So did you see 60 Minutes yesterday, we got something of an unusual, I think I would even call it strange update about the attack on the US Capitol from the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Michael Sherwen.
And for me, that 60 Minutes piece last night raised more questions than it answered. Let's talk about that. Because justice matters.
Hey, all, Glenn Kerschner here, so did y'all catch 60 Minutes last night, it kind of felt like the remnants of the Donald Trump show because former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Michael Sherwin, sat for an interview with 60 Minutes to have a chat about the ongoing investigation into the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Recall, Michael Sherwin was a Donald Trump Bill Barr acolyte who was installed as acting U.S. attorney in D.C. and promptly went about making sure Mike Flynn's criminal case was dismissed.
Mike Flynn, who twice pled guilty to lying to the FBI, Michael Sherwen, made sure that case got dismissed in a very real sense.
Doing the favor, though, for Donald Trump's criminal associate, Mike Flynn. So when Joe Biden came into office, he promptly got rid of Michael Sherwin and put a legitimate acting U.S. attorney in place named Channing Phillips, a former colleague of mine and a terrific guy and a very solid prosecutor. Channing Phillips is now presently the acting U.S. attorney for D.C. And there was some talk about Sherwen staying on during the transition. Well, Sherwin's got Sherwen is no longer involved in the investigation into the insurrection at the Capitol.
But on his way out the door, he apparently took a little detour to 60 Minutes studio and sat for an interview.
It's being reported that Sherwen has left D.C. and is going back to the US attorney in the U.S. attorney's office in Miami from whence he came. I would say stay tuned on that front.
But before I talk about the specifics of what Sherwen said on 60 Minutes last night, I want to kind of give you some of the basics. There's a basic principle by which all federal prosecutors operate, and that is. We do not comment on pending investigations that comes directly out of the US attorney's manual, which is sort of the Bible for federal prosecutors, it's our operating manual kind of sets out the care and feeding of federal prosecutors.
And I think it's important that I quote the exact language from the U.S. attorney's manual about the prohibition against prosecutors talking about pending investigations.
And then we'll talk about a few of the things Michael Sherwen said. Bear with me. This will take a moment. I want to read from the U.S. Attorney's manual, section one, Dash seven point four hundred, disclosure of information concerning ongoing criminal, civil or administrative investigations. Paragraph A any communication by DOJ personnel with a member of the media relating to a pending investigation or case must be approved in advance by the appropriate United States attorney or assistant attorney general, except in emergency circumstances.
Paragraph B, DOJ generally will not confirm the existence of or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations except as otherwise provided in paragraph C. We'll talk about that in a minute. DOJ personnel shall not respond to questions about the existence of an ongoing investigation or comment on its nature or the progress before charges are publicly filed. Paragraph C when the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter or where release of information is necessary to protect public safety.
Comments about or confirmation of an ongoing investigation may be necessary subject to the approval in paragraph A..
So the first question that jumps out at me based on Michael Sherwin's chat with 60 Minutes yesterday is who at the Department of Justice approved this? The former, the outgoing, the departing acting U.S. attorney in D.C. sitting down for this full blown discussion of the evidence in the insurrection investigation. It would be good to know who approved it and whether it was approved.
And I'm not saying everything he said was was wrong or was bad, but after questioning the wisdom of doing it at all and whether it was approved, let's talk about a few of the things that jumped out to me that Michael Sherwen told us all last night on 60 Minutes.
So some of the more interesting, even alarming things Michael Sherwen said included that he was a witness to both the rally and the attack on the capital. He said, yeah, you know, I put on my running clothes and I went down there with the police, he tells us to see what was going on at the rally.
And he said, what I saw was a carnival atmosphere, complete with popcorn, hot dogs and cotton candy.
No, I'm not making any of this up, folks.
He then added that not everybody in the crowd appeared to be, quote, typical Carnival people in his view.
He said there were some people with helmets and body armor and some of them left the rally early and headed toward the Capitol.
He said in his opinion, that what started as a pro Trump rally turned pretty quickly into an anti-government anti Congress anti institution riot.
He also said that he then went to the Capitol to see how things were going over there.
And in his words, they were, quote, going bad, fast.
He was asked about some evidence that the investigation does or does not have specifically about communications between and among insurrectionists and Michael Sherwen helpfully.
At least for the insurrectionists, laid some of that out, he said, no, we don't have any communications specific communications about people planning to breach the capital.
I think I'd like to know that if I were one of the insurrectionists and I maybe had some conversations about breaching the capital, it would be good to know that the prosecutors don't have those communications.
He said we don't have those kind of communications, but we do have communications where they're talking about taking back the house and stopping the steel and needing a show of force in D.C. on January 6th. And Sherwin finished up his interview with a few additional observations, he said, first of all, we must protect First Amendment rights. I can't disagree with that. He then added, quote, The great majority of the people there that day were protesters, close quote.
He said that they are in fact, or when he was there, they were, in fact, investigating Donald Trump. No surprise there.
He added a little bit of color commentary by saying, well, you know, we're arresting soccer moms from Ohio, his term.
And when we're arresting those soccer moms, they're saying things like, well, wait, wait. My president said I had to go take back the house. That's why I did what I did. My president told me to. Finally, Michael Sherwen said something that I think we've all seen with our own eyes, which is that the evidence supports all of the elements of sedition, in essence, the violent overthrow of the government. I tend to agree. But I'll leave you with this, folks, I, for one, am very glad that the investigation into the insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6th is now being headed up by acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Channing Phillips, because I am completely confident that in the hands of Channing Phillips and then ultimately in the hands of whoever, the permanent US attorney for the District of Columbia is once nominated by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate, the investigation is presently and undoubtedly will be an extremely capable hands.
And that now moving forward, now that Michael Sherwen is no longer involved, I am confident the case will be handled fairly. Justly, ethically, appropriately. And in the best interest of the American people. Because justice matters. As always, folks, please stay safe, please stay tuned. And I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow.