If conservatives did protest, it should be over BS like this.

'A RIOT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE UNHEARD.' On Feb. 7, 2022, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. It was about the case of Montez Lee, a Rochester, Minnesota, man sentenced to 10 years in prison for setting a fire that killed a man during the Black Lives Matter riot in Minneapolis. The background:

It happened in a pawn shop on May 28, 2020. Lee and others broke into the shop, and video showed looters ransacking the store. Lee then poured a liquid, an accelerant, from a can all across the floor. Lee then lit the fire. More video showed him boasting shortly afterward about what he had done. "F*** this place," Lee said. "We're gonna burn this pregnant dog down." Video then showed, according to government documents, Lee and others "joking about restaurants they are going to 'hit' next."

The store lay in ruins. Then, a few days later, a woman reported that her son was missing. Police discovered that his car had been found near the pawn shop. They searched the rubble and found the body of Oscar Stewart, a 30-year-old man who had five children. An autopsy showed that Stewart died of burns and smoke inhalation. The death was ruled a homicide.

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

Lee was in a lot of trouble. In addition to setting the fire that killed Stewart, Lee had prior convictions for burglary, assault, violation of a no-contact order, and theft. Under the circumstances, Justice Department prosecutors gave him a good deal: Lee pleaded guilty to one count of arson. According to sentencing guidelines, he faced 20 years in prison.

Then came Lee's sentencing and the events that caused Cotton to ask questions about the case. In a Jan. 14, 2022 hearing, DOJ prosecutors noted that yes, sentencing guidelines did call for Lee to be sentenced to between 235 and 240 months in prison. But the DOJ asked the judge to show leniency to Lee, asking that he be sentenced to 144 months, or 12 years, instead. In the end, the judge sentenced Lee to 10 years — 120 months versus the 240 months in the guidelines.

In a sentencing memorandum, the DOJ conceded that Lee had committed a serious crime, one that cost a man his life. "His assertion that he did not intend to hurt anyone is of little comfort to the family and friends Mr. Stewart left behind," prosecutors wrote. "Mr. Stewart's life has been cut short. ... A significant sentence is necessary in this case."

At that point, the sentencing memorandum took an astonishing turn. Yes, the guidelines call for 20 years, prosecutors admitted, but "this is an extraordinary case." Why is it an extraordinary case? Because "Mr. Lee's motive for setting the first is a foremost issue," the memo said. This is a key passage from the memo:

Mr. Lee credibly states that he was in the streets to protest unlawful police violence against black men, and there is no basis to disbelieve this statement. Mr. Lee, appropriately, acknowledges that he "could have demonstrated in a different way," but that he was "caught up in the fury of the mob after living as a black man watching his peers suffer at the hands of police." As anyone watching the news world-wide knows, many other people in Minnesota were similarly caught up. There appear to have been many people in those days looking only to exploit the chaos and disorder in the interest of personal gain or random violence. There appear also to have been many people who felt angry, frustrated, and disenfranchised, and who were attempting, in many cases in an unacceptably reckless and dangerous manner, to give voice to those feelings. Mr. Lee appears to be squarely in this latter category. And even the great American advocate for non-violence and social justice, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated in an interview with CBS's Mike Wallace in 1966 that "we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard."

The prosecutors took particular note of a video frame that showed Lee outside the pawn shop, raising his fist into the air. To prosecutors, the gesture showed that Lee was at heart a well-meaning protester, not a killer. "The raised fist Mr. Lee showed, and his brazenness in committing the crime is telling," prosecutors wrote. "Mr. Lee was terribly misguided, and his actions had tragic, unthinkable consequences. But he appears to have believed that he was, in Dr. King's eloquent words, engaging in 'the language of the unheard.'" In light of that, prosecutors concluded, the guidelines' 20-year sentence recommendation "does not appear appropriate" and Lee should receive a lesser sentence.

It was a jaw-dropping, hard-to-believe justification for a deadly crime by a habitual criminal. Lee was only protesting "unlawful police violence," federal prosecutors argued. He felt "frustrated" and "disenfranchised." He was "caught up in the fury of the mob." And then: Judge, you must understand that even though the riot was deadly, and even though Lee played a particularly ugly role, he truly believed he was engaging in "the language of the unheard."

That was then. Now, of course, we are watching the same DOJ seek maximum sentences against defendants who took part in the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Do prosecutors routinely seek reduced sentences by telling judges that the Jan. 6 rioters felt "frustrated" and "disenfranchised"? Do prosecutors concede that the rioters got out of hand but excuse their behavior by arguing they were just "caught up in the fury of the mob"? And do they quote King to justify the rioters' acts by contending that they really believed they were engaging in "the language of the unheard"?

The answer to every question, of course, is no. And that is the problem Cotton was getting at when he wrote to Garland. Cotton never mentioned Jan. 6, but he had one fundamental question: "Does the attorney general believe participation in a riot is a basis for leniency in sentencing individuals for violent crimes?"

It has been a year and a half since Cotton asked that question. Garland has not responded.

Thanks, E


But the DOJ asked the judge to show leniency to Lee, asking that he be sentenced to 144 months, or 12 years, instead. In the end, the judge sentenced Lee to 10 years — 120 months versus the 240 months in the guidelines.

The D O MUTHERFUKKIN JAAAY
Going to bat for a guy who Unintentionally Murdered a guy.
And look at how the J6 crowd are being treated. The tyrants had better manage to stay in power. Payback really Is a Bitchh