Biden Regime’s Seven-Year Prison Sentence for Green Beret Jan 6 Whistleblower Re-Opens Festering Wounds of Fedsurrection Lie

Revolver continues its great reporting on January 6th just as 60 Minutes tries to white-wash Ray Epps:

We at Revolver News have long maintained that the curious case of Ray Epps, together with the unbelievable official story pertaining to the January 6 “pipe bombs”, constitute the two smoking-guns of the January 6 Fedsurrection. The January 6 Fedsurrection doesn’t just have smoking guns, however — it also has a heroic whistleblower. As far back as March 2021, former Green Beret Jeremy Brown went public with a recording he took that depicted JTTF/DHS agents trying to recruit him as an informant ahead of January 6, raising significant questions as to government infiltration of militia groups as well as federal foreknowledge that something was going to take place on that day.

Sadly yet predictably, Jeremy Brown may have to suffer the the same fate as Julian Assange and other brave souls who dared to expose Regime corruption. Earlier this month, the Biden Regime’s politically weaponized Justice Department sentenced Jeremy Brown to 87 months in federal prison:

Tampa, Florida – U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew today sentenced Jeremy Brown (48, Tampa) to seven years and three months in federal prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, for possession of unregistered short-barrel firearms, possession of unregistered explosive grenades, improper storage of explosive grenades, and retention of classified information.

The scandalous details of the DOJ’s prosecution of Brown suggest a case of egregious political retaliation, and warrant the careful attention of every patriot concerned with the unprecedented degradation of our nation’s once great justice system. 

It is important to note that Brown emphatically denies the grenade charges for which he was convicted, as well as the charges relating to classified material. During the course of his trial, forensics experts were not able to find his prints on the grenades, lending support to Brown’s claim that someone planted the grenade at some point prior to the search. As for the charges relating to classified information, Brown told Revolver in a phone conversation that while he kept a template for classified documents on one of his files, the file in question did not actually contain classified information. The jury ultimately found Brown not guilty of four classified document charges related to a CD-rom labeled “secret”, which the FBI found in their five-hour long search of Brown’s home. Brown maintains he had never seen the CD before.

The true scandal surrounding the persecution of Jeremy lies not in the cooked up weapons charges described above, however, but in the underlying motivation for the charges in the first place.

In late September of 2021, approximately 20 FBI vehicles swooped in on Brown’s home, searched his belongings for over five hours, and took all of his phones and electronics before arresting him. What grave January 6 offense could have possibly justified such a dramatic action on the part of federal authorities? After all of the fanfare, Brown was arrested and charged with trespassing on restricted grounds and disorderly conduct—both misdemeanors.

The disorderly conduct charge—again, a misdemeanor—-arises from the government’s claim that Brown did not respond quickly enough to the commands of Capitol Police officers.

Positively menacing!

To get a sense of how absurd and sinister the misdemeanor trespassing charges against Brown are, it is important to understand that according to the Justice Department, anyone who set foot anywhere in a giant swath of land ranging from the Capitol’s West side lawn to its East side promenade is technically guilty of trespassing:

As we reported in an earlier piece, these “grounds” under ordinary circumstances are open to the public, not “restricted.” Because law enforcement erected some police barriers and fencing there on January 6—barriers that were all but removed before most of the attendees even arrived at the Capitol—thousands of Trump supporters unknowingly crossed an imaginary Maginot Line.

Indeed, a major component of Revolver’s classic reporting on January 6 was the exposure of a number of suspicious actors (most of whom have neither been identified much less indicted) who studiously and methodically removed the fencing denoting the “restricted” area long before Trump’s speech ended and the larger crowds arrived at the Capitol.

For instance, here is a clip of a man coolly and methodically cutting down and then rolling up “restricted area” fencing around the Capitol lawn. He had no Trump gear on, and made sure to wear dark sunglasses on a cloudy day. He was not angry. He was dispassionate, calm, and professional, like he was just there to do a job.

This man, known to January 6 researchers as #fencecutterbulwark, remains both unidentified and unindicted. The FBI does not even appear to be looking for him.

Here is an image of another infamous and as of yet unindicted and unidentified J6 figure, known to researchers as “Scaffold Commander”, taking down fencing denoting the restricted area around the Capitol

For more examples of suspicious actors removing fencing, we encourage readers to consult our classic piece on the subject.

For our purposes, it suffices to note that the removal of the fencing denoting the “restricted area” in question effectively created a giant booby trap for the thousands of attendees who walked over to the Capitol after the conclusion of Trump’s speech. With the fencing removed, it was inevitable that hundreds, if not thousands, in the crowd would end up unwittingly vulnerable to criminal misdemeanor charges for trespassing — precisely the charges for which Jeremy Brown’s home was raided and searched and Jeremy Brown was arrested in September, 2021.

 

To get some perspective on this charge, consider the fact that all of the people in this picture (and many more) were standing within the “restricted zone” as described in the charging documents:

It is of course absurd and unjust for the government to charge anyone with such a petty, meaningless and innocent charge as trespassing in this context — especially because the fencing denoting a “restricted area” had been removed in many areas. Even Merrick Garland’s notoriously aggressive and political Justice Department has not come close to bothering to indict a small fraction of all of the January 6 rally-goers who technically stepped inside the restricted area. Given the extreme context of prosecutorial discretion for such trespassing charges, it is instructive to see whom the DOJ decided to go after and whom they left alone.

In nearly every case of which we are aware, the people charged with trespassing were those who had done something else to anger the Biden Regime, usually something public. For instance, there’s the case of DEA Agent Mark Ibrahim, who went on Tucker Carlson’s program to discuss his legal fight against the DEA for reportedly firing him for attending the rally on January 6th. Four months later, he was arrested on trespassing charges. Another person to be charged with trespassing is Owen Shroyer, a host on Alex Jones’ InfoWars. The trespassing charge served as a perfect option for the Biden Regime to punish particular rally-goers for political reasons.

Jeremy Brown’s trespassing charges represent a particularly egregious case of politically weaponized prosecutorial discretion. It is especially noteworthy that the FBI raid of Brown’s home, and Brown’s arrest for trespassing, didn’t occur until late September. Why, then, did the Department of Justice wait nine months after January 6 to raid Jeremy Brown’s home and arrest him for a misdemeanor trespassing charge? Typically new charges would emerge from new evidence, but in this case we know that the Feds were aware of Jeremy’s presence in the “restricted zone” as early as January 6th. Per the FBI’s affidavit, the FBI even called Brown directly, both on January 6 and again on January 7. Brown plainly told them where he was. The FBI even served a search warrant on Verizon, on January 6 itself, which identified Brown’s cell phone coordinates as being inside the Capitol restricted grounds.

Brown Blows the Whistle and Biden’s DOJ Retaliates

So what changed between January 6th and September 30th that would have provided extra motivation for the feds to raid Brown’s home and arrest him for nine-month-old trespassing charges? In March, Jeremy Brown came forward with a video and audio recording of him being approached by two government agents in December of 2020 who seemingly try to recruit him as a confidential informant to infiltrate the Oath Keepers in order to prevent “the next big thing.” While the tape, to Revolver’s knowledge, has not been independently corroborated, it purports to provide a window into how government agents — in this case purportedly DHS agents working with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Tampa — were recruiting Oath Keepers and other individuals associated with such militia groups in the weeks before January 6. Keep in mind that Brown went public with this recording in March, several months before Revolver’s classic piece exploring federal involvement in January 6—thus making Jeremy Brown one of the earliest and most important whistleblowers of the January 6 Fedsurrection.

Here is the video Brown recorded, along with a video of Brown describing the recruitment process in a discussion with Brandon Gray:

Isn’t it curious that it was only after Jeremy Brown came forward as a January 6 whistleblower that the Justice Department decided to bend over backwards in order to criminally prosecute him for a January 6-related trespassing misdemeanor? It gets even better—it turns out that one of the arresting officers who took Brown into custody for the trespassing crime was one of the two agents who originally tried to recruit Brown as an undercover agent back in early December of 2020! That’s right—the agent whom Brown recorded and exposed as trying unsuccessfully to recruit him as an informant for January 6 is the same agent that ends up arresting Brown for misdemeanor trespassing charges for January 6 nearly ten months later. Not only that—we learn from court documents that this agent was involved in interviewing witnesses for Brown’s trial, and played a part in the search warrant enabling the September raid of Brown’s home!

The story of the government’s retaliation against Jeremy Brown for blowing the whistle on the January 6 Fedurrection gets darker and dirtier still. The careful reader will recall that Brown was sentenced to 87 months in prison for felony charges related to unregistered possession of short-barrel fire arms and grenades, not for the January 6 trespassing misdemeanor or any obviously January 6-related offenses. The Feds arrested Jeremy Brown for the trespassing charges, searched his home, and in the course of the search found the short-barrel firearms, grenades, and a CD that allegedly contained classified material. Brown maintains that the CD and grenades are not his and must have been planted. It is noteworthy that Brown was not convicted of the classified documents charges related to the CD, and while he was convicted for the grenade, forensics revealed an unknown individual’s prints on the grenade and not Brown’s.

While the government couldn’t deliver severe retaliation to Brown with mere misdemeanor trespassing charges alone, they could use those trespassing charges as a springboard to search his home and find (or possibly plant) the basis for future and more serious charges. There was only one hiccup to this plan: Jeremy Brown lived in Florida, and the Feds weren’t going to get a search warrant to search his home on the basis of a trespassing charge. Here’s where the slight of hand comes in. The Feds opened a “terrorism” investigation into Brown, possibly on the basis of alleged claims from Oath Keepers defendant Kelly Meggs (since convicted of Seditious Conspiracy) that Brown transported explosives and weapons to the January 6 rally. This terrorism pretext enabled the Feds to overcome the jurisdictional impediments to carrying out a search warrant in Florida.

To see the bait and switch in action, note the criminal complaint against Brown is confined strictly to the J6 misdemeanors, while the search warrant inexplicably attaches the suspected crimes of “conspiracy” “transport of firearms or explosives for use in a civil disorder” and “transportation of explosives” onto the original trespassing misdemeanor charge.

Here is the criminal complaint, limited to the J6 misdemeanors:

And here is the search warrant application that beefs up the original trespassing offense with “conspiracy” “transport of firearms or explosives for use in a civil disorder” and “transportation of explosives” added on.

Note that all of the alleged violations used to justify the search were January 6-related, but none of the serious violations stuck. Indeed, Brown was never even ultimately charged with “transporting firearms for use in a civil disorder” or “transport of explosives.” The government used those more serious January 6 violations to justify the search, and ended up never going forward with them once they found the firearms, grenades, and CD-ROM with alleged classified material (the latter two items Jeremy claims were planted). The charges relating to the firearms, grenades, and CD-ROM have nothing to do with January 6, and yet the whole reason the government found them (whether planted or not) were the ghost violations of “transportation for use” during January 6, violations which never materialized into charges and magically disappeared after they served their function of getting a search warrant approved.

In short, the evidence strongly suggests that while the Department of Justice desperately wanted to retaliate against Brown for his whistleblowing on January 6th, they could not sufficiently punish him based on the January 6 misdemeanors alone. Instead, they cooked up a J6-related pretext to search his home, and end up charging him with separate non-J6 related crimes based on the (possibly planted) results of their search.

One especially outrageous aspect of the trial against Brown for the weapons and classified material charges is how studiously both the government and the Judge attempted to exclude evidence that could lend support for the government’s possible retaliatory motive. In fact, at his trial, Jeremy Brown wasn’t even allowed to admit into evidence recording he took of the JTTF/DHS agents trying unsuccessfully to recruit him as an informant for January 6th. Think of that: Brown recorded himself refusing government agents’ attempts to recruit him to be an informant for January 6, made the recording public, asserted that January 6 was in some part likely a fed operation, and the Judge in his case said that these facts weren’t relevant to a possible motive of a government agent potentially planting the grenade in his home in retaliation, even when, as mentioned, one of the JTTF agents he recorded was the same man who arrested Brown and assisted in the efforts to obtain his search warrant!

Consider the following excerpt from Brown’s court trial transcript. Here, Brown’s lawyer argues that Brown’s recording and exposure of the JTTF agents trying to recruit him is a significant factor in establishing a retaliatory motive that could account for why government agents may have planted the grenade found during the search of Brown’s property:

 

Incredibly, the Judge denied the relevance of these recordings to a possible retaliatory motive on the grounds that the conversation in the recordings seemed cordial, and because it can’t be proven that the agents in question were aware that Jeremy Brown went on a publicity spree exposing and humiliating them. The reasoning here has to be read to be believed:

 

 

 

Let’s first address the Judge’s claim that because the recorded conversation between Brown and the JTTF agents trying to recruit him was cordial, there’s no reason the government would want to retaliate against Brown. Whether or not the conversation was cordial, the fact is that Brown refused the JTTF’s attempt to recruit him as an informant in the lead up to January 6th. It would be one thing of course for Brown simply to refuse recruitment—that alone could be sufficient to invite retaliation. But Brown went a step further and became a full-blown whistleblower, releasing the recording to the public along with his assessment that there was considerable federal involvement in January 6th. The notion that someone with the credibility and stature of a Green Beret challenging the Regime’s official version of January 6 in such a fashion wouldn’t invite retaliation, or at least provide a motive for it, is ridiculous.

The official “insurrection” narrative of January 6th is arguably the most aggressively promoted and defended narrative of the past several years. The regime responds to anyone to dares question it with severity—just ask Revolver News or Tucker Carlson. The notion that Brown’s whistleblowing wouldn’t cause retaliation because the conversation he recorded was cordial is laughably absurd.

As for whether the grenade and CD rom allegedly containing classified material were planted in Brown’s home as retaliation for his January 6 whistleblowing, we cannot of course be certain. Brown’s fingerprints were not found on the grenade and other DNA was found on the grenade belonging to an unknown individual. Based on the way federal agents conducted themselves in similar cases, the suggestion that there could be foul play here is not at all outlandish. In the Whitmer kidnapping plot alone, at least two of the leading FBI agents on the case had to recuse themselves on account of egregious misconduct.

The Judge’s suggestion that Brown’s recording isn’t relevant to a possible retaliation motive because it is unclear whether any government agents were aware he published the recording is equally ridiculous. The agents who tracked and attempted to recruit Brown had been following him for a long time and continued to have an interest in him to the point that one of the very same officers ended up being the officer who arrested him. The notion that these officers wouldn’t be aware of Brown making their conversation public in front of millions of viewers is simply unbelievable, as is the notion that the government generally wouldn’t have been aware of Brown’s behavior.

Nonetheless, inexplicably and outrageously, the recording Brown took of the JTTF agents trying to recruit him was not admitted in his trial, despite its clear value in helping to support Brown’s claim that there was a motive for government retaliation against him. And retaliate the government did. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, Brown was ultimately sentenced to a whopping seven years and three months in federal prison.

Conclusion

The persecution of Jeremy Brown—just like the indictment of Trump, the felony conviction of a Trump supporter for anti-Hillary memes, and many other recent cases—demonstrates the lengths to which the Justice Department is willing to go to punish enemies of the Biden Regime. Although all of these cases are quite different in some respect, in each case we see the Justice Department deploying novel means of contorting the law to accommodate a clearly contrived criminal offense against their target.

Forget politically weaponized prosecutorial discretion, what we have here is prosecutorial gymnastics. In the case of Trump’s sham indictment, we saw that the misdemeanor charges weren’t enough, and that, in order to cook up a felony, District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his henchmen had to tie in ridiculous document crimes with some phantom as yet to be determined charge related to campaign finance. We see somewhat similar gymnastics at play in Brown’s case, in which January 6-related misdemeanors weren’t hefty enough to allow for the level of punishment the government wanted, so they generated phantom weapons charges related to January 6 to justify a search and then charged Brown for ostensibly non-Jan-6-related offenses for what they found (or planted) in Jeremy’s home during the search.

So what can we learn from the injustice against Jeremy Brown? For one, we see the extreme limits of prosecutorial discretion—as described above, more like prosecutorial gymnastics. The extreme gymnastics deployed to persecute and prosecute Jeremy Brown offers an instructive contrast, for instance, to the strange protection afforded to someone like Ray Epps. After studying the way the DOJ went after Jeremy Brown, it is impossible to conclude that the Justice Department was simply unable to charge Epps with anything because Epps “didn’t go into the Capitol.” There were many layup charges available to bring down Epps—including the basic trespassing standard the Regime used so effectively to ultimately ensnare Jeremy Brown. The following video is just a short compilation depicting many instances in which Epps was “trespassing” by the standard applied to Brown:

By the standards of other prosecutions, the Department of Justice could have indicted Epps on much more serious charges than mere trespassing, but that is a case to be made in another article. For now, it suffices to note that the government could have indicted Epps on trespassing charges and given him the Brown treatment, possibly using the trespassing charges as a spring-board to more serious charges. If Epps were just some anonymous nondescript rally-goer on Capitol grounds, perhaps it would make sense that the government wouldn’t bother charging him. But Epps wasn’t just some forgettable rallygoer; on paper at least, he fit the perfect description of the sort of January 6 participant the Justice Department would want to make an example of, if they had any plausible charges available to them—which they certainly did with the trespassing charge.

The Justice Department makes a huge deal about Brown’s alleged involvement with the Oath Keepers, and yet Ray Epps had been the former head of the Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers—the most demonized and prosecuted militia-group related to January 6th. Epps was the only man on camera as early as January 5th urging people, in camo and a Trump hat, to go into the Capitol in advance. Could anyone watch the following compilation and conclude that this isn’t precisely the sort of person that, under ordinary circumstances, the government would want to throw the book at and make an example of?

And yet, instead of making an example of Epps, the Regime declines to prosecute him for anything, and the Regime’s mainstream media assistants bend over backwards, contorting themselves creatively to justify the government’s protection of Epps. Why is it that the same level of creativity employed to justify the prosecution of Jeremy Brown is used to justify the non-prosecution of Epps?

Perhaps we would know more about Epps, and about the truth behind January 6 generally, if more men would come forward and blow the whistle on the Biden Regime and the national security state’s operations against the American people. Sadly, yet predictably, the full punitive force of our weaponized and politicized justice system seems to be reserved for those brave few like Jeremy Brown who expose it for what it is.

We will follow Brown’s case and report on any significant developments.