The unequal application of the law has been one of the most concerning aspects of the Biden regime. The U.S. has been distinguished throughout history for its freedom and its rule of law. People came from all walks of life, including those fleeing the banana republics and troubled areas around the globe to visit us. But the Biden team seems determined to make us the banana republics people have fled.
We have seen the striking difference in how Jan. 6 defendants were treated compared to the BLM and other leftist rioters. There have been many tactics used in relation to Jan. 6. However, most of the people arrested in a similar riot in Washington, D.C. against President Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017, were able to get their charges dropped.
One tactic that raises concerns is the “geofence warrant”, which I have previously discussed.
Tara Fish, defense attorney, has more to say about the matter. She explains it in her motion for suppression on behalf of defendant David Rhine. Fish claims that the search was overbroad. She first looked through “millions” of private accounts to see if they were within the context of the Capitol data. “The warrant was therefore unconstitutionally broad, a modern-day general warrant.” This is a problem since warrants must be specific and narrow.
Federal public defender convincingly argues that the FBI used an unprecedented “modern-day general warrant” to seize personal data of anyone who “could have been” in the approximate vicinity of the Capitol on Jan 6. “Defending democracy” by obliterating bedrock civil liberties pic.twitter.com/wjuyG4lrsO
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 29, 2022
The warrant application did not provide evidence that all persons present “at or close to the Capitol Building were guilty of a criminal offense.” It also didn’t specify the evidence or who the crime was. This guarantee ensured that people would be arrested even if they are only in the immediate vicinity of the crime.
The warrant was “fatally over-broad and devoid of particularity, and therefore impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.” There was never any particularized probable cause cited by FBI — making it certain that searches were conducted on people who committed no crime whatsoever pic.twitter.com/5MWnL3VKeY
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 29, 2022
They “equated the Capitol’s presence with criminal activity.”
Rather than establishing any basis for probable cause that subjects of the search had committed a crime, the government relied on hypothesis and conjecture that merely “equated presence at the Capitol with criminal activity” — bizarrely invoking “the pandemic” in its reasoning pic.twitter.com/0nwnkiyUx2
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 29, 2022
In other words, to obtain its general warrant and seize the personal data of thousands of people without establishing any particularized probable cause that they had engaged in criminal activity, the government simply “equated presence to criminality” pic.twitter.com/1MfcspVlDE
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 29, 2022
This should concern all political parties. Michael Tracey, a journalist, snarled that Jan 6’s investigation was “the most important in human civilization’s history or something” and Democracy, as we know it, hangs in the balance. The powers that believe these precedent-setting violations of the Constitution should be ignored. He also pointed out that the bad guys being pursued by these extreme tactics included suspects such as this couple, whose alleged crime was to have entered the building and taken a selfie.
The suspect’s criminal conduct is alleged to be that he walked into the Capitol at 2:50pm, took a selfie with his wife (who was also arrested), and then walked out at 3:00pm. These were the fruits of an extensive investigation by an agent in the FBI’s “Joint Terrorism Task Force” pic.twitter.com/zGKhMGygu7
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 29, 2022
If they were leftists trespassing in a BLM riot they wouldn’t have been charged, much less pursued with such tactics.
It’s easy to see how a warrant like this can be used to serve a government that wants to suppress protesters or other dissents.
