If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.
If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.
Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.
But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.
You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?
That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.
Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.
If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.
There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.
If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting
I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.
The FACE charge is Federal, locals can't prosecute it.
There is NO RECORD of this supposed civil case. I sorta doubt it existed.
The DOJ would be unwise to leak evidence ahead of a trial, polluting the jury pool and making a conviction harder to achieve.
Why not wait and see? Your rush to judgement is not due to a rationale approach IMO. The guy aligns with you politically so you want him to be innocent. But listen buddy, hopes and dreams won't have an impact on the facts of the case, which we really do not know much about at this juncture. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be very wrong at a later date by taking such an intractable stance.
If it was in fact an assault with injuries, locals can and would prosecute it.
The DOJ/FBI leaks information all the time. Winning the war of public opinion is a primary objective.
You are rushing to judgement also. You keep calling the wife a liar, you have stated he beated the old man (since deleteled), you think he has admitted an assault, you are convinces there is incriminating video evidence.
The wife has been shown to have lied and exaggerated.
The usage of the team "beating" was a mistake on my part, something which I corrected and owned and that is still in this thread for all to read. When I make a mistake, I'm happy to admit it and adjust. Maybe take a note there.
He has admitted to pushing the guy. That's admitting to assault IMO.
I am convinced there is video evidence. 1) the accused says there is a video. 2) the clinic has multiple exterior cameras that are visible in pictures and videos of the clinic. 3) the fact that they did not interview the accused ahead of filing charges indicates a strong likelihood that they have multiple sources of evidence against him. It is a logical assumption that they have video of the incident. If they don't, I'll happily stand corrected.