One of Biden’s DOJ attorneys recently tried to sway a Michigan judge about conservative media coverage suggesting that Biden’s administration is persecuting Christians and pro-lifers for their beliefs.
During a march pre-trial conference in USA v. Zastrow, in which the government brought Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act charges against 8 pro-life individuals who tried to stop abortions of unborn babies from taking place at Michigan abortion clinics.
Those pro-life/anti-murder activists are Calvin Zastrow, Eva Zastrow, Chester Gallagher, Heather Idoni, Caroline Davis, Joel Curry, Justin Phillips, and Eva Edl (a communist death camp survivor and facing incarnation at the age of 89 by the Biden admin).
The FACE Act is a 1994 law that prohibits individuals from obstructing the entrances of both abortion clinics and organizations like Planned Parenthood (Planned Parenthood actually sell babies body parts for profit). And since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Biden admin has been using it heavily to persecute pro-lifers.
During the pre-trial motion hearing, DOJ attorney Laura-Kate Bernstein raised concerns:
“There’s a great deal of press about this case and the case in Nashville recently.”
The case that Bernstein is referring to is the one that involves 6 Christians praying outside of an abortion clinic in 2021 that were unjustly charged with FACE Act violations.
Judge Matthew Leitman (an Obama appointee), the presiding judge was puzzled by this “concern,” and so he said:
“Where? I haven’t seen any.”
Bernstein tried to claim that online media was to blame and she answered:
“Like Mike Huckabee’s show or Laura Ingraham’s show, and those sorts of sources, and some written sources, too, in which at least one of the defense attorneys is making very acerbic statements about the government’s case and the legitimacy of the laws at stake, and that the Biden regime is persecuting Christians.
“My concern is one of the jury pool. My concern is that as these national media reach more and more people, including people in the district, that they may be tainted with a preconceived notion of the Biden regime’s persecution of Christians and be unable to try the case as neutral jurors.”
Very telling that she said the Biden “regime”. Also very telling that she is worried that more people find out about what the Biden regime is doing. By keeping citizens in the dark, the Biden regime can keep control of what we think and how we think.
Bernstein claimed that she wasn’t trying to get the court to do “something in particular,” but then she told the judge that it is the court’s “affirmative, constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity,” so that the judge feels compelled to feel sympathetic for the Biden regime’s side of the case.
Leitman, being an astute judge logically deduced that Bernstein was trying to outsmart him. He told her that he could ask the jurors whether they had read anything about the case. However, he also called Bernstein’s question basis as rooted in “important political speech.”
Leitman stated:
“It seems to me that your first statement, the Biden administration is persecuting Christians … that’s pretty core, important political speech, whether you agree with it or not. I mean, I’d be hard pressed to tell somebody not to say that.”
Bernstein attempted a rebuttal, saying she was referring to interviews in which the pro-lifer’s attorney said that:
“this case is a war on pro-lifers, that the Department of Justices is using the FACE Act as a weapon against pro-lifers,” or that “the clients are victims of political persecution.”
Bernstein also tried to push back against the notion that :
“there’s a two-tier justice system, one for friends of the administration who go free and one for people who are on the wrong spiritual side of the administration.”
While Eva Edl is certainly not a friend of the regime and yet at the age of 89 she is being threatened with jail time for peacefully protesting the death of babies.
Bernstein also stated:
“There’s also extremely inflammatory language undermining the legitimacy of the laws to be implied in this case, that you’ve already ruled on—the constitutionality of it—whether reproductive health care includes abortion, as the statue defines it. And because the court has this affirmative, constitutional duty, we wanted to bring it to your attention.”
It’s funny how the uniparty only cares about the constitution when they think they could use it for their benefit.
Bernstein then asked the judge to admonish Thomas More Society attorney Steve Crampton:
“about speaking about this case in inflammatory and acerbic ways that might taint the jury pool.”
Bernstein noted that while Crampton had the right to free speech, she also tried to spin it by saying:
“This isn’t about trying to, you know, interfere with any of his First Amendment rights. It’s about trying to protect the due process rights in this trial and the government’s right and the public’s right to a fair trial.”
Crampton then set the record straight about what Bernstein was referring to. Bernstein was referring to Tennessee pro-life activist Paul Vaughn’s interview on the “Mike Huckabee Show.” However, what Bernstein left out to manipulate the court was the fact that Vaughn only made such comments “only after the jury verdict” was entered in his case. Vaughn never tried to use the media to manipulate the jurors or the court. He waited until after the trial to discuss the case, which is something that Bernstein either purposefully left out or didn’t bother to research.
In January, a federal jury convicted Vaughn and five other defendants of a felony conspiracy against rights and a FACE Act offense for trying to stop the act of murdering babies from being committed at an abortion clinic in March 2021 in Mont Juliet, Tennessee.
