle Fitzsimmons. The trial ended last week, with no verdict yet announced.

  3. Limiting cross examination on a tit-for-tat basis is outrageous. This is not only clearly unconstitutional, it should be impeachable

  4. I almost put in this exchange as part of my previous comment, but I realize some might think I was quoting the actual trial rather than what limiting cross examination would do. Here it is:
    [Witness takes the stand]
    Prosecutor to witness: “Please point to the person that asked you to participate in a kidnapping?”
    Witness: [Points to the defendant]
    Prosecutor: “No more questions from me”
    Defense to witness: “How do you know the defendant that you pointed out?”
    Witness: “Well, I met them.”
    Defense to witness: “When did you first me them?”
    Judge: “Times up! Fair is fair and equal time is equal time. Witness doesn’t need to answer and is dismissed from the stand. Prosecutor call your next witness.”

  5. if the stakes weren’t so serious, I would compare it to the ‘hungarian phrase book’ sketch in monty python, that segues to the spanish inquisition,

    clearly the feds were involved in every part of this plot, from optaining explosives,
    having other agents sleep with the hapless plotters, well done agent de antuono

  6. U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker has demonstrated that the defendents could not receive a fair trial in his courtroom.

    The case certainly must be appealed or injustice has won.

    Jonker should be impeached, convicted and removed from office. His pension rescinded, as an object lesson.

    A failure to do so enforces the reality of the DOJ and elements within the Federal Judiciary eviscerating the Rule of Law.

    Upon that path lies rebellion.

  7. A hack in black on crack. Ends justified by a “judge.”

    Guess what would happen if anyone peacefully protested near his stye?

  8. I was kind of favorably inclined toward the feds when I was doing civil rights work in Mississippi in the late Sixties.
    Been down hill since then. Is there a word like “asymptotic”, except when the line is trending down?

  9. They want patriots to be in constant fear of being hauled in and put on trial. Always looking over their shoulders, never knowing who to trust, isolated.

  10. Geoffrey Britain, above, avers that Jonker oughta be impeached such egregious prejudicial misconduct.

    INDEED.

    He continues: “…Eviscerating the Rule of Law. Upon that path lies rebellion.” Righteous needful Rebellion, I must add.

    I’m ready to hear Viva Frei and Robert Barnes to examine this “legal” charade, articulate blanks in my skill set and stimulate my own juices for Rebellion and loud shouting outrage, soon.

    I read T-Rex brief comment. “ugggggh” I ejaculated to myself.

    (Please fire give me. MY BARNES’ rage is prematurely rising.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>