Report: Feds Planned To Arrest Derek Chauvin At State Courthouse If Found Not Guilty
“If Chauvin were found not guilty on all counts or the case ended in a mistrial, they would arrest him at the courthouse”
There were threats of massive riots and looting if Derek Chauvin were found not guilty of all charges during his state court trial. Maxine Waters threatened more “confrontation” and municipalities around the country had police and National Guard reinforcements at the ready.
The federal Department of Justice had it’s own plans to help lessen potential riots. That plan was to arrest Chauvin on federal charges immediately after a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:
Leading up to Derek Chauvin’s murder trial, Justice Department officials had spent months gathering evidence to indict the ex-Minneapolis police officer on federal police brutality charges, but they feared the publicity frenzy could disrupt the state’s case.
So they came up with a contingency plan: If Chauvin were found not guilty on all counts or the case ended in a mistrial, they would arrest him at the courthouse, according to sources familiar with the planning discussions….
The backup arrest strategy and meticulous planning over the timing of charges illustrates the complicated synchronicity of two parallel investigations into the most high-profile case of police brutality in decades. Over the better part of the last year, as special prosecutor Keith Ellison’s team pursued murder and manslaughter charges, federal authorities have been mounting their own case in private before a grand jury — a group of 23 citizens who meet in secret to hear evidence and ultimately decide if there is probable cause to charge….
Under the contingency arrest plan, the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office would have charged Chauvin by criminal complaint — a quicker alternative for a federal charge that doesn’t require a grand jury — so they could arrest him immediately, and then asked a grand jury for an indictment, according to sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Prosecutors want to indict Chauvin in connection to two cases: for pinning Floyd down by his neck for more than 9 ½ minutes in May 2020, and for the violent arrest of a 14-year-old boy in 2017. In the latter case, Chauvin struck the teen on the head with his flashlight, then grabbed him by the throat and hit him again, according to court documents.
The other three ex-officers would be charged only in connection with Floyd’s death.
The federal case will be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys in Minnesota and Washington, D.C.
The plans never materialized because Chauvin was found guilty, on all three charges.
It is not unusual for the feds to investigate and pursue civil rights charges as back up. It was done in the Michael Brown case, and the feds rejected bringing such charges.
But the planned timing here, to make sure that Chauvin was arrested at the courthouse after a ‘not guilty’ verdict, was driven entirely by fear of riots and looting.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The other three ex-officers would be charged only in connection with Floyd’s death.
____________
One of those other three officers is black, or mixed race, himself, and reportedly joined the force because he wanted more racially sensitive policing in Minneapolis.
Is a federal prosecutor really prepared to accuse a politically correct, “progressive” black cop of depriving George Floyd of his civil rights on the basis of Floyd’s skin color? Even the kind of lefty loons who make up Minnesota juries would probably have a difficult time believing that.
He’d be the one let off, proving the feds are “fair”.
Keung has the misfortune of looking white enough to be an Olympic swimmer. Maybe he’s growing a huge colon kapernik ‘fro for the trial. I’d go to bed with wet hair every night, just like Rand Paul, to avoid conviction.
More reason to overturn the verdicts against Chauvin as this offers proof that there was fear of violent riots if not convicted.
That “there was a fear” is irrelevant. To overturn the verdict you’d have to prove that the jurors had this fear, and were influenced by it.
That there is enough fear that federal agents were ready to arrest a man immediately after acquittal in order to prevent riots shows that the fear was widespread and not just the imagination of the defense. By itself it isn’t enough to overturn the conviction but when combined with other evidence that the trial was unfair it is as I said it is ” more” evidence to overturn the verdict.
The media and the left created this fear to ensure that he didn’t get a fair trial in any big city.
I believe that the woman who was an alternate juror and who was dismissed before sequestration already indicated that she was fearful of riots, looting and violence.
But again, her fear isn’t relevant because she ultimately wasn’t on the jury. The only way to know whether the jurors themselves were afraid is to ask them, and even then you might not get the truth.
Her fear is not relevant, but the testimony she can provide about the atmosphere of fear among all the jurors (as she testified to in a news interview) would provide evidence that the jury, collectively, was fearful.
The fact that the feds were fearful is indicative that the fear of unrest was that of the “reasonable person” (if we consider DOJ investigators as such), and it would be difficult to explain how the reasonable people on the jury weren’t similarly affected by the entirety of events, of which they were certainly aware.
you are forgetting about cahill and his questionable decisions that could be the basis for an appeal
One of the alternate jurors was just on TV saying exactly this: that she feared more riots and violence.
what was Judge Sullivans fear of Dropping the Mike Flynn case??. Why didn’t Trumps “cry out not matter?”, The system is rigged and the left is winning
“Report: Feds Planned To Arrest Derek Chauvin At State Courthouse If Found Not Guilty”
Because “reasonable doubt” is for suckers!
A presumption of guilt, and reasonable, some may say, doubt of his innocence. It’s a Twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, diversity dogma, phobic rant.
Social justice by hook or crook? And/or a case of Biden’s military junta in DC that sincerely believe that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too.
Welcome to the Star Chamber. We will arrest your ass, fuck you crazy, then seek an indictment.
Welcome to AMERKKKKA.
Keith Ellison already told 60 minutes there is zero evidence of a racial bias or racial nexus so it’s confusing what the federal charges would be based on.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/no-evidence-to-charge-derek-chauvin-with-hate-crime-prosecutor-2021-4%3Famp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-killing-hate-crime-b1837419.html%3Famp
The charges would have been based on the need to preserve Federal power unimpeded by law or the Constitution, In the end, that is all that controls them.
Subotai Bahadur
BLM SAID CHAUVIN WAS A RACIST COP AND A POSTER-CHILD FOR WHY THE POLICE ARE SYSTEMICALLY RACIST AND NEED TO BE ABOLISHED.
>> BUT IF HE’S A RACIST – WHY DID THE PROSECUTION PRESENT ZERO EVIDENCE OF IT AT TRIAL ?
>> WOW. COULD IT BE THAT BLM LIED ?
The problem is this. For 6 months we had riots and arson (and dozens died) because – we were told – Officer Chauvin was a racist and he’s an example of why the whole system is racist. Society and police had to be upended and “re-imagined”, we were told.
BUT WAIT. The prosecution did not present one shred of evidence that Chauvin was racist or that any of his actions were motivated by race. And YOU CAN BET that they would have highlighted any piece of race-related evidence – no matter how insignifciant – if they had it.
I kept watch the trial – waiting for the moment they presented evidence that Chauvin was a racist. All America expected to see the evidence. BLM said he was. CNN, New York Times, MSNBC, ABC, WaPo, all the media outright said he was a racist copy and others implied it. Millions were moved by what they were told was a manifestation of pure evil racism. Some of my friends went so far as to say they hate Chauvin because he’s a MF’ing racist.
So the trial was instructive for what was NOT presented as much as for what was presented.
It seems apparent from what we NOW KNOW that Chauvin is NOT a racist and his actions were not motivated by race. So the entire BLM narrative is just built on a foundation of Bull Shit. They HAD to make Chauvin the poster boy for Cop Racism and yet they found nothing. You can be sure, they investigated every aspect of his life. They NEEDED to show Motive to make prove intent (intent is a necessary element of a charge of murder vs a charge of manslaughter which requires no intention). This is not the fitst time BLM has manipulated the public – but it was the most egregious. As a result of this propaganda, people are falsely calling the USA a “racist country”.
Remember in July when CNN was talking about Chauvin as an example of white supremacists. Yeah, they stopped that narrative when they discovered he was married to an Asian (for those who are not clear on this – people who think their race is superior don’t go marrying into other races). Even CNN realized that they look stupid trying to sell people on a guy being white supremacist while married to a person of a different race.
Having pushed for months the idea that Chavin is a racist – it’s too late for BLM to walk that back. And yet City of Minneapolis paid out $27 million because they were led to believe Chauvin is a racist. That’s why they needed to be sure Chauvin was convicted and sent away a long time. They don’t want reporters or the public to look back and start asking some hard questions (actually, the reporters today will not ask any hard questions). People might say “wait a second, weren’t we told that we have to DEFUND police because Chauvin is an example of racism inside the police ?” And “wasn’t Chauvin the poster child for police racism and white-supremacy inside the police – and therefore a compelling example of why we need to destroy policing as we know it and upend society as we know it?”
In hindsight, all that BLM told us was lies used to manipulate us.
There will be a backlash. As people slowly start to realize the truth. Progressives and BLMers will learn that once people realize they have been lied to by you – FOOLED BY YOU – they NEVER trust you again. BLM undermines black people and sets-back races relations by 20 years. They clearly care about black lives ONLY to the extent such lives can be used by them to manipulate people and to get more $$ for Progressives, Marxists and BLM.
All Americans should be outraged and angry that they have been so badly deceived. And that this deception is being used as a pretext for even more hard to our society. Canges in the way our kids are taught. Expansion of new-racist dogma that will lead to further race-based division. Forced indoctrination via CRT.
I grew up in a liberal democrat household in NYC. But my eyes have been opened. Myself and many other liberals see Progressives as pulling the Democratic far from its core. Since when does the Democratic part stand against “free speech” and look the other way when news is censored ? ? I never thought I would see that day. Since when does the Democrat Party stand with Big Business ? Same is happening to Republicans. The polarization causing parties to become more extreme. It is not serving the people.
When lies are needed to win elections and are used to shape society – the parties no longer serve the people – they serve only themselves.
They don’t need evidence of racial bias to charge police brutality.
I am confused because this is sending mixed messages. If Ellison knew about this civil rights charges, why did he say no evidence of racism? If Chauvin brutalized a 14 year old, why did he say he was a bit sorry for him? I read the defense objected to the prosecution mentioning this prior incident because it was legal in 2017 to use a neck restraint? And I also read the feds will be indicting the officers. I would think if the state could have indicted for this case with the 14-year-old, they would have. The facts as reported sound worse than the Floyd situation as Chauvin hit the boy with a flashlight, he was injured, and he passed out. However, he did not die. This would have been brought up if he had testified, right?
Finally, why is the DOJ investigating the police department for pattern and practice? What does the police chief/Ellison think about that?
Ellison is full of crap. He’s trying to con useful idiots into thinking he’s ‘fair’, or something silly like that.
Ellison is as deranged as anyone on the American left.
I’m sure that info came within earshot of the jury at some point…accidentally of course.
I’m sure it didn’t How could it possibly have, when nobody outside the DOJ knew about it?
I think we are living in the Communist world already.
Star Chamber
Frustrated with a legal system gone haywire, a secret society of judges hires hitmen to snuff out criminals who escape courtroom justice – but one young judge questions the ethics of their vigilante system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCe1pHqP06A
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086356/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
After which, undoubtedly, they would have let him just walk, because “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
Right?
This is the same as what they did to the cops in the Rodney King case, though the Feds have totally sealed up the un-Constitutional double jeopardy schedule, in this case.
is this why cahill kept bringing up the concept of a mistrial several times and didn’t do it. he may have had knowledge of this before or during the trial.
If Chauvin were either acquitted or if a mistrial were declared, would it be harder to beat this second prosecution? And how would the punishment have compared to what he is likely to get for the trial that did take place?
And if you are currently working as an LEO, an honest LEO not a Federal one, how much trust do you now place in your chain of command to defend you if you do everything right and it turns out to not be politically correct? How safe do you believe it is to place the future of yourself and your family in the hands of what in most urban areas is a Democrat chain of command? How much longer are you likely to stay in the field, or in a Democrat controlled area?
Subotai Bahadur
I would like to see a post on this:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/juror-talks-deliberations-finding-chauvin-guilty-77372391
It was my instinct there was one juror who was bullied. So much there in the article. This juror practically admitted he had his mind made up for the get-go and definitely after Tobin’s testimony.
Yes, that juror could clearly have been the bully. He follows the narrative too, too well.
It would take *very* little bullying to convince somebody to vote guilty rather than be doxed by every other juror (as they knew would happen to save their own skins) and the media, fired and blackballed from any employment, kicked out of their apartment/house due to threats, and possibly murdered by the mob.
People are very brave and honest in the abstract, but when it comes down to the concrete cinder block being thrown through their window, very few can keep it up.
Jurors couldn’t dox each other. As an alternative juror has already explained, they did not give each other their complete names (they referred to each other by their juror numbers) and they did not talk to each other about their jobs or families. They were “chilled” going into this. They took some pains to be sure that fellow jurors couldn’t identify them with specificity.
Another one:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-04-28/chauvin-juror-says-guilty-verdicts-could-have-come-quicker
yeah this was a fair trial.
O/T but…jesus,,,
https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-sides-with-illegal-alien-in-dispute-over-deportation-process_3796320.html
O/T but it does very little good to post a link to a website that block their content with a demand to create a “free account” which means giving them your personnel information. Something I will not do. Even dumber to do since you can find it elsewhere without having to “create an account” to inflate their readership numbers.
Like this place:
https://news.yahoo.com/unusual-supreme-court-vote-rules-165527992.html
“. . . was driven entirely by fear of riots and looting.”
Yep, sounds like Mob Rule to me!
The DOJ is not my friend. Neither is the FBI. I keep better company.
Police are not your friends. They can be handy if you need them, but do not trust them. Do not make friends with police either. If they are told to turn against you for the benefit of the force, they will do so.
I trust police much more that criminals. Some may be bad apples, but on balance I think most are reasonable people doing a very difficult job.
Police obey the orders of their local politicians, almost always without any regard to whether the orders are constitutional. (You’re welcome to refer me to whatever multitude of citations you can unearth demonstrating instances of police officers refusing illegal or unconstitutional orders from their superiors, and I’m welcome to refer you to Katrina, the Chicago Housing Authority, and stop-and-frisk.) What you’re saying by reduction is that you trust police as much as you trust politicians. So do I, and that doesn’t work for me.
Apparently a finding of a jury of your peers is meaningless in the Emerging People’s Republic of Democrats – no Constitutional Amendment is absolute.
There are two people responsible for where we are today. Two people: Jeff Sessions and William Barr.
If these corrupt cops did their job, Trump would be president, Biden and Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would be on trial.
These two people – Jeff Sessions and William Barr – single-handly destroyed our way of life.
who appointed them to that position?
So YOU knew that both Sessions and Barr were traitors prior to their being appointed AG?
I knew Barr was.
Why do I make my character decisions solely on the gun issue? Here’s why.
This within a day of the feds raiding Rudy’s place.
What does all of this remind you of?
The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Communist Romania? Communist Cuba? Fascist Venezuela? Democrat fascist governments?
I spent a few decades part time, a few months a year, swimming around in the swamp, aka. Beltway. Those people are the smoothest con artists I have seen.
I have an uncanny sense for con artists, that is probably due to my being on the autistic spectrum.
And I still was conned a few times.
They they thrive, only because they’re in league with the ‘press’.
My point being that it is unreasonable to expect Trump to fully understand the scope of the problem.
I guess we don’t worry about technicalities like Double Jeopardy anymore.
They’d be charging him for the exact same incident he was just acquitted of, just using slightly different charges.
Oh, and the reason why people are increasingly saying the DOJ is just a political enforcement Gestapo for the Democrat Party is because that’s exactly what they are.
My thoughts exactly. Beijing Biden’s DOJ is truly the Gestapo that is ripping this country apart. One set of rules for Demoncrats and the others are to be weeded out.
Department of Justice?
Department of Just Us.
I brought up secession some time ago. Anyone game?
No. It doesn’t solve anything. Borders don’t mean anything to locusts.
BLM SAID CHAUVIN WAS A RACIST COP AND A POSTER-CHILD FOR WHY THE POLICE ARE SYSTEMICALLY RACIST AND NEED TO BE ABOLISHED.
>> BUT IF HE’S A RACIST – WHY DID THE PROSECUTION PRESENT ZERO EVIDENCE OF IT AT TRIAL ?
>> WOW. COULD IT BE THAT BLM LIED ? WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE ?
The problem is this. For 6 months we had riots and arson (and dozens died) because – we were told – Officer Chauvin was a racist and he’s an example of why the whole system is racist. Society and police had to be upended and “re-imagined”, we were told.
BUT WAIT. The prosecution did not present one shred of evidence that Chauvin was racist or that any of his actions were motivated by race. And YOU CAN BET that they would have highlighted any piece of race-related evidence – no matter how insignifciant – if they had it.
I kept watch the trial – waiting for the moment they presented evidence that Chauvin was a racist. All America expected to see the evidence. BLM said he was. CNN, New York Times, MSNBC, ABC, WaPo, all the media outright said he was a racist copy and others implied it. Millions were moved by what they were told was a manifestation of pure evil racism. Some of my friends went so far as to say they hate Chauvin because he’s a MF’ing racist.
So the trial was instructive for what was NOT presented as much as for what was presented.
It seems apparent from what we NOW KNOW that Chauvin is NOT a racist and his actions were not motivated by race. So the entire BLM narrative is just built on a foundation of Bull Shit. They HAD to make Chauvin the poster boy for Cop Racism and yet they found nothing. You can be sure, they investigated every aspect of his life. They NEEDED to show Motive to make prove intent (intent is a necessary element of a charge of murder vs a charge of manslaughter which requires no intention). This is not the fitst time BLM has manipulated the public – but it was the most egregious. As a result of this propaganda, people are falsely calling the USA a “racist country”.
Remember in July when CNN was talking about Chauvin as an example of white supremacists. Yeah, they stopped that narrative when they discovered he was married to an Asian (for those who are not clear on this – people who think their race is superior don’t go marrying into other races). Even CNN realized that they look stupid trying to sell people on a guy being white supremacist while married to a person of a different race.
Having pushed for months the idea that Chavin is a racist – it’s too late for BLM to walk that back. And yet City of Minneapolis paid out $27 million because they were led to believe Chauvin is a racist. That’s why they needed to be sure Chauvin was convicted and sent away a long time. They don’t want reporters or the public to look back and start asking some hard questions (actually, the reporters today will not ask any hard questions). People might say “wait a second, weren’t we told that we have to DEFUND police because Chauvin is an example of racism inside the police ?” And “wasn’t Chauvin the poster child for police racism and white-supremacy inside the police – and therefore a compelling example of why we need to destroy policing as we know it and upend society as we know it?”
In hindsight, all that BLM told us was lies used to manipulate us.
There will be a backlash. As people slowly start to realize the truth. Progressives and BLMers will learn that once people realize they have been lied to by you – FOOLED BY YOU – they NEVER trust you again. BLM undermines black people and sets-back races relations by 20 years. They clearly care about black lives ONLY to the extent such lives can be used by them to manipulate people and to get more $$ for Progressives, Marxists and BLM.
All Americans should be outraged and angry that they have been so badly deceived. And that this deception is being used as a pretext for even more hard to our society. Canges in the way our kids are taught. Expansion of new-racist dogma that will lead to further race-based division. Forced indoctrination via CRT.
I grew up in a liberal democrat household in NYC. But my eyes have been opened. Myself and many other liberals see Progressives as pulling the Democratic far from its core. Since when does the Democratic part stand against “free speech” and look the other way when news is censored ? ? I never thought I would see that day. Since when does the Democrat Party stand with Big Business ? Same is happening to Republicans. The polarization causing parties to become more extreme. It is not serving the people.
When lies are needed to win elections and are used to shape society – the parties no longer serve the people – they serve only themselves.
Here’s the moment Juror #52 (Brandon Mitchell) from the Chauvin trial talks about jury duty as a means for societal change.
https://twitter.com/janetburke27/status/1388914347376734211
BLM Activist Sat on the Chauvin Jury After Claiming He Could Be ‘Impartial’, Tells People to Get on Juries to ‘Spark Change’