By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Bodycam footage from January 6, 2021, shows Jared Wise, a former Jan. 6 defendant, berating police officers and yelling, “kill ’em.” Despite these actions, Wise is now working as a senior advisor for the Department of Justice under the Trump administration, which introduced the footage as an exhibit in Wise’s trial. Wise was not convicted due to a presidential order. This hiring decision, along with other actions like pardons and dismissals of cases, highlights the administration’s efforts to reshape the narrative of the Capitol riot, drawing criticism from those involved in the initial investigations.
Read the original article here
Video shows Department of Justice official urging Jan. 6 rioters to ‘kill’ cops – that’s a headline that immediately grabs your attention, doesn’t it? It’s the kind of story that makes you stop and consider the state of things, especially given the political climate we’ve been in. The idea that someone connected to the Justice Department would seemingly encourage violence against law enforcement is, frankly, shocking. It’s hard to believe such a thing could happen, but the claim exists, backed by video evidence.
The details paint a disturbing picture. A high-ranking official, potentially with a position of influence, allegedly speaking to those involved in the January 6th events, urging them to take the lives of police officers. The alleged words, caught on camera, would constitute a direct incitement to violence. This is not a matter of misinterpretation; it’s a clear statement that carries significant weight. Imagine the implications if this is true.
This situation forces you to question everything. It calls into question the motivations of the official, and the people he would be addressing. What would prompt a person with such responsibility to say something like that? And what does it say about the environment that made such an action even thinkable? The fact that this is even a topic of conversation reveals something very troubling about the current political and societal situation.
The reaction from those involved will be revealing. Will there be an investigation? Will the official be held accountable? Or, as has sadly happened in some other cases, will it be brushed aside, or defended? The response, or lack thereof, will set a precedent. It will signal what kind of actions are acceptable, and which will not be tolerated. This will show what the current government thinks about law and order.
The context is also important. It’s important to remember the chaos of January 6th, the emotions of the time. The day was marked by violence and unrest, and the potential for real harm to come to people. If these claims are true, then this is not just about words. It is about inciting further actions.
It’s easy to be cynical, to assume this is just another example of politics at its worst. But it is essential that this is treated with seriousness and dealt with appropriately. The sanctity of the legal system depends on it. This situation challenges everything.
Some will say this is just another instance of people with questionable motives trying to overturn an election. However, the events of January 6th were an attack on the very foundation of democracy. The suggestion that someone would target the people who have been sworn to protect and defend the government of the United States and its leaders is a serious allegation. The evidence, the video, must be examined very carefully.
Looking further at the implications, you’re forced to consider what the long-term ramifications might be. If high-ranking officials in the Department of Justice are found to be encouraging violence, what hope is there for a fair and impartial system of justice? What message does this send to the public? How can trust in the government be maintained if those in positions of power are seemingly undermining it?
It is also relevant that some individuals involved in the January 6th events have received pardons or are being defended. This adds another layer of complexity to the situation. How can justice be truly served if there’s a perception that certain individuals are above the law, or protected from accountability? This could further erode public trust.
The First Amendment is being brought up as well. The suggestion of “freedom of speech” being used to cover the words of the official is a dangerous argument. Screaming “fire!” in a crowded theater is not protected speech, just as this is not protected speech.
You are forced to wonder about the bigger picture here. What is the end goal of this alleged action? Is it simply about causing chaos and unrest? Or is there a deeper, more sinister plot at play? These are the kinds of questions that keep you up at night, but ones that demand answers.
It is important to note that, at the time of this writing, it is necessary to wait for all the facts to come out. Everyone deserves a fair hearing, and the truth must be unearthed. The video evidence needs to be carefully analyzed, the official’s motivations need to be assessed, and the full scope of the events on that day must be understood. Only then can a proper judgment be rendered. The country is crying out for justice.