January 6 Defendant Gloriously Acquitted — Is His Defense the Roadmap for Other Peaceful Protesters to Win Back Their Freedom?

One of the most prominent points made by supporters of the political prisoners arrested following the mostly peaceful protest at the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, is that tons of video evidence shows law enforcement officers ushering in the protesters. If these people were breaking the law, doesn’t that mean the police were breaking it with them by pulling down the barricades, opening the doors, and ushering them in? Are we not supposed to listen to the instructions of law enforcement?

This premise was tested with glorious results for January 6 defendant Matthew Martin. According to Sean Davis:

This acknowledgement of reality — that it’s not a crime to walk through a door held open for you by police — is fatal to the corrupt government’s entire J6 narrative. It’s also why DOJ has criminally abused defendants to force plea deals: DOJ knows its cases are garbage.

Davis may be onto something. The Department of Justice has been gung ho with charges and arrests and have claimed to be applying the full force of the law against people they have dubbed “insurrectionists” and “domestic terrorists.” But they’ve been just as quick to quietly make plea deals with as many as possible. This isn’t the standard practice of clearing a docket through negotiations. They have always seemed to be in a very big rush to get as many as possible to admit wrongdoing even if it meant far lighter sentences.

Was it all a con because they knew they had no real cases against most of the defendants?

Martin’s story is one that is very similar to a large portion of the accused. As Buzzfeed reported:

Announcing his decision from the bench, US District Judge Trevor McFadden said that although prosecutors argued there were numerous instances when Martin would have been aware that he wasn’t allowed on Capitol grounds or inside the building — as he walked past fences with signs saying “AREA CLOSED” and recorded video of a broken window, blaring alarms, police in riot gear, and people who appeared to have encountered tear gas — those were outweighed by Martin’s “plausible” belief that he had permission because officers didn’t try to stop him from entering.

McFadden said that Martin’s conduct was as “minimal and non-serious”as the judge could imagine for someone who went into the Capitol on Jan. 6. He said that Martin seemed to be a “silent observer” of the scene and didn’t try to crowd the police, protest, or wave the “Trump” flag that he was carrying. Martin appeared “quiet” and “orderly” as he walked inside the building, filmed video inside the Rotunda similar to how the media would behave, and didn’t appear to interfere with officers as he filmed a clash with rioters later in the afternoon on a north terrace of the building.

If the plan for the DoJ was to put on a public appearance of toughness but then bully defendants into signing plea bargains, it appears to have been working. Out of 770 charged, around 250 have already signed plea agreements.

Those who have not fallen for the DoJ’s pressure campaign need to apply Martin’s defense strategy if their situation warrants it. If the police were ushering people in, can they really be blamed for entering and peacefully protesting?