[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
National News See other National News Articles Title: Questions Loom After Verdicts in Whitmer ‘Kidnapping’ Trial What did top government officials know and when did they know it? It’s impossible to overstate the significance of the verdicts handed down last week for four men charged with conspiring to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020 and use a “weapon of mass destruction” in the process. Despite sworn testimony from several FBI experts and agents—including the primary FBI informant, Dan Chappel, who was compensated at least $60,000 by the bureau for his involvement—endless federal resources, and favorable rulings by the judge to withhold evidence and testimony, a jury of 12 Americans rejected the government’s case in cold fashion on Friday in a Grand Rapids courtroom. The Justice Department did not win a single conviction; two men walked free after 18 months in prison and two men remain behind bars as prosecutors prepare to re-try them after a hung jury could not agree on their guilt. What the jury did agree on, however, is that the Federal Bureau of Investigation engaged in entrapment. Defense attorneys, with the consent of Chief District Court Judge Robert Jonker, argued that the FBI attempted to induce their clients into committing the alleged kidnapping crime. “When I look at what happened in this case, I am ashamed of the behavior of the leading law enforcement agency in the United States,” Joshua Blanchard, the lawyer representing Barry Croft Jr., who was not acquitted last week, told jurors in his closing statement. Another defense attorney, Christopher Gibbons, said it was “unacceptable” that the federal government framed the men under the guise of thwarting a domestic terror attack. “They don’t make terrorists so we can arrest them,” Gibbons said. That is, of course, precisely what the Justice Department and FBI did— and it was not just about a few rogue agents. After all, key offcials described the case as one of the largest domestic terrorism investigations in recent history; undercover agents and informants operated out of multiple FBI field offices across the eastern half of the country. Sworn testimony during the trial and other court hearings confirm that the plan had the blessing of higher-ups in Washington, D.C. One FBI agent told the jury that the use of drones, airplanes, and other surveillance tools used to collect evidence against the defendants required a “multi-layer” approval process at the top. Consider this exchange between Richard Trask, one of the lead FBI agents on the case (who was later fired by the agency for assaulting his wife) working out of the Detroit field office, and a defense attorney during an October 2020 hearing after the defendants were arrested: Defense: Now, when this—since you had undercover agents involved in this case, I assume that there’s additional steps that are taken at the FBI to approve an undercover operation, right? Trask: That’s correct. Defense: It’s not as if you can just declare that you’re conducting an undercover operation on your own. You need supervisor approval at least, right? Trask: Correct. Defense: And then it probably even goes to a headquarters level, right? Trask: That’s correct. Defense: And FBI headquarters would then meet with the Department of Justice and review the plan and the objectives, right? Trask: That would be correct, yes. Trask further testified he didn’t know when the Justice Department signed off on the kidnapping caper or other related plots, such as a separate plan to kidnap and possibly kill Ralph Northam, the Democratic governor of Virginia, during the same time period. Trask may not know when the honchos at the Justice Department approved the operation, but the American people deserve to find out who was responsible for the FBI’s flagrant attempt not just to set up innocent men but again interfere in a presidential election. Any inquiry should begin with former Attorney General William Barr. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Is there any info about the jury being polled as to their individual findings? Normally they do that. If there was a single hold-out for either guilty or not guilty, that's very significant info forecasting how retrial would go.
Most likely the prosecution has done so in order to find out where they went wrong and correct their mistakes if and when they do a retrial.
Polling the jurists wouldn't tell them that, only how badly they missed the mark. They'd have to interview a jurist to find out more. If they had a plant inside then that would help them, but a plant likely wouldn't have gone along with acquitting the first 2 guys.
To acquit they had to determine that the prosecution hadn't proved its case, and I don't know how they could have done that without deciding that the prosecution witnesses were liars. Not sure on which charges they jury were hung on.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||