Why I pled guilty — and what’s coming next
Today was supposed to be the day I promised myself and so many others that I would make my stand before the selectively weaponized and corrupt Department of Justice and Washington, D.C., court system. Having had three and a half years to prepare for this day, I’d determined in my own mind — perhaps naïvely — that I’d be able to have my own “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” moment and make my stand. My case is a case of selective prosecution, not just against me but also against all those January 6 defendants who have been treated far more harshly than those who behaved equally or did far more violence and property damage — in this town — in the summer of 2020, on January 20, 2017, and even more recently in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations this year.My trial would be nothing more than a shaming exercise. Even though I was not accused of violence against law enforcement or any property damage, many saw my case as an example of glaring selective prosecution and a violation of my First Amendment right to be outspoken about my thoughts and opinions on January 6 before and after my arrival at the Capitol.Yet while I was documenting the protest and riotous behavior of some for roughly two hours, I behaved as professionally as any other reporter or photojournalist on the scene, including some 80 to 100 media persons of all types who also knowingly entered restricted spaces without permission from law enforcement.But the court would not allow the defense I hoped to begin today at trial. The court has denied my right to show selective prosecution by also denying our discovery request regarding how the government determined it was unnecessary to charge those other 80 to 100 media persons who also clearly, provably, and without permission from law enforcement breached exterior barricades clearly marked with “CLOSED AREA” signs and then accompanied both violent and peaceful protesters through broken windows and doors.Because of these last-minute rejections by the court during my pretrial hearing last Wednesday, I instructed my attorneys to notify the Justice Department and the court of my intention to change my plea to “guilty” on all four misdemeanor charges. As one of my attorneys stated, my trial would be nothing more than a shaming exercise. Apart from the fact that any J6 trial in this courthouse is a no-win scenario, today, I chose to deny the government the opportunity to put me through that senseless, waste-of-time shaming exercise.The government also withdrew its plea deal offer, which, had I taken it earlier in this process, would have let me plead guilty to the single glorified trespassing charge but also would have required me to waive my right to appeal. Unfortunately, the federal courts do not have a “no contest” option, and because the court refused our request for continuance, we did not have time to seek an “Alford plea,” which would have allowed me to maintain my innocence in the appeals process.In taking this action today, I not only deny the government its shaming exercise, but I also preserve my right to appeal should President Trump not come through on his campaign promise to pardon all nonviolent January 6 defendants.Nevertheless, I will continue fighting this weaponized judicial system in the court of public opinion and in the halls of Congress in the coming months and years … for as long as necessary.
Today was supposed to be the day I promised myself and so many others that I would make my stand before the selectively weaponized and corrupt Department of Justice and Washington, D.C., court system. Having had three and a half years to prepare for this day, I’d determined in my own mind — perhaps naïvely — that I’d be able to have my own “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” moment and make my stand.
My case is a case of selective prosecution, not just against me but also against all those January 6 defendants who have been treated far more harshly than those who behaved equally or did far more violence and property damage — in this town — in the summer of 2020, on January 20, 2017, and even more recently in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations this year.
My trial would be nothing more than a shaming exercise.
Even though I was not accused of violence against law enforcement or any property damage, many saw my case as an example of glaring selective prosecution and a violation of my First Amendment right to be outspoken about my thoughts and opinions on January 6 before and after my arrival at the Capitol.
Yet while I was documenting the protest and riotous behavior of some for roughly two hours, I behaved as professionally as any other reporter or photojournalist on the scene, including some 80 to 100 media persons of all types who also knowingly entered restricted spaces without permission from law enforcement.
But the court would not allow the defense I hoped to begin today at trial. The court has denied my right to show selective prosecution by also denying our discovery request regarding how the government determined it was unnecessary to charge those other 80 to 100 media persons who also clearly, provably, and without permission from law enforcement breached exterior barricades clearly marked with “CLOSED AREA” signs and then accompanied both violent and peaceful protesters through broken windows and doors.
Because of these last-minute rejections by the court during my pretrial hearing last Wednesday, I instructed my attorneys to notify the Justice Department and the court of my intention to change my plea to “guilty” on all four misdemeanor charges.
As one of my attorneys stated, my trial would be nothing more than a shaming exercise. Apart from the fact that any J6 trial in this courthouse is a no-win scenario, today, I chose to deny the government the opportunity to put me through that senseless, waste-of-time shaming exercise.
The government also withdrew its plea deal offer, which, had I taken it earlier in this process, would have let me plead guilty to the single glorified trespassing charge but also would have required me to waive my right to appeal. Unfortunately, the federal courts do not have a “no contest” option, and because the court refused our request for continuance, we did not have time to seek an “Alford plea,” which would have allowed me to maintain my innocence in the appeals process.
In taking this action today, I not only deny the government its shaming exercise, but I also preserve my right to appeal should President Trump not come through on his campaign promise to pardon all nonviolent January 6 defendants.
Nevertheless, I will continue fighting this weaponized judicial system in the court of public opinion and in the halls of Congress in the coming months and years … for as long as necessary.
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
