Evidence continues to mount of political persecution and double standards in the prosecution of Trump supporters involved in the breach of the U.S. Capitol building on January 6.
In one of the latest examples, one of the individuals involved could face jail time for not masking up to a judge’s liking.
Rachel Powell was charged by the Department of Justice with multiple offenses related to the January 6 breach. On February 11, federal judge Beryl Howell allowed her to be released while awaiting her trial. Of the various conditions attached to Judge Howell’s order was a requirement that Powell “must wear a mask whenever she leaves her residence.”
At the hearing, the judge claimed she imposed this mandate so Powell “would not pose a risk to the health and safety of the community when she left her house.” But the order has no medical justification. Under it, even if completely alone outdoors or in her car — situations with no risk of spreading or receiving COVID-19 — Powell is forced to wear a face mask.
According to the New Yorker, a left-wing magazine, Powell had strongly opposed mask-wearing and COVID restrictions prior to the January 6 breach. That article, published 10 days before Powell’s release, might explain why Judge Howell included her mask requirement: to humiliate Powell and show her who’s in charge.
Regardless of why the mask requirement was imposed in the first place, Powell is now accused of not sufficiently complying with it. In a video posted on Facebook, she was seen wearing a mesh mask at work.
In response, federal judge Royce Lamberth threatened to revoke Powell’s release, claiming that her mask “mocks compliance with the Court’s Order.” Ironically, despite the judge noting the alleged health reasons for the order, Powell was more “protected” than others in the video who did not wear any mask. Someone should have told Judge Lamberth that the court’s order mocks decency and common sense.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Oath Keeper Strikes Plea Deal
On April 16, another individual involved in the breach struck a plea deal with the Department of Justice, becoming the first individual to plead guilty.
Jon Schaffer had originally been charged by the DOJ with six offenses that could have resulted in up to 40 years in prison if he was found guilty. However, he struck a plea deal in which he pled guilty to only two charges: “obstruction of an official proceeding and entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon.” The “dangerous weapon” was bear repellant.
In return, Schaffer, who lacks a criminal history, has been recommended for a prison term of 41 to 51 months, or about three to four years. Additionally, he has been released from jail and is allowed to travel in the contiguous United States. He has also agreed to help the federal government in its investigation and prosecutions related to the Capitol breach.
It should be noted that plea deals do not necessarily mean a defendant is actually guilty. Often, they are made out of desperation or because of pressure from prosecutors. For example, in a recent interview with The New American, Dr. Richard Fleming related how he agreed to plead guilty to two lesser charges after abuse and heavy-handed prosecution by the FBI. While the exact circumstances have yet to be revealed, Schaffer may have faced a similar situation. A possible reason is that the DOJ is seeking to save face since its case against many of the Capitol protestors is falling apart.
Double Standards of Justice
If the DOJ’s handling of the January 6 Capitol incident has revealed anything to Americans, it is the government’s disregard for equal protection under the law and due process.
A comparison with the Antifa and BLM riots last year illustrates this. So far, the federal government has dropped nearly half of its cases against the far-left Portland rioters, who had similar charges to the Capitol protestors, while state-level prosecutors have dismissed about 90 percent of their cases. A large proportion of rioters in other cities were also released.
Congress recovered from the Capitol incident significantly more quickly than any of the looted businesses did following 2020’s riots. However, many of those involved in the former incident have been denied bail and received heavy-handed treatment from the DOJ.
Multiple other examples of double standards exist. On April 14, the Capitol Police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt, a 10-year Air Force veteran, during the Capitol protests was cleared of all charges. The officer’s identity remains protected. By comparison, police officers including Kim Potter and Derek Chauvin, whose identities were quickly revealed, received far different treatment.
Furthermore, on April 8, far-left BLM activists stormed the Iowa Capitol Building. Despite the similarities to the January 6 incident in Washington, D.C., the mainstream media gave very little attention to this incident. It remains to be seen how many participants in the Iowa Capitol storming will face prison.
Despite these double standards, Republican Party politicians are not speaking out against this unequal treatment. If the situation were reversed, there is little question of what the reaction of Democrats and other leftists would be.
This illustrates the need for patriots to stand up for foundational principles such as equal treatment under the law, irrespective of the Republican establishment’s reaction. If enough Americans do this, impartial justice in our Republic will not be totally extinguished.
