Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,905
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: + + + + + + + +
→Fake news
Sometime apparently between Sicknick being fine, healthy, and back in his office on Wednesday night, and dead or effectively dead on early Thursday evening, Sicknick apparently suffered a stroke. Sicknick’s body then was cremated.<ref>https://www.revolver.news/2021/02/maga-blood-libel-why-are-they-hiding-the-medical-report/</ref>
Sometime apparently between Sicknick being fine, healthy, and back in his office on Wednesday night, and dead or effectively dead on early Thursday evening, Sicknick apparently suffered a stroke. Sicknick’s body then was cremated.<ref>https://www.revolver.news/2021/02/maga-blood-libel-why-are-they-hiding-the-medical-report/</ref>
==Prosecution==
Tjhe [[Biden junta]] resumed the weaponization of the [[Justice Department]] against political opponents begun by the [[Obama administration]] under chief prosecutor [[Merrick Garland]]. The ''[[Washington Examiner]]'' reported,
{{quotebox-float| U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said during a court hearing conducted by phone and Zoom he was “surprised” to see Michael Sherwin, the former acting U.S. attorney for the [[District of Columbia]], and other officials discussing the pending investigation into the insurrection in interviews with the ''[[New York Times]]'' and [[CBS]]’s ''60 Minutes''.
“I was surprised — and I’m being restrained in my use of terminology — surprised, to say the least, to see Mr. Sherwin sitting for an interview about a pending case in an ongoing criminal investigation. Whether his interview violated Justice Department policy is really not for me to say, but it is something I hope the Department of Justice is looking into,” the judge said. “As for the ''New York Times'' story, I found it troubling that sources within the Department of Justice were detailing the possibility of additional charges in a pending criminal case in an ongoing criminal investigation. I have little doubt that anonymously divulging internal department deliberations is contrary to department policy.”
[…] “No matter how much press attention this matter gets, let me be clear that these defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not one that is conducted in the [[media]],” Mehta said. “They are also entitled to defend against charges that are actually brought against them, not speculation about what might or might not be coming. … The fact is, these types of statements in the media have the potential of affecting the [[jury]] pool and the rights of these defendants, and the government, quite frankly, in my view, should know better.”<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-surprised-ex-top-prosecutors-speculation-media-capitol-riot-sedition-charges</ref>}}
==See also==
==See also==