If the events of January 6 were to be described solely in terms of the number of criminal charges, the media would be forced to call it a “parade” rather than an “insurrection.”
By far, the most common charge brought against the January 6 defendants is violating 40 USC Section 5104(e)(2)(G): “parading, picketing, or demonstrating in a Capitol building” . The Class B misdemeanor has also led to the majority of plea deals in what Biden’s Justice Department calls the “Capitol Siege” investigation.
But the DOJ’s use of the parade offense is just another example of how certain laws have been weaponized to criminalize political speech and dissent. In fact, none other than the former chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, DC questioned the DOJ’s unusual application of the parade statute nearly two years ago.
Before sentencing a Tennessee man who pleaded guilty to the parade count, Judge Beryl Howell acknowledged that U.S. district courts rarely, if ever, handle such trivial charges. “I don’t think it’s any secret that federal judges rarely deal with Class B misdemeanors; this is not our normal diet of criminal conduct, criminal conduct,” Howell said during the October 2021 hearing for Jack Jesse Griffth, which took about ten minutes inside the building on January 6.
Specifically at the demonstrations held in the nation’s capital, Howell further noted that the crime of parading is typically reserved for “non-violent protesters who stand up at a congressional hearing to disrupt a hearing. [For] Whatever the reason, the US Attorney’s office decided to bring them federally, with that federal charge, unlike the Superior Court, [where] they basically got a $50 bill.”
The “reason for whatever,” as Howell, an unabashed supporter appointed by Barack Obama who now plays a key role in the dual DOJ prosecutions of Donald Trump, knew it, was undoubtedly to punish American citizens for protesting the election of Joe Biden on January 6. Don’t get me wrong, Howell no expressing concern that the statute is being unfairly applied to a specific group of political protesters.
Instead, Howell wanted to know why prosecutors refused to bring harder charges against the defendants of January 6. “[Though] this offense is classified as a ‘misdemeanor’, the nature and circumstances of the criminal conduct on January 6 are far more serious than its minor offense status suggests.” Howell condemned the “confused approach” of DOJ in charging many non-violent protesters with a lesser offense comparable to trespassing. “The rioters who attacked the Capitol on January 6 were not mere trespassers engaging in First Amendment protected conduct or protest,” he said Howell. “This did significant damage to our faith that regardless of our political party or views on what is best for this country, we as Americans believe in the constitutional process of a peaceful transition of power after an election”.
But Howell didn’t just criticize the DOJ for not bringing more serious charges. Howell also asked prosecutors about the court’s ability to impose so-called “split sentencing” (both prison time and probation) for a parade sentence. Up until that point, prosecutors had only asked for jail time or probation, but not both.
That changed shortly after Howell’s rant.
A few months later, in the case of Anthony Mariotto, a Florida man who also pleaded guilty to parading, the Justice Department first asked for four months in prison followed by three years of probation. (Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Mariotto to three years of probation but no jail time.) strictly in cases of parade.
Some judges, recognizing that a split sentence would violate federal sentencing guidelines, rejected the DOJ’s recommendations. Others don’t. (After getting his wish, Howell imposed split sentencing in at least nine parade cases, according to recent DOJ judgment data.)
It turns out that the judges who refused to grant split sentences in parade cases were right. An appeals court decision handed down last week could result in nearly 60 split rulings being overturned, while further exposing DOJ and D.C. judges’ vindictive abuse of the law in the matters of January 6.
In a 2-1 opinion, the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia overturned the split sentence of James Little, who pleaded guilty to parading; in March 2022, Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced Little to 60 days in jail followed by three years of probation. (Prosecutors asked for 30 days and three years of probation.) Little appealed the sentence.
Writing for the majority, Judge Justin Walker blasted the DOJ and Lamberth in clear terms: “Probation and imprisonment are alternative sentences that generally cannot be combined. So the district court could not impose both for Little’s little offense.
After a bit of sentencing diagramming to explain to the DOJ and DC court how they (intentionally, no doubt) misread the sentencing instructions, Walker condemned their collective excess. “[Because] The Government’s reading turns probation into a form of post-confinement monitoring, which would allow a court to impose more control for a minor offense than for more serious offenses and most crimes. Dodge the bar on supervised release for juvenile offenders. And it subjects juvenile offenders to a period of post-confinement supervision five times longer than the term imposed on some offenders.”
Which, of course, was the point: to treat peaceful protesters with no criminal records as criminals simply for their brief, non-violent excursion into a government building on a Wednesday afternoon to disrupt Congress.
But there is an even more sinister motive at play. As the appeal decision also noted, Judge Lamberth added probation to “not only punish Little for his conduct, but also ensure that he will not engage in similar conduct again during the next election.” .
Other judges have admitted the same. In January 2022, Judge Thomas Hogan sentenced another man convicted of parading to three years of probation. The reason? “[To] cover the next general election to ensure you don’t fall prey to false gods again,” Hogan he said defendant Jacob Weidrich. Rejecting the government’s recommendation for a prison sentence, Hogan chose to place Weidrich “under restrictive probation conditions for a long period, so I can be sure that you will not fall back into violent political protest.”
It’s not just that the DOJ and DC federal courts are bastardizing statutes like the parade and obstruction of justice proceedings against the January 6th defendants, they both continue to seek and impose excessive sentences unmatched in any other matter. The appeals court’s opinion is a much-needed, if long overdue, strike against his continued abuse of power.
English 
Español de Venezuela