Judge Beryl Howell: Punishing January 6 Defendants for Political Reasons

Meet the conflicted, biased judge who will decide the fate of many J6 defendants...

Judge Beryl A. Howell is a Barak Obama appointee and incumbent Chief United States District Judge for the District of Columbia. She was a federal judge supervising the grand jury for special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This is part of the conflict of interest that should bar her from taking part in the January 6 cases. Americans often have a false notion of impartiality and objectivity of federal judges. They think these judges are apolitical and always adhere to professional and legal standards in their administration of “justice”. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Having worked in law myself for around a decade from civil litigation to family law, I have seen it all. I know exactly how political these judges are, and how they show favoritism to the lawyers whose firms make large contributions to their re-election campaigns. I have seen how they play the game, as we called it.

I was therefore not at all shocked to see how Judge Howell has taken to characterizing the January 6 defendants. Judge Howell made cynical and gross proclamations about the personal intentions of a recent January 6 defendant in what his purpose for being at the Capitol was that day. Many of the defendants had no “plans” to disrupt the electoral college vote and simply came to see the President speak as they had every other Trump rally in the past.

Judge Howell has no business trying to divine “intensions” of defendants, and insisting they were there for a specific reason. This is especially true when the government and prosecution isn’t even attempting to make that claim.

Alan Feuer @alanfeuer

Chief Judge Beryl Howell is on a bit of a tirade at the guilty plea of Glen Croy who's pleading to a misdemeanor parading/picketing charge. Her beef: She wants Croy to admit his parading was meant to stop the certification of the election. Govt's position is that he didn't know.

Why is the Judge acting like the prosecution here? Why is she demanding that he “admit” he was there to “stop the certification of the election”? I think many Trump supporters believed Mike Pence was going to do that, so they had every reason NOT to try to interfere in the process. The only people who benefitted from the events of January 6 was the Democrat party and the national security state.

Alan Feuer @alanfeuer

Judge Howell has been consistently tough on J6 rioters, questioning prosecutors about why they've allowed them to plead to minor charges. This complaint gets at the heart of the riot's ambiguities. She wants Croy to admit the larger goal of the mob even if he was less culpable.

This is not the behavior of an objective, apolitical judge. This is what political persecution looks like, and a political party abusing their power and the law for a vendetta. It’s an affront to the law and the system of justice.

Alan Feuer @alanfeuer

Another Howell beef: J6 defendants have all had to pay their small share of the $1.4 million in damage to the Capitol. Now she's asking why the rioters haven't been charged for the *hundreds of millions* spent by the Capitol Police too. She's picking holes in the govt's approach.

This is shameful. It is not her job to tell the government how to argue or try cases. It is her job to be an objective administer of blind and equal justice under the law.

Unsurprisingly Judge Howell was a Lobbyist and is a beltway elite liberal.

This is from Judge Howell’s Wikipedia¹ page.

As you can see, she is one of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama uniparty elites.

Here we see she was a lobbyist for the music industry which regularly abuses their performers and sexually abuses women.

Judge Howell is married to an Executive Producer at National Geographic Television & Film, so a mainstream media outlet.

Here is her page on Open Secrets², a watchdog group tracking influence in Washington, DC.

Matthew Russell Lee with Inner City Press reported³ on her questioning of January 6 defendant Glenn Croy:

FEDERAL COURT, August 9 -- On August 9, months after the DC Circuit's decision in US v. Munchel, DDC Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell had before her Capitol breach defendant Glenn Croy, ostensibly pleading guilty. Inner City Press tweeted it, here:

(podcast here)

Jan 6 guilty plea before DDC Chief Judge Howell in US v. Croy running into trouble - Croy says he didn't realize it was not authorized to enter. "I didn't see any signs."

 Music Video IV: "Guilty Plea Blues of Fairlamb," by Matthew Russell Lee. On Aug 6 I live tweeted the change of plea of Scott Fairlamb, guideline of 41 months & FBI de-brief, some videos still withheld by DDC Judge Mehta despite Inner City Press filing. So, song

Judge Howell: You were on the Capitol steps for an hour, correct? [In the manner of cross-examination] Croy: I was not on the steps for an hour. Judge Howell: You're saying here today, under oath, you didn't know you weren't supposed to be there? Croy: No sign.

Judge Howell: Did the police say anything? Croy: They were shooting pepper spray and balls. Judge Howell: That didn't give you a clue it was no OK to be there?

Defense lawyer: He just said that. [Not really] Croy: I've never been to rally, I've never been to the Capitol. Everybody walked from the Washington Monument, then we walked in. I didn't hear anything like, this is an unlawful assembly. As soon as I heard that, later, we left.

 Croy: Over the summer, I saw on TV the protests, people being hit with gas -- Judge Howell: AUSA, please describe the charges. Assistant US Attorney: Entering the Capitol without permission, knowingly.

AUSA: For the purpose of the charge he's plead to, he knew he didn't have permission. Judge Howell: Any objection? Defense: I have an object to the statement that he wanted to stop the vote of Congress. He had no intention of stopping any vote.

 Judge Howell: This is the puzzle. What were they picketing about? AUSA: The contextual facts indicate that was the purpose -- Judge Howell: What was the purpose? AUSA: Stopping the electoral process. Judge Howell: Why isn't that in the statement of offense.

 Judge Howell: The government's position is that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the purpose was to stop the certification? Really?

 AUSA: One caveat - I understand that others charged that the government would seek only probation. Mr Croy has not been offered that.

Judge Howell: In the papers, it says Mr. Croy would allow the authorities to interview him about Jan 6 - this is not a normal cooperation agreement. Damages in Paragraph 11 are estimated at $1,495,000... Didn't Congress just reimburse the National Guard for more?

Judge Howell: The cost of this riot was $500M. Why are you asking for so little? AUSA: It's a standard plea. Judge Howell: I've only seen one other. AUSA: I'm happy to revisit -- Judge Howell: I'd like it in your sentencing memo. [So she's accepting this plea??]

 Judge Howell: Can the defense summarize the plea agreement? Defense: In sum, basically, Mr. Croy is charged in a four count information, he's pleading to one with the other three being dismissed. He's agreed to a statement of offense and an additional interview. Inner City Press @innercitypress · 21m Judge Howell: The maximum sentence is six months... Do you understand? Croy: Yes, ma'am. Judge Howell: You've agreed to pay $500 to the Treasury for damage to the CapItol building, and forFEITure. Croy: Yes, ma'am.

Judge Howell: How do you plead to Count 4?

Croy: Guilty. Judge Howell: I find this knowing and voluntary and the plea is accepted. Sentencing, October 15 at noon. Defense: I'm supposed to be out of the country but probably canceled to the variants.

Judge Howell: Let's schedule it for then. Anything further? Defense: We need his phone back. Judge Howell: Good luck with that. I know there were a lot of phones. Excused.

  Back in July, on US v. Robert Morss,  Inner City Press live tweeted here.

  Judge Harvey considered videos and purported to order to make them available to the public - but they still are not, confined to a password protected DOJ platform USAfx, see below, even as Judge Harvey detained Morss. Inner City Press wrote to Judge Harvey; his Chamber first said wait, then "Mr. Lee: If you still want access to the videos you should file a motion pursuant to the local rules."

   So for the public to have access to judicial documents the public must have or pay a DDC lawyer? Inner City Press made another filing, to Judge Harvey, DOJ and the "Coalition's" Lauren Russell at ballardspahr.com - the filing is on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud, here.

 On July 23 first Inner City Press was told that the filing would be docketed and likely approved. Then that DOJ would call (it did). For now, no access to the videos in USA v. Schwartz, 21-cr-178 (requesting pending before Judge Mehta) and US v. Jensen, and US v. Harrelson.

  Here are some of the Morss case videos Inner City Press immediately uploaded: I (with a red arrow pointing at a man with a tactical vest, apparently with armored plates);

II  (in which Morss says "Back up" and an officer picks up and pushes back a person, no arrest);

III  (in which Morss near end gestures to officers to move; note PRESS jacket floating through);

IV (in which Morss right at end lunges and grabs metal barrier, raised it up); and

V (in which after much shoving Morss right at end again appears, grabbing).

And, a day later, this Inner City Press music video.

  Inner City Press' understanding is that after the Media Coalition filings and the Chief Judge's response, now even media that otherwise would have access have been denied it, and the public has gotten nothing. We'll have more on this.

This is overall extremely disturbing in its implications that justice is no longer blind in America.

In 2019 Judge Howell sided with the Democrats⁴ in their highly political and deeply flawed “impeachment” and granted them access to grand jury evidence in the Mueller investigation. She was the judge overseeing that grand jury, it should be noted. This is another conflict of interest but that is how the beltway operates, so the house always wins.

The New York Times reported on that:

WASHINGTON —A federal judge handed a victory to House Democrats on Friday when she ruled that they were legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a decision that undercut President Trump’s arguments that the investigation is a sham.

The declaration came in a 75-page opinion by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She ruled that the House Judiciary Committee was entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Typically, Congress has no right to view such evidence. But in 1974, the courts permitted lawmakers to see such materials as they weighed whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon. The House is now immersed in the same process focused on Mr. Trump, Judge Howell ruled, and that easily outweighs any need to keep the information secret from lawmakers.

And in a rebuke to the Trump administration, she wrote that the White House strategy to stonewall the House had actually strengthened lawmakers’ case. She cited Mr. Trump’s vow to fight “all” congressional subpoenas and an extraordinary directive by his White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, that executive branch officials should not provide testimony or documents to impeachment investigators.

Isn’t that interesting that the same judge is now able to harm Trump’s supporters.

Democrats praised Judge Howell’s decision. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, applauded the “thoughtful ruling” and its recognition that “our impeachment inquiry fully comports with the Constitution.”

“This grand jury information that the administration has tried to block the House from seeing will be critical to our work,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement.

In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and President Bill Clinton.

Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules and pointed out that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without such a vote.

Judge Howell agreed with the Democrats, calling the Republican arguments “cherry-picked and incomplete” and lacking support from the Constitution, House rules or court precedents.

“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” wrote Judge Howell, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

The fawning reporting by the New York Times and the political nature of her statements from this one issue show that Judge Howell is a partisan political actor.

Law and Crime claimed⁵ her argument was filled with “jabs” at the Trump Department of Justice, once again displaying her partisan nature.

It’s a shame that this judge is now overseeing January 6 cases, if she had any honor she would have already recused herself.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_A._Howell

2. https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=31911

3. In Jan 6 Case Croy Says Didn't Know Unauthorized But Judge Howell Accepts Plea

4. https://archive.is/zcSQ0

5. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-judge-calls-trump-admins-legal-arguments-a-farce-in-order-filled-with-jabs-at-doj-attorneys/