The Unselect Committee uses unethical, illegal measures to secure favorable witness testimonies from J6 Defendants that have pled guilty.
Liz Cheney said that Trump reached out to a witness that still hasn’t testified. J6 Committee reaches out to defendants to testify before sentencing.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
The email you will read below was shared with TGP by a J6 Defendant that pled guilty, but he’s waiting for his sentencing. It was sent to the defendant by James Sasso for “The Unselect Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on The United States Capitol.”
Read the email here:
The email recipient wants to remain anonymous.
This is the statement from the person who forwarded the email to us: “The Committee wants me to apologize for being there; they want me to apologize for speaking out on my opinion on the matter. I just can’t do that. That would be a lie. The only advantage of doing that is if I can avoid some kind of harsh sentencing that is coming up. If I don’t play ball with them, I fear they will retaliate; there will be a consequence for it.”
The defendants would feel pressure to give the Unselected Committee the answers they want to hear in exchange for a favorable sentence, whether they are true or not.
The Committee can’t present these compromised witnesses to the Americans as credible, when everyone knows they aren’t. The plan is to stop Trump from being reelected in 2024.
“The fact that the January 6th Committee is using convicted defendants awaiting sentencing as witnesses against President Trump to corroborate their claims is unethical, predatory and dishonest,” said top J6 Attorney Joseph McBride. “There is no difference between the Committee’s actions and a hostage held by terrorists at gunpoint being forced to read a letter from his captors saying they are “good people.” It is deeply disturbing, morally bankrupt, and profoundly anti-American.”
Stephen Ayres is a witness the Unselected Committee called and talked about his experience in front of the Kangaroo Court. Ayres said he didn’t want to march to the Capitol, but Trump riled people up and urged them to march.
Liz Cheney asked him, “Do you still believe the election was stolen?” the clearly emasculated Ayres made a face and choked out, “Not so much now.”
Ayres pled guilty to conduct this past June 8. He was charged with aiding and abetting, entering, or Remaining in an Official Building or ‘’ Grounds, and Obstruction of an Official Proceeding 1512(c)(2), which alone holds a maximum of a 20-year sentence. He wound up plea bargaining with the Regime to the simple charge of Disorderly Conduct. All other charges were dropped. Here is Ayres’ Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant.’’
Ayres is the Co-Defendant of Matthew Perna, the person who committed suicide on February 26 in desperation after he pled guilty to the same charges Ayres had dropped.
The difference in outcomes for two men on the same exact indictment is remarkable.
This is the article by Julie Kelly:
“Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia handling every January 6 prosecution, intervened and asked the court to delay Perna’s sentencing so his office could make sure Capitol defendants are punished equally. “While every case and every defendant are different, the Government is attempting to ensure that similarly situated January 6 defendants are treated in the same manner,” Graves wrote in a motion on February 11. “The Government is attempting to do that in this case and that requires additional time for the Government’s internal review process to be completed.”
Graves’ office has sought lengthy prison terms for defendants who plead guilty to the obstruction felony. In the case of Jacob Chansley, who, like Perna, committed no violent act on January 6 and was allowed into the building by police, Biden’s Justice Department sought 51 months in jail and three years probation. (Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced him to 41 months.)
In sentencing recommendations on obstruction pleas, prosecutors have compared defendants to domestic terrorists and asked judges to act accordingly. “The need to deter others is especially strong in cases involving domestic terrorism, which the breach of the Capitol certainly was,” one of Graves’ prosecutors wrote in Chansley’s sentencing memo. “The sentence of this Court must drive home this fact for this defendant, and any others who may wish to emulate him: crimes committed against this country and democracy will be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the law.”
That appears to be what Graves would have demanded in Perna’s case as well.”