Judges in the federal court in Washington D.C. are becoming more resistant to Jan. 6 conspiracy theories.
2020 election
In the current Republican presidential primary, ex-President Donald Trump and other party leaders have been labeling the defendants of January 6th as “hostages” and spreading conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election.
assault on the Capitol building
The federal court in Washington, D.C. has been leading the charge in refuting these unfounded allegations from various organizations.
An increasing amount of judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia are utilizing their authority to dismiss conspiracy theories spread by certain defendants and their followers involved in the events of January 6th.
In recent months, CBS News has observed multiple hearings and discussions where judges have addressed the persistent spread of misinformation surrounding the events of January 6, 2021. These judges have also taken action against both defendants and political figures who persist in promoting false narratives about the attack.
Stefanik, a Republican representative from New York and part of the House leadership, openly discussed the possibility of granting pardons to them during a Sunday morning talk show.
Stefanik expressed worries about the handling of individuals taken hostage on Jan. 6 during an interview on “Meet the Press.” She believes that the government is using its power against not only President Trump, but also against conservative individuals.
During the sentencing hearing for James Little, a defendant in the Capitol siege, Judge Royce Lamberth, a highly experienced judge on the D.C. district court, strongly criticized the lies surrounding the events of January 6 and the individuals who participated.
Little, a truck driver from North Carolina, was present at the Capitol on January 6 and has admitted to a misdemeanor charge of participating in unlawful picketing and parading. According to the Justice Department, during a 2021 interview with FBI agents, Little expressed belief in conspiracy theories surrounding the events of January 6. He placed blame on D.C. and Capitol Police for inciting the crowd, as well as on supporters of Antifa and Black Lives Matter for instigating violence among supporters of the former President. Little also stated his belief that a civil war between Americans of opposing political views will occur due to the former President winning the popular vote.
In 1987, Lamberth was selected by President Ronald Reagan to serve on the court. During the proceedings, Little and his lawyer requested a lenient sentence from Lamberth. Little assured him, “You can trust that I will not be involved in any more J6-type events.”
Following a short break, Lamberth resumed his position on the bench and appeared to acknowledge Trump and Stefanik’s statements: “The Court has encountered defendants who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions in the past. However, in my 37 years as a judge, I cannot remember a time when such baseless excuses for criminal behavior have become widely accepted.”
The judge expressed disappointment at the spread of blatant lies and misinformation in the public’s perception. They were also appalled by attempts from certain prominent figures to manipulate the narrative, portraying violent rioters as peaceful tourists or portraying convicted defendants from the January 6th incident as political martyrs or victims. This is all absurd and baseless.
Lamberth condemned the harmful and misguided language as potentially posing a greater threat to our nation. Little was given a five-month sentence, but received credit for two months already served.
A stiff sentence
In another instance, the repercussions for an accused individual who presented their conspiracy theories in a legal setting are evident.
According to prosecutors, Alan Hostetter, a former police chief from California, participated in the rally at the White House Ellipse on Jan. 6. He then walked to the Capitol with a hatchet in his backpack and joined a group that pushed through police officers guarding the west side of the Capitol’s lower terrace. Prosecutors have charged him with promoting violence and transporting weapons to Washington prior to Jan. 6.
Last summer, he was convicted of multiple felonies, such as conspiracy. At his sentencing hearing in December, Hostetter decided to act as his own lawyer despite the risk to his own freedom. However, it did not result in a favorable outcome for him.
go to bed, my parents would always say “Good night”
At bedtime, my parents consistently bid me “Good night.”
Request leniency from the judge during sentencing.
, During the trial, Hostetter presented numerous conspiracy theories. He argued that the January 6 attack was a planned event involving actors and was orchestrated by federal agents. He also claimed that the attack was a psychological operation and the most successful action carried out by rogue federal intelligence and law enforcement members.
Lamberth maintained eye contact with Hostetter as he made his winding statements. After he finished speaking, Lamberth adjusted his glasses and replied.
The judge discussed the significance and safeguards provided by the First Amendment, however they also stated that it does not grant the ability to impede Congress or bring weapons into restricted areas.
Judge Lamberth delivered a particularly severe sentence, as requested by the federal prosecutors, of over 11 years in prison. This is one of the longest sentences given in any case related to the events of January 6th.
“I can’t tell you how much I just hate all of it”
Karol Chwiesiuk, a former police officer in Chicago, participated in the mob at the Capitol. During his sentencing on January 24, Judge Ana Reyes condemned the rioters who have compared themselves to revolutionaries and the Founding Fathers of America.
Reyes addressed Chwiesiuk directly, stating that some defendants are misunderstanding the past.
“I have a strong urge to provide a historical lesson to everyone. This is because there are individuals who hold onto the belief that the election was unfairly won, and they believe it aligns with the principles of our American Founding Fathers to rebell against tyranny,” she stated.
Reyes added, “I recommend that you take the time to read President Washington’s farewell address. In it, he cautions Americans to be on guard against false displays of patriotism. He also warns, ‘There will always be individuals who seek to undermine the foundations of our democratic experiment.'”
Justice Department
Reyes opted to give Chwiesiuk probation instead of sending him to prison. However, she also highlighted the difficulty judges face when handling cases related to the January 6th incident. She mentioned the complexities of sentencing individuals who had no previous criminal history, but were influenced by false claims about the 2020 election.
“I strongly dislike this situation. I have negative feelings towards all of it. I am not fond of having to engage in these discussions. It is unfortunate that these discussions have to happen. Communicating with two law-abiding individuals in this manner is something I detest,” she expressed. “Words cannot express how much I simply detest all of this.”
Measures to prevent the spread of conspiracy theories during a trial.
The conspiracy theories that persist from Jan. 6 are less likely to spread in front of trial juries in Jan. 6 cases. Less than 25% of Capitol defendants whose cases have closed sought a trial, with the majority instead opting to plead guilty.
According to Catherine Ross, a law professor at George Washington University, the number of defendants who decide to testify in their defense during a trial is quite low. This is because the court’s regulations protect jurors from being exposed to unfounded theories and conspiratorial arguments.
According to Ross, there is no proof to support the unfounded allegations made by the defendants involved in the Jan. 6 incident. These claims do not meet the criteria for being presented to a jury or judge. Conspiracy theories are merely speculation and do not qualify as evidence. As a result, the jury cannot take them into consideration. Any baseless claims that are expressed in an uncontrolled manner are automatically removed from the official record.
CBS News journalists have observed multiple defendants persist in promoting untrue allegations regarding the 2020 election. However, these statements were made during sentencing hearings, where defendants have more leeway to express their beliefs. Federal criminal sentencing hearings are solely presided over and determined by judges, not juries.
“You are not being victimized.”
Judges have not only criticized defendants from January 6, but also pushed back against Trump’s repeated assertions of being unfairly targeted in a “witch hunt” for political reasons.
Last year, Peter Navarro, a previous trade adviser for the Trump administration, was found guilty by a jury of contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Jan. 6 Select Committee.
At his sentencing hearing
On January 25, Navarro repeated some of Trump’s baseless assertions. Judge Amit Mehta sentenced him to four months in prison and had strong words regarding Navarro’s allegations.
In a crowded courtroom on the fourth floor, Mehta stated that Navarro’s assertion of political motivation in the prosecution was incorrect, as the evidence proves otherwise.
Mehta expressed disapproval of Navarro’s assertion that the case revealed a “two-tiered system of justice.” The judge pointed out that Navarro had four defense attorneys present at his trial and sentencing. “While there may be disparities in our justice system, this particular situation does not exemplify that,” Mehta stated.
More
More
Source: cbsnews.com