Judge Blasts Trump DOJ Before Dismissing 'Head-Scratching' J6 Case

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

An Obama-appointed federal judge used the dismissal of the final Oath Keepers prosecution not simply to close a criminal case, but to deliver a lengthy rebuke of the Trump administration's handling of January 6 prosecutions.

Advertisement

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ultimately concluded he had no legal authority to stop the Department of Justice from dismissing the indictment against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and other defendants. 

The Justice Department asked the court to dismiss the indictment after the D.C. Circuit vacated the convictions and remanded the case. President Donald Trump had previously commuted the sentences of Rhodes and several other defendants, while issuing pardons to hundreds of other January 6 defendants.

Rather than simply grant the motion, Mehta issued a 15-page opinion questioning nearly every justification advanced by the Department of Justice.

"The government thus asks to absolve these Defendants of crimes against the United States itself," Mehta wrote. "In this court's view, that is not in the public interest." 

At another point, the judge dismissed one of the DOJ's primary arguments as "a head-scratcher."

"The President could have pardoned them, too, but elected not to," Mehta observed. "Or he could have directed the dismissal of their cases on appeal, but he did not do that, either. The government nowhere explains what has changed." 

Advertisement

He also took issue with the DOJ's contention that the dismissal was needed to protect the defendants from prosecutorial harassment.

"That is a strange argument," Mehta wrote, noting that there was no indication prosecutors intended to recharge the defendants. Instead, he said, the government was "bestow[ing] upon them unearned grace by wiping their records clean." 


READ MORE: Obama-Appointed Judge Faces Impeachment After Outrageous TPS Ruling


He was also peeved that the government never claimed the convictions were legally defective, the evidence insufficient, or that prosecutors had engaged in misconduct.

"Remarkably," Mehta wrote, "the government does not maintain that dismissal is in the public interest to rectify a fundamental error or a grave injustice." 

Despite those criticisms, Mehta acknowledged that precedent left him with little alternative but to dismiss the case.

"This court does strongly disagree," he wrote. "But that alone is not a valid basis to deny the motion. The court must give way to the primacy of the Executive Branch in making charging decisions." 

Before he dismissed the case, he unleashed an excoriating rant on what he viewed as an effort to erase the legacy of January 6. 

"This is the last of the prosecutions seeking to hold accountable those responsible for the events of January 6. That book is now closed," Mehta wrote.

Advertisement

"Today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions, and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries-long pillar of our democracy—the peaceful transfer of presidential power—to buckle. The court cannot write a different ending." 

U.S. courts, however, can write a different ending for January 6 cases. One where judges preside over cases dispassionately and adjudicate them according to the law, without engaging in self-indulgent diatribes about politically sensitive matters.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.

Recommended

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos