Join Amazon Prime for exclusive deals, fast shipping, and endless entertainment! Sign up now!
Virtually since the riot at the Capitol happened, there have been allegations that members of our alphabet agencies and possibly local police were involved.
Now, we know that agencies and local police had undercovers in the crowd, which is normal protocol for a big event.
One of the J6 defendants wanted to expose their identities to possibly name them as instigators, but a federal judge just blocked the motion.
Who Are They?
William Pope is one of about 1,200 or so people who were charged for their roles in the events that took place on January 6, 2021.
Pope’s legal team has been trying to unmask federal and local undercovers at the rally as part of his defense.
Unfortunately for Pope, that is not going to happen.
After the motion was shot down, Pope posted on social media, “I now have the most restricted discovery access conditions of any Jan 6 defendant.
“All I’m asking for is a fair fight in court, but he’s denying me rights to defend myself Pro Se that aren’t denied to attorneys.
“Even though some January 6 attorneys have filed highly sensitive materials as public exhibits, or leaked them on social media, I have not released a single sensitive or highly sensitive file governed by the protective order.”
The motion was denied by Judge Rudolph Contreras, who wrote, “The Court agrees with the government and finds that defendant has failed to show that the government has an obligation to produce the requested material.
“While Pope asserts that the missing camera footage is ‘highly relevant to January 6 cases, including [his] own,’ … he does not explain what he expects the footage to show or why that footage would assist in his defense.
“Much of the camera footage that Pope requests depicts areas where Pope never set foot. That footage is therefore not beneficial to Pope’s case.”
The ruling is not a surprise when you consider that Contreras was initially appointed to the bench by Barack Obama.
As we have seen in most of these, the ruling was determined well before the facts were laid out when a liberal-appointed justice was sitting on the bench.
