Can Steve Bannon or January 6th Defendants Get a Fair Trial? POLLS SHOWS EXTREME JURY BIAS!! Tainted Jury! READ THE FULL POLL RESULTS HERE!
Yesterday kicked off jury selection for Steve Bannon’s “Contempt of Congress” trial. In the same building jury selection also commenced for the case of J6 defendant Matthew Bledsoe. (Opening statements begin today for both cases). Bledsoe is being charged with multiple crimes for walking into the Capitol on J6, including Obstruction of Justice. Can these men get a fair trial?
Multiple independent polls show that the D.C. jury pool may be damaged beyond repair. One study was actually conducted by the Federal Public Defender’s Office and flat out makes it clear that a January 6th defendant will not get a fair trial in Washington D.C. The Justice Department is fully aware of these findings, yet refuses to agree to move venues for any of the defendants, therefore VIOLATING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. *See full reports and polls below.
According to our courtroom observer Gabriel Garcia, the jury pools for both men were comprised of a cast of mostly far left liberals who admitted to getting their news from CNN and The Washington Post. They made statement like “what happened on January 6th is a stain in America’s History” and admitted that they could not be ‘fair and impartial’ jurors. Interestingly, two veterans and a military worker that were being considered as jurors for the Bledsoe case were immediately struck by the prosecution and did not make the jury.
“In the case of Bledsoe’s jury selection, what I saw with my very own eyes and heard are potential jurors that are mostly biased towards what happened on J6- not just for Bledsoe’s actions, but for his political beliefs,” said Garcia. “The final 12 jurors and 2 alternates got sworn in yesterday in the late afternoon. It seemed like I was looking at a panel that would sit around the table at MSNBC along with some ANTIFA personalities. The most shocking thing I noticed was how Chief Justice Beryl Howell kept pushing forward potential jurors that clearly answered that they cannot remain impartial to “put their feelings aside” and “make a decision based on the evidence clearly presented by the government.”
Apparently, the Obama appointed Judge Howell was “rehabilitating jurors” who initailly expressed an inability to be impartial. According to Garcia, Howell pressured the potential jurors that blatantly said they could not be impartial to agree that they were capable of “ignoring their biases” in order to salvage them for the jury, until they finally agreed under the pressure. If there were no rehabilitated jurors, there would literally be no jury. Therefore, several of these characters slipped into the final selection for Bledsoe.
“It is going to be impossible for these people to ignore their biases,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “They are human beings. Rehabilitating a jury pool this contaminated is impossible. The January 6th Unselect Committee and the Biden Regime have made sure that this Constitutional Right has been stripped away from their political enemies by aggressively and intentionally polluting the jury pool in Washington, D.C.”
One of Steve Bannon’s attorneys remains hopeful the jury system will work for his client, who did not commit a crime and is being persecuted by the Kangaroo Court for political purposes. “We appreciate all the time the prospective jurors put in,” said David Schoen, lead attorney for Steve Bannon. “It is very difficult to find a jury with the kind of pretrial publicity that there has been around this issue. We can only hope the people who eventually sit as jurors are fair, impartial and open minded.”
Bannon’s Judge Carl Nichols also said he believes the jury system can still work. “I am cognizant of current concerns about publicity and bias and whether we can seat a jury that is going to be appropriate and fair, but as I said before, I believe the appropriate course is to go through the voir dire process,” Nichols said last week. The judge said he intended to get a jury that “is going to be appropriate, fair and unbiased.”
According to another courtroom observer for both jury selections, one after another potential juror came forward to say that they think the January 6th investigation is “important and they like how they are getting to the bottom of things”. Everyone was of favorable mindset regarding the Unselect Committee (that they are doing a good job) and “seem to get their daily news dose from MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post”.
Great job, January 6th Unselect Committee and Biden Regime. You have Obstructed Justice with America watching. You have successfully made it impossible for anyone being charged with a crime related to January 6th to get a fair trail by jury- A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury of one’s “peers” chosen from a broad spectrum of the community. This is a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which “peer” means an “equal.” The purpose of the Sixth Amendment “jury of one’s peers” provision is to ensure that a jury’s verdict is not tainted by biases that jurors may harbor before being presented with the evidence of that particular case.
Is the founding father’s vision possible given the one party rule, Unselect Committee Hearings and one-sided Mainstream Media Propaganda that pervades modern society?
“This must be visited by the Supreme Court,” said Ryan. “It is no longer possible to have a fair jury trail in modern America in Washington D.C. A change of venue is the only remedy that aligns with the Constitution- these trials must be moved to a geographic area with a more diverse pool of jurors when it comes to political affiliations/beliefs and voting habits. OVER 92 Percent of D.C. voted for Biden, according to the Board of Elections. How can it be fair for these people to judge Trump Supporters for January 6th at such an unprecedented time of political hatred and divide?”
“Watching jury selection in the Bledsoe case confirmed my fears that potential jurors from the District have prejudged J6 defendants, and actually view themselves as victims of January 6,” said J6 Attorney Aubrey Webb, who represents a number of J6 defendants and came to observe the jury selection and trials this week in D.C. Webb has filed motions for ‘change of venue’ for his J6 clients. Although many other J6 defendants have filed motions to have their trials moved out of D.C., none have been granted to date.
Multiple polls and jury pool analysis have been conducted on the jury pools in D.C. pertaining to January 6th, but mainstream media will never report on them.
“The findings are that it seems that the jury pool in the District of Columbia are are the opposite of ‘peers’,” aid Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “If anything, they literally hate the defendants, feels they are victims of the defendants, and have already made up their mind that they should go to prison.”
Every J6 defendant that has been tried by Jury in Washington D.C. has been found guilty on all charges to date. This has led many other defendants to begin negotiating unfair plea deals and cooperation with the Feds out of desperation.
Prospective jurors in the District of Columbia have decidedly negative impressions of individuals arrested in conjunction with the activities of January 6, 2021. Their bias against the defendants is evident in numerous results and is reflected in a significant prejudgment of the case: a clear majority admit they would be inclined to vote “guilty” if they were serving on a jury at the defendants’ trial. The attitudes of prospective jurors in the District of Columbia are decidedly more hostile toward the defendants than adults nationwide or prospective jurors in a demographically comparable federal court division.
This perception of guilt goes beyond a simple, loosely held opinion. For example, from early in life, most every American is exposed to the monition that, if they serve as jurors, they must treat defendants as “innocent until proven guilty.” Despite this, a majority of jury-eligible residents of the District of Columbia (52%) admit in this anonymous interview that if they were “on a jury for a defendant charged with crimes for his or her activities on January 6th,” they would be more likely to vote the defendant “guilty.” Only 2% say they would be more likely to vote “not guilty.” About a third of the jury pool volunteer that “it depends” on how they would vote, and 13% offer no opinion. See full study HERE.
Another poll conducted by Inlux Research and Analytics highlights the “Perceived Victimization” of potential jurors. According to this study:
The DC community reports a unique association with Defendants and the case(s). Members of the DC Community (82%) claim high levels of personal impact and perceived victimization caused by the events of January 6, including a feeling an increased concern for safety, experiencing restrictions on the free of movement, identifying as a member of a group they believe was targeted, and by being “personally affected” by the events of January 6th. 62% of the DC Community feels that some or all of the events at issue were racially motivated, and most of the respondents who feel this way are non-white. 44% of the DC Community is a member of a group or class that they believe was targeted by events at issue in the case(s). In comparison, only 6% to 18% of the potential jurors in the other test areas are expected to view the case(s) from this perspective.
The Study shows that the DC Community is saturated with potential jurors who harbor actual bias against Defendants. In total, 91% of DC Community respondents who answered all of the prejudgment test questions admit making at least one prejudicial prejudgment on issues related to the case(s), while the other Test Areas admit doing so at rates from 49% to 63%.7 This bias is not only more prevalent in the DC Community, but it is also more intense. The DC Community also admits making more than one prejudicial prejudgment at a much higher rate than respondents from the other Test Areas. In fact, 30% of DC Community respondents admit that they have already made every prejudicial prejudgment tested for in the survey – double the rate of the next highest Test Area. See full poll HERE.
In a Zobgy Poll conducted commissioned by the legal team of a J6 defendant Gabriel Garcia:
Seven out of 10 (70%) respondents believe that ANYONE who went inside the Capitol building that day were trying to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote for president. And almost two-thirds (64%) of respondents believe that despite not personally committing acts of vandalism or violence, an individual could still be held responsible for such serious crimes assuming they went inside the building that day.
More than one-third respondents who said yes to Q16 (35%) stated the reason for holding such a view was because they believe that ANYONE who entered the building that day is guilty of such acts (Statement A). While greater than 6 in 10 respondents (62%) stated they hold such a belief because just being inside regardless of personal commission means they were involved in planning or orchestrating the events. See the full study HERE.
“This is an unusual situation,” said Bannon attorney Schoen (referring to his client Bannon). “You have a Congress that is the same political party as the President and the Justice Department. So that is the only situation in which this (persecution) could work. This is a politically partisan prosecution- it is the unique situation in which Congress and the Executive Branch, for political reasons, want to bring criminal prosecutions.”
The Unselect Witch Hunt Committee Hearings. Many scholars believe that history will find this Committee knowingly Obstructed Justice, lied to the American people and brought forward compromised witnesses to politically persecute their enemies.
“Time and again Americans are starkly reminded that in our Nation’s Capitol- Washington D.C.-there are two sets of Justice,” said Newsmax host and J6 Advocate John Tabacco. One for Democrats and one for Republicans. Steve Bannon’s Criminal Contempt trial is unprecedented in American History. Never before has a former Presidential Advisor been brought to criminal trial for not answering a subpoena. Eric Holder was literally giving free guns to Mexican Drug Lords and his contempt charge was squashed because Obama Claimed ‘Privilege’. This Judge has extinguished most of Bannon’s defenses and the jury pool is rife with Biden Supporting D.C. Democrats. While it is unlikely Steve can get a fair jury of his peers, the evidences in his favor and points towards an innocent verdict. If he is indeed found guilty by a polluted jury, it will undoubtedly be overturned on Appeal. The unfairness of D.C. Juries should strike fear in every non-elitist in America. Today it’s Steve Bannon. Tomorrow it could be you.”
Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz sums it up:
“This is the worst atmosphere for anyone who seems to be a Trump supporter to get a fair trial in DC since McCarthyism. Here you have a committee- a McCarthy-like kangaroo committee hearing triple hearsay- one side of the issue, no cross examination, no opportunity to question anybody…and the jurors are all going to be exposed to that, and then asked to render a fair trial? No, there is no chance that a fair trial can be had today.
Efforts to try a get a fair jury- it won’t work- if jurors from the District of Columbia or the surrounding areas are asked to judge events around January 6th it won’t be a fair trial.”
“Fair jury trial in D.C. for Trump Supporters? Yeah, ok,” said Tabacco. “Biden has a better chance of become a champion bicycle rider.”
See Biden Obstruct Justice and contaminate the Jury pool for what he perceives to be his political enemies here:
“Please pray for our fellow citizens Steve Bannon and Matthew Bledsoe this week. Pray the jury is able to be fair and unbiased,” said Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “The way the founding fathers intended.”
Remember, if it can happen to these Americans, it can happen to you. Use your voice and speak out against unfair treatment of your fellow American Citizens.
Cara Castronuova is a co-Founder of C.A.P.P. (Citizens Against Political Persecution and The People’s January 6th Commission. She is an Activist, Investigative Journalist, 2-Time Boxing Champion, Celebrity Fitness Trainer and Television Personality. You can watch her on Newsmax at 10PM EST every Saturday night on “Wiseguys”. You can follow her on & Twitter or Instagram @CaraCastronuova. She is currently banned on Fakebook & suing them for defamation of character. You can contact her via the C.A.P.P. website at www.CitizensAPP.us or www.caracastronuova.com if you have any tips or would like to volunteer. She is also running for New York State Assembly (www.Cara4Assembly.com).
“I Can Do All Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me.” Phil 4:13.