However, there's a glimmer of hope on the horizon. A federal appeals court has recently made a significant ruling, suggesting that the sentencing of many January 6th defendants by certain far-left judges in Washington D.C. was marred by errors. These errors, according to the appeals court, were serious enough to warrant scrutiny, with questionable procedures labeled as "improper."
From Washington Examiner:
A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that potentially hundreds of defendants charged for their actions at the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot had their sentences improperly lengthened, raising the possibility that many will have to be resentenced.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Jan. 6 defendants who obstructed Congress‘s efforts to certify the 2020 election had their sentences improperly lengthened by federal judges who determined they had interfered with the “administration of justice.”
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit rejected the Justice Department’s argument in an appeal brought by Larry Brock, who was sentenced to two years in prison for obstructing congressional proceedings. U.S. District Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, had determined Brock’s sentence by including the enhancement for interfering with the administration of justice.
“Brock’s interference with one stage of the electoral college vote-counting process — while no doubt endangering our democratic processes and temporarily derailing Congress’s constitutional work — did not interfere with the ‘administration of justice,’” D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett wrote in a unanimous ruling, joined by Judges Cornelia Pillard and Judith Rogers.
The judges took into account the “multi-step” process of certifying Electoral College votes, finding that the vote counting was just one portion of an otherwise lengthy process to affirm the results of the 2020 election. They effectively said that counting the votes in Congress that day did not meet the definition of “administration of justice,” and, therefore, anyone sentenced for participating in the riot should not face additional penalties for interfering with it.
Justice Department officials, along with the U.S. Probation Office, argued that the presence of Capitol Police and other security personnel in the Capitol complex that day added to their assertion that the session was about administering justice, though the three-judge panel disagreed.
