Back in February of 2021, I posted a copy of a video showing Capitol police letting J6 protesters into the building. At best, this eliminated the chances that this was a crime, at worst it is evidence of entrapment.
Matthew Martin produced a similar video as a part of his defense to the charges he was facing from the J6 protest. The judge in the case found that he “reasonably believed” that police officers let him into the US Capitol during the Jan. 6 breach, finding defendant Matthew Martin not guilty of all charges. Let’s review that video again:
The verdict represents an early test of efforts by some Jan. 6 defendants to argue that police allowed them to enter the Capitol, or that they believed they had permission because no officer told them to stop. The crux of Martin’s defense was that, in his own words, he was “let in” by two US Capitol Police officers who were standing in the doorway when he entered and made no attempt to stop him. He argued that one of the officers waved him through. Looking at the video above, it’s hard to argue that no one entered the Capitol building with permission.
This, one thousand times, this.
1 Comment
Ben C · April 8, 2022 at 12:53 am
Combine this with the recent Thompson V Clark ruling:
Quote:
“On Monday, the Supreme Court sided with Thompson in declaring that he did not have to show an “affirmative indication of innocence.” The vote was 6-to-3, with three conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — joining the courts three liberals in the majority.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, declaring that a plaintiff need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction, and Thompson did that here.”
Probably hoping for more than can happen, but this does open a door a bit wider for every one of those who is acquitted to get some back, hopefully.
Comments are closed.