Connect with us

J6 News

Tucker Carlson Says Capitol Police Chief Told Him Jan 6 Crowd Was ‘Filled with Federal Agents’

Published

on

Tucker Carlson just dropped a BOMBSHELL regarding the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Carlson appeared on Russell Brand’s podcast and revealed new information about Jan 6.

It’s long been known that the FBI had undercover operatives working in the crowd during Jan. 6 but the Department of Justice (DOJ) has tried to downplay the claims.

Carlson, however, recently disclosed that Steven Sund, the head of the Capitol Police, had informed him that the J6 crowd was heavily populated with federal agents.

Unfortunately, Carlson said Fox News fired him before he could air the interview.

Carlson told Brand: “I interviewed the Chief of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, nonpolitical, worked for Nancy Pelosi, he said ‘yeah, that crowd was filled with federal agents.’”

WATCH:

Elsewhere in the interview, Carlson also said he was “shocked” to learn he had been fired by Fox News.

He noted that Elon Musk is not paying him a dime to post his show on Twitter.

Tucker said: “I don’t work for Elon Musk.

“He’s paid me zero money.

“I don’t think I ever want to work for anyone again.”

Tucker also said he loves Trump and explained why he thinks the 45th president is the most significant figure in American politics in the last 100 years.

“I think we’re going to see Trump’s emergence as the most significant thing that happened in American politics in 100 years because he reoriented the Republican Party against the wishes of Republican leaders.

“I love Trump,” he asserted.

“The way that the United States is doing immigration is designed to wreck the country and to make it unstable.”

2024 Race

Supreme Court ruling could overturn 300 J6 convictions, destroy case against Trump

Published

on

By

The case against former President Donald Trump and 300 other felony convictions stemming from the events of January 6 may face a major setback after the United States Supreme Court indicated it would consider an obstruction law that was used against them.

The case, Fischer v. United States, involves the prosecution of January 6 defendant Joseph Fischer. The former police officer was accused of inflaming a mob that tried to enter the Capitol and pushing against police, and he was charged with multiple federal crimes. His case challenges the Justice Department’s interpretation of the charge of “obstruction of an official proceeding,” section 1512(c)(2), which was also used against hundreds of other defendants who took part in the events at the Capitol that day, including Trump. The charge criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing, interfering with, or impeding official government proceedings and has a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The “official proceeding” in this instance was Congress’ official final tally of Electoral College votes, the last step in recognizing Biden’s victory against Trump. The accusation stems from a 2002 statute enacted in the aftermath of the Enron scandal and is primarily used to punish behavior involving evidence destruction. The question of whether it relates to allegedly disrupting the election count process has dominated the prosecutions of January 6 defendants.

Explaining the gravity of the situation, investigative reporter Julie Kelly who wrote on X/Twitter: “This is a day so many J6ers have been waiting for. Lives destroyed, people rotting in prison. All bc Biden’s DOJ abused a post-Enron evidence tampering statute. And what will Jack Smith do now? 2 of 4 counts in his indictment in jeopardy. This is potentially more impactful than immunity issue.”

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1734950356138782925?s=20

If the courts do overturn the interpretation of the law, then it might have far-reaching consequences since it served as the basis for numerous major January 6 lawsuits. As a consequence, at least one defendant has already made a move. Ethan Seitz, who was convicted of criminal obstruction of justice after breaking into the Capitol via a shattered glass, urged his trial-level judge to delay a sentence hearing next month due to the ongoing case “in the interests of judicial economy.”

Former federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe said: “A ruling against the government in the Fischer case in the Supreme Court could well have a ripple effect in many other Capitol riot cases where the defendants were charged with the same obstruction of justice provision, went to trial (as opposed to pleading guilty) and were convicted.”

Some legal experts have predicted that Trump’s federal election interference trial, which is scheduled for March, will be held until a decision on the Fischer case is handed down by the Supreme Court. The high court will be given until June to hand down a ruling.

The move marks the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to review the prosecution of someone who was involved in the events of January 6.

SOURCES: CNN, REVOLVER, NEWSWEEK

Continue Reading

Featured

Jan 6 Protester Sues CNN for Defamation

Published

on

By

Jacob Hiles says he went to the Capitol on January 6th to show his support for President Donald Trump. He says he has the right under the first amendment to do so. Hiles was arrested like many other over entering the Capitol building that day. Like many others his name was “slandered” by mainstream media.

Hiles is now seeking a defamation lawsuit against the media giant, CNN, for $37 million.

Within the lawsuit Hiles claims the network made false claims about him committing felonies in which he has not be convicted of.

Hiles claims the network’s claims have caused him to lose business and has affected his daughter.

Continue Reading

Trending