Foreign-born Obama judge seethes over dismissal of J6 charges against Oath Keepers not covered by Trump pardon



An Indian-born federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama has dismissed J6-related criminal charges against eight members of the Oath Keepers — and was clearly cut up about it.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who oversaw the defendants' seditious conspiracy trials in 2022 and 2023, made no secret that he issued the order on Tuesday "reluctantly" and fretted that the dismissal "bestows upon [the defendants] unearned grace by wiping their records clean."

'That is not in the public interest.'

Mehta also complained that "today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of [Jan. 6, 2021], 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."

In connection to their involvement in the Jan. 6 melee at the U.S. Capitol, Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Joseph Hackett, David Moerschel, and Edward Vallejo were all convicted of obstructing an official proceeding.

All but Rhodes were convicted of conspiracy to prevent members of Congress from discharging their duties. All but Rhodes and Harrelson were convicted of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. All but Watkins and Harrelson were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

In April, the Trump Justice Department moved to vacate the Oath Keepers' convictions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The circuit court granted the motion on May 21 and remanded the case back to the district court, where a day later, federal prosecutors requested that Mehta formally dismiss with prejudice the militiamen's criminal case.

RELATED: Ketanji Brown Jackson mocked after discussing need for justices to appear neutral — while on OBAMA's podcast

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes. BRYAN DOZIER/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images.

The motion stated that the government had "determined ... that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice."

Mehta initially declined to oblige the government until he was provided with additional information, claiming that he was "not satisfied" with prosecutors' "bare-boned justification" for the dismissal.

Prosecutors apparently delivered the goods, to Mehta's chagrin.

The Obama judge noted that the government did not claim among its justifications for dismissal that the charges were legally deficient, that the evidence to sustain the convictions was insufficient, that there was prosecutorial misconduct, or that there was "any legal error that resulted in an unfair trial or a wrongful conviction."

"Remarkably, then, the government does not maintain that dismissal is in the public interest to rectify a fundamental error or grave injustice," wrote Mehta. "Its lead argument is rather that dismissal is appropriate to protect Defendants from harassment."

Mehta complained that the dismissal would "erase the legal judgments that these Defendants broke the criminal law. And not just any criminal law — laws aimed at punishing those who conspire to commit extralegal violence to prevent the execution of the laws or the carrying out of official duties. ... The government thus asks to absolve these Defendants of crimes against the United States itself. In this court’s view, that is not in the public interest."

The Obama judge admitted, however, that his opinion in this matter is worthless, that he "cannot write a different ending," and that he lacks the authority "to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of its charging authority."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former Capitol Police Officer Shauni Kerkhoff files lawsuit against Blaze Media



Former Capitol Police Officer Shauni Kerkhoff filed a defamation lawsuit on Tuesday against Blaze Media, former employees Steve Baker and Joseph Hanneman, and Baker and Hanneman's new online publication, Veritas Regnat, for their reporting on the Jan. 5 to Jan. 6, 2021, pipe-bomb incident in Washington, D.C.

For nearly five years, federal authorities had been unable to identify the masked individual who placed one pipe bomb outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters and another outside the Republican National Committee headquarters the evening before the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol. The devices did not detonate, and there were no injuries reported.

The lawsuit cites a November 8, 2025, Blaze News article that named Kerkhoff as a "forensic match," based on gait analysis, to the bombing suspect. In December, the Department of Justice announced that the suspect had been identified as another person, Brian Cole Jr., from Woodbridge, Virginia. Blaze News retracted the article shortly after Cole's arrest.

The complaint alleges that Kerkhoff, represented by the Alexandria-based defamation law firm Clare Locke, was "ultimately exonerated" and that the defendants' "false and defamatory accusations have irreparably changed her life." It further alleges that Blaze News' investigation "induced the FBI to open an investigation of Ms. Kerkhoff."

"They then cited that investigation — which their own actions had caused — as independent corroboration of their accusation," according to the complaint.

An April 1 motion filed by Cole's attorneys claimed that Kerkhoff was "interviewed by the FBI and took a polygraph examination" on Nov. 6, 2025, two days before Blaze News published the article naming Kerkhoff in connection to the pipe-bomb incident.

In her lawsuit, Kerkhoff confirmed that two FBI agents confronted her on Nov. 6, claiming they were "investigating 'online chatter' that she was the pipe bomber." Kerkhoff’s complaint also alleges that her home was subjected to a search, and she participated in a polygraph interview that evening.

While Kerkhoff's complaint does not mention the results of her polygraph, Cole's motion — which stated that she was asked two relevant questions, "Did you place those pipe bombs?" and "Did you place those pipe bombs that evening?" — asserted that she failed the examination. It also claimed that the polygraph examiner “noted” that Kerkhoff's answers seemed "rehearsed." Cole's attorneys stated that the FBI named Kerkhoff "as a person of interest" on Nov. 7, a day before Blaze News' article was released.

“Blaze News initially reported, as confirmed by official intelligence sources, that based on a forensic gait analysis, Ms. Kerkhoff was a 94% match to the suspected pipe bomber. That report was retracted when the FBI arrested and DOJ charged another individual, who had reportedly confessed to the crime. According to recent court filings by that individual's legal counsel, Ms. Kerkhoff was a person of interest under surveillance by the FBI and failed a polygraph test administered two days before Blaze Media's article was published,” Michael Grygiel, attorney for Blaze Media, told Blaze News in a statement.

“Blaze Media will vigorously defend this meritless lawsuit challenging its valid news reporting on a matter of legitimate public concern, which is protected under the First Amendment and Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law.”

Kerkhoff's complaint alleges six counts of defamation against the defendants, including four against Blaze Media. She is seeking an unspecified amount in damages to be determined at trial.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Supreme Court Tees Up Dismissal Of Democrat Lawfare Against Steve Bannon

The U.S. Supreme Court teed up a likely dismissal of Democrats’ lawfare against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on Monday. In its newest order list, the high court vacated a May 2024 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a 2022 criminal conviction of Bannon. The conservative commentator was previously charged by […]

Virginia lawmakers send sweeping gun control bill to Democrat Governor Spanberger



Virginians are quickly learning the fruits of electing Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger and other Democrat legislators as the legislative session draws to an end in the commonwealth.

On Monday, Democrats in both chambers passed a sweeping gun control law that will soon land on Spanberger's desk.

'These are simply semiautomatic firearms that law abiding citizens own.'

The bill, HB217, places a ban on new sales of "assault firearms" and makes it illegal to possess high-capacity magazines exceeding 15 rounds of ammunition.

Virginia law defines an "assault firearm" as "any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock."

RELATED: Virginians oppose Richmond's war on the Second Amendment: Poll

Delegate Dan Helmer (D)Photo by Valerie Plesch for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Sponsored by Del. Dan Helmer (D), the bill would make these offenses a Class 1 misdemeanor. Class 1 misdemeanors are punishable by "confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both," according to Virginia law.

Spanberger's office did not immediately reply to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Chris Stone with the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America said, “Semiautomatic weapons, as they would like to call them, ‘assault weapons,’ have been owned by the public for years, and rifles of any kind are very rarely used in the commission of a crime. We don’t even like to use the term ‘assault weapon,’ because it’s just made up. These are simply semiautomatic firearms that law abiding citizens own.”

Another proposed bill would impose a civil penalty of up to a $500 fine for persons who store their firearms in their vehicle. The vehicle could also be towed for "safekeeping."

Stone pointed out the catch-22 that lawful gun owners would find themselves in if that bill ever became law.

"Because of the litany of ‘gun free zone’ laws that we have in this state, if you go to somewhere where you can’t legally bring your firearm in, law-abiding citizens who have a concealed handgun permit are going to leave that firearm in their car," Stone said.

Helmer has been busy sponsoring other bills as well, including a "first of its kind" bill that dictates that school instruction must "not describe, portray, or present as credible a description or portrayal of the actions precipitating or involved in the events of the January 6, 2021, insurrection as peaceful protest."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

J6 committee's anti-Trump storyteller referred to DOJ for criminal charges: Report



The Jan. 6 Select Committee's various improprieties and its prioritization of narrative over facts have been exposed. Nevertheless, key participants in the Democrat-led lawfare campaign have so far managed to evade consequence. That might soon change.

House Republicans have reportedly referred Jan. 6 committee star witness Cassidy Hutchinson to the Department of Justice for criminal charges.

The USSS agents ... directly refuted the fundamentals of her story.

A pair of sources reportedly familiar with recent developments told CNN that Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk (Ga.), the chairman of the Select Subcommittee to Investigate the Remaining Questions Surrounding Jan. 6, 2021, recently made the referral, which was co-signed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

The referral reportedly accuses Hutchinson — who milked her time in the limelight for a book deal — of lying to Congress in her public testimony in June 2022.

This is undoubtedly good news for President Donald Trump, who claimed Hutchinson "made up" stories about him during her testimony.

"Our great Secret Service has totally CRUSHED Cassidy Hutchinson’s (who I barely knew) made up (FAKE!) stories about me roughing up Secret Service Agents from the back seat of the Beast (Limo)," Trump noted in March 2024. "Has she now changed her testimony? Will she be prosecuted for what she did and said?"

RELATED: Judges violated the law by keeping pipe-bomb suspect Brian Cole Jr. jailed, attorney tells appeals court

Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Blaze News has reached out to the Department of Justice and Loudermilk's office for comment. CNN indicated that Hutchinson's current and former lawyers did not respond to multiple inquiries.

Loudermilk released a congressional report in March 2024 alleging that the Jan. 6 Select Committee — manned by outspoken critics of President Donald Trump — erased records; hid numerous transcribed interviews; failed to turn recordings over to GOP lawmakers; and suppressed evidence that failed to conform to Democrats' preferred narrative.

The report, penned by the House Administration Committee's oversight subpanel, also impeached Hutchinson's character and testimony.

Hutchinson, who served as assistant to Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows, sat for six transcribed interviews and one publicized hearing with the committee.

The report noted that on June 20, 2022, in her fourth transcribed interview with the Jan. 6 committee, Hutchinson told a previously unheard tale about how on January 6, 2021, Trump allegedly got into a scuffle with a Secret Service agent and attempted to wrest control of the presidential limousine after his speech at the Ellipse.

Hutchinson's allegations pertained to supposed incidents to which she was not an eyewitness.

The Jan. 6 committee didn't bother interviewing either of the two Secret Service agents referenced in Hutchinson's testimony who were actually present at the time of the alleged events or anyone else implicated prior to her testimony.

When the committee put questions to the USSS agents some four months after Hutchinson's testimony, they directly refuted the fundamentals of her story.

In December 2024, Loudermilk released another damning congressional report, this time alleging that:

  • former White House employee Alyssa Farah Griffin back-channeled with former Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), the vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee, to help Hutchinson change her story;
  • Hutchinson had secret conversations with Cheney without her attorney's knowledge; and
  • "Hutchinson committed perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump Has A Real Insurrection On His Hands In Minnesota

What's happening in Minnesota is a real insurrection, far different from the J6 riot, and Trump needs to treat it like one.

Jack Smith Deposition Shows His Get-Trump Lawfare Was Also A War On Free Speech

Jack Smith’s deposition testimony betrayed his utter disdain for the fundamental right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment.

We Need A J6-Level Manhunt For Everyone Who Obstructs Immigration Law Enforcement

The Trump administration must bring anti-ICE obstructionists to justice with the same tenacity and dedication Biden poured into the politically weaponized J6 prosecutions.

Nearly Five Years Later, FBI Makes Arrest In DC Pipe Bomb Case

The FBI made an arrest early Thursday morning in the five-year-old Washington, D.C., pipe bomb case. Authorities arrested Brian J. Cole Jr. and accused him of planting two live bombs on Jan. 5, 2021 — one near in the vicinity of the headquarters of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the other near the headquarters […]

BBC execs step down after network accused of deceptive edit of Trump's January 6 speech



An internal memo has rocked the leadership at the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Last week, another outlet in the United Kingdom revealed that the memo had accused the BBC of deceptively editing footage of President Donald Trump's speech on January 6, 2021.

'We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country any more.'

The Telegraph reported that Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, wrote a dossier on the BBC's alleged bias before leaving his position in June.

The report accused the BBC of splicing together Trump's comments on Jan. 6 to appear as if they were made in the same breath, even though the remarks were about 54 minutes apart.

As Blaze News previously reported, the edit in question appeared on the BBC's one-hour Panorama special, titled "Trump: A Second Chance?"

The documentary featured a clip purporting to show Trump saying, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."

In reality, Trump's actual statement was:

"We're gonna walk down, and I'll be there with you. We're gonna walk down. We're gonna walk down, any one you want, but I think right here, we're gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we're gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

The edited clip also featured Trump's words from about 54 minutes later, when he was discussing election integrity.

"Most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say, 'I wanna thank you very much,' and they go off to some other life, but I said something's wrong here, something's really wrong, can't have happened, and we fight."

"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country any more," Trump added.

Now, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and CEO of BBC News Deborah Turness have both handed in their resignations.

RELATED: BBC allegedly deceptively edited Trump’s Jan. 6 speech into riot lie

Tim DAvie. Photo by Dominic Lipinski/Getty Images

Davie issued a memo to his staff on Saturday and claimed that it was completely his decision to step down.

"I wanted to let you know that I have decided to leave the BBC after 20 years. This is entirely my decision," Davie wrote, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The director said he had been reflecting on the "very intense personal and professional demands" that come with his role and claimed that "in these increasingly polarized times, the BBC is of unique value and speaks to the very best of us."

Without directly mentioning the video editing controversy, Davie called the BBC a "critical ingredient of a healthy society."

'As the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me.'

Turness, however, was openly self-deprecating in her decision to resign.

"The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on President Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC — an institution that I love," she wrote in a memo. "As the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me — and I took the decision to offer my resignation to the Director-General last night."

She added that "in public life, leaders" must be "fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down."

Still, Turness said despite the mistakes, any "allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong."

RELATED: The UK wants to enforce its censorship laws in the US. The First Amendment begs to differ.

CEO of BBC News Deborah Turness, October 13, 2022 in London, England. Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images

As the BBC is a government-run institution, the ruling Labour Party chimed in on the controversy.

"I want to thank Tim Davie for his service to public service broadcasting over many years. He has led the BBC through a period of significant change and helped the organization to grip the challenges it has faced in recent years," said U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy.

Nandy said the BBC charter, which defines "Object, Mission and Public Purposes" for the organization, will be reviewed to help the BBC "adapt to this new era" and secure its role at the "heart of national life" for the future.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!