61-year-old patriot John Steven Anderson is now facing a slew of federal charges that are completely based off of a short video clip taken at the US Capitol on January 6th, and the only thing standing between him and potentially years in prison is one lawyer who refusing to bow down to the partisan swamp.
As Real Clear Policy reports:
John Steven Anderson, 61, stands accused of “civil disorder,” “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers,” “disruptive conduct” and other federal felonies related to his presence in a Capitol building tunnel where police officers pepper-sprayed pro-Trump marchers near the lower west terrace door. Anderson’s lawyer, Marina Medvin, has battled Swamp attorneys who have designated video of Anderson struggling to breathe and seeking help from cops “highly sensitive” and subject to a restrictive protective order.
In a written motion filed last month seeking to free the 30-second video clip, Medvin asserted: “While John Anderson is charged with assaulting and impeding police officers, and theft of government property, amongst other accusations, the government’s evidence fails to corroborate the charges. The government’s evidence, instead, shows a man approaching police to seek medical attention after being chemically sprayed by a member of the crowd and after being subjected to additional chemical spray released into the crowd by law enforcement. The video sought for release, and being blocked by the government, establishes Mr. Anderson’s defense.”
Bizarrely, the Deep State opportunists milking Jan. 6 for all its political worth argue that it would be a danger to national security to allow Anderson, the media and the public to have access to the 30-second exculpatory clip at issue. In response to Medvin’s motion, the government cites the so-called mosaic theory to justify protecting video footage from the Capitol police force’s closed-circuit video system. Every individual piece of video evidence must be protected from disclosure, the prosecutors’ argument goes, to prevent nefarious operatives from piecing together in aggregate the exact locations of the entire vast network of cameras.
“Surely,” Medvin pleads, “Mr. Anderson should not be prejudiced by the continued veil of secrecy over the video sought for release in his case simply because in this case the government does not feel the release is advantageous to their legal position. The government’s contradictory position in John Anderson’s case to their utilization of CCTV video in the cases of Julian Khater and George Tanios gives the government control over the defense and creates a disparity between the parties standing before this court, rendering the defense an inferior party to the prosecution; all the while, the two parties are to stand before the court as equals … In Mr. Anderson’s case, the government is attempting to conceal video favorable to the defense to protect their unjust prosecution and to continue to unilaterally control the public narrative. Why should this be permitted?”
Will the federal government be allowed to railroad a patriotic American based completely on evidence which neither he nor his own counsel is able to see, thus making a mockery of American constitutional rights? Only time will tell.