Julie Kelly

But I think the most egregious violation is that judges systematically for three years, Charlie, as we discussed, denied every single change of venue motion filed by every J6 defendant arguing that they could still get a fair trial in a city most entirely populated by Democrats and not just Democrats, Trump loathing radical left-wing Democrats who view the events of January 6th as they do compare it to 9-11.

But I think the most egregious violation is that judges systematically for three years, Charlie, as we discussed, denied every single change of venue motion filed by every J6 defendant arguing that they could still get a fair trial in a city most entirely populated by Democrats and not just Democrats, Trump loathing radical left-wing Democrats who view the events of January 6th as they do compare it to 9-11.

I have sat in some of those jury selections. You cannot believe what the residents of Washington, D.C. think about January 6th. So the judges would claim, OK, well, we'll go through this Wadir process. We'll really, you know, drill down into their political views about Donald Trump and January 6th. No, they didn't. They didn't do that.

I have sat in some of those jury selections. You cannot believe what the residents of Washington, D.C. think about January 6th. So the judges would claim, OK, well, we'll go through this Wadir process. We'll really, you know, drill down into their political views about Donald Trump and January 6th. No, they didn't. They didn't do that.

And so it resulted in the DOJ having this perfect conviction rate after now almost three years of trials. So that right there is an indication that these J6ers did not have their constitutional rights of an impartial jury, going before an impartial jury.

And so it resulted in the DOJ having this perfect conviction rate after now almost three years of trials. So that right there is an indication that these J6ers did not have their constitutional rights of an impartial jury, going before an impartial jury.

And certainly the judges were a big part of that, but also withholding discovery, Brady materials, exculpatory evidence, concealing the use of not just FBI informants, but other undercover agents from numerous law enforcement agencies. So there were so many things just systematically happening there. That resulted in more than a thousand going to federal prison.

And certainly the judges were a big part of that, but also withholding discovery, Brady materials, exculpatory evidence, concealing the use of not just FBI informants, but other undercover agents from numerous law enforcement agencies. So there were so many things just systematically happening there. That resulted in more than a thousand going to federal prison.

So I know that that was part of your strong argument, not that we needed to. Again, the president was on board. But I think just developing the argument and the record for this extraordinary measure that he took yesterday.

So I know that that was part of your strong argument, not that we needed to. Again, the president was on board. But I think just developing the argument and the record for this extraordinary measure that he took yesterday.

Yes, absolutely.

Yes, absolutely.

Because to your point, the easy one, the low-hanging fruit, and I think what a lot of people thought was going to happen, and CNN and the Washington Post actually erroneously reported this a few hours before he issued that pardon, is, okay, we'll just dismiss the counts, pardon those who were convicted or accused of the four or five common misdemeanors, which is still hundreds of people.

Because to your point, the easy one, the low-hanging fruit, and I think what a lot of people thought was going to happen, and CNN and the Washington Post actually erroneously reported this a few hours before he issued that pardon, is, okay, we'll just dismiss the counts, pardon those who were convicted or accused of the four or five common misdemeanors, which is still hundreds of people.

And then we'll go case by case for the 300 or so with those federal, it's 111 charges, assault, interfering, impeding certain officers. So I think that's what everyone was sort of suggesting. And you know this, Charlie, pressure from Republicans in Congress. We had U.S.

And then we'll go case by case for the 300 or so with those federal, it's 111 charges, assault, interfering, impeding certain officers. So I think that's what everyone was sort of suggesting. And you know this, Charlie, pressure from Republicans in Congress. We had U.S.

senators very strongly come out during Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing, Tom Tillis and Lindsey Graham, very unequivocally saying, There should not be pardons for anyone accused of assaulting police. So this was such a courageous decision by President Trump. I really want to emphasize that this was not an easy thing for him to do, but he did it because it's the right thing.

senators very strongly come out during Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing, Tom Tillis and Lindsey Graham, very unequivocally saying, There should not be pardons for anyone accused of assaulting police. So this was such a courageous decision by President Trump. I really want to emphasize that this was not an easy thing for him to do, but he did it because it's the right thing.

And he feels personally passionate about restoring justice and making these people whole.

And he feels personally passionate about restoring justice and making these people whole.