FBI Investigating Members of Congress? Let’s look at the FBI transcript
Defendant Thomas Webster filed 12+ exhibits aka a massive document dump in his motion to be released. Includes NYPD services records. He really did gouge the eye out of a MPD Officer
Thomas Webster Case Update
Back in late February — Defendant Thomas Webster’s arrest -at the time I noted that the screen shots included in the Affidavit were haunting. That Defendant Webster looked like “he had murder in his eyes” and informed readers that they should be on the look out for prosecutors releasing the body camera recordings.
March 20221 Indictment
On March 12, 2021 a grand jury returned a seven count indictment. Defendant Webster ly. M inducted The newly released body camera footage is -viewer discretion advised- disturbing because
April 12, 2021l -SUBPOENA Issued
On April 12, 2021 Defendant’s Motion Granted by the Court, Subpoena Issued. by Judge Amit P. Mehta - Defendant Webster’s subpoena his previous employer the N.Y.P.D for (essentially) his entire employee file. Date/Time of production for the N.Y.P.D. April 30 2021 at 2PM <—the fact I’m pointing the subpoena compliance —you ‘bout to find out…
Sanctions for Contempt
On May 11, 2021 —the N.Y.P.D failed to comply with the Judicially Ordered subpoena. Accordingly defendant Webster, filed his First MOTION for Sanctions for Contempt (DDC-ECF Document #1) against the N.Y.P.D. & Lt. Richard Mantellino.
On May 26, 2021 Defendant Webster’s attorney sent a letter/motion to the Court. In which they informed the Court that N.Y.P.D. sent a certified copy of Defendant Webster’s employment files. At which point the defendant formally withdrew his motions concerned sanctions. N.Y.P.D. compliance to the subpoena was 15 days late.
June 7, 2021 Minute Entry for proceedings
….held before Judge Amit P. Mehta:
Status Conference as to THOMAS WEBSTER held via videoconference on 6/7/2021. Defendant's Oral Motion for Speedy Trial Waiver was heard and granted
In the interests of justice, and for the reasons stated on the record, the time from 6/8/2021 through and including 6/29/2021 shall be excluded in computing the date for speedy trial in this case.
Defendant's Motion for Bond Review due by 6/16/2021. Opposition due by 6/23/2021. Reply due by 5:00 PM on 6/28/2021. Bond Hearing set for 6/29/2021 2:00 PM via videoconference before Judge Amit P. Mehta.
See recent docket report -
STIPULATION Letter Requesting Adjournment - filed by Defendant Webster
June 16, 2021 MINUTE ORDER granting consent request to amend briefing schedule. Defendant's Motion for Bond Review is now due by June 18, 2021. The United States' opposition is now due by June 24, 2021. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/16/2021.
First MOTION for Release from Custody by THOMAS WEBSTER - filed June 17, 2021
On June 17, 2021 the Defendant Thomas Webster filed a MOTION for Release from Custody (with 15 exhibits—bringing the filing to 371 pages) included below, I’ve taken the liberty of embedding links to the various Exhibits that I think deserve to be scrutinized. Naturally if you’d like to spend $30+ dollars you can purchase them via this DDC-ECF link
Exhibit #3 N.Y.P.D. Records
Exhibit # 4 1997 Letter to Mayor Giuliani
Exhibit # 5 Webster Interview with FBI
Exhibit # 6 Feb19, 2021 FBI Report as to Defendant Webster
In this 6 page Exhibit # 6 FBI Report (which was filed on February 19, 2021) you’ll note FBI’s Counterterrorism
This portion of the FBI Report will come in handy because it provides you with the type and caliber of the firearms Defendant Webster has…because during the FBI interview Defendant Webster acknowledge that he drove to DC and that he brought his Smith & Wesson with him but left it in his car…
Well that’s just slightly unnerving - unclear if the DOD also investigated or suspended his access to military bases - I know when family members of mine retired from the Military —one of the perks is they still have access to the base’s PX, Commissary and Gas Stations… but the fact the FBI noted the DOD nexus and that it’s unclear if Webster planned to target military bases. Again it’s in the exhibits Defendant Webster filed
Defendant Webster’s FBI Interview Transcript
I am genuinely not trying to be a Debbie Downer - but the “hype” of the FBI is investigating Members of Congress and/or Congressional Staffers who “may have been involved” with the deadly January 6th Insurrection - the context and content are important and I now refer you to page 38 of Webster’s FBI interview…
Exhibit # 5 Webster Interview with FBI
This was a very generalized question - the FBI didn’t ask any follow up questions to the initial;
”Do you have any connections to anyone in Congress, or congressional staffer or any Capitol Police”
If you read the transcript in its entirety- this was the question asked but I’d like to draw your attention to page 29 -here Defendant Webster admitted to bringing his “off duty gun” but kept it in the car. I’m 95% positive that the US Attorney’s office could or should have charged Webster will violating DC gun laws
Again if you read the transcript (which was filed with Defendant Webster’s June 17, 2021 Motion to Release from Custody) you’ll note the preceding questions concerning Oath Keepers, III-ers and Proud Boys - The FBI Agents drilled Defendant Webster on those and made him answer the various iterations of the questions on three separate occasions - Whereas the question about Congress and/or Congressional Staffers was a one and done
The point is there are so many other important facts in that Feb 2021 FBI interview I don’t understand how this became a viral “moment” -Conversely the fact Defendant Webster was clearly establishing a state of mind predicate as to why he gouged the eye of a law enforcement officer is far more newsworthy and accurate- but I suppose that doesn’t “sell as well” as taking one innocuous question being completely out of context and then trying to make it a big deal. Here’s the public drive link so you can read the FBI interview transcript
Also here’s the link to Defendant Webster’s case folder and lastly I’m not trying to be overly critical but if you’re a reporter you are doing your readers/viewers a terrible injustice by not accurately reporting the facts. This isn’t personal this is about the facts, the case, the Defendant and the Government’s prosecution. I don’t care if it was accidental or intentional but the point is last night’s reporting wasn’t exactly accurate and I felt my readers/followers should have access to the FBI transcript and Report and a more fulsome explanation. Again I’m sorry if I rained on the parade of “OMFG they are investigating members/staff of Congress”
Which sucks because I am absolutely convinced that a few members of Congress and/or their staff were involved because I know I’m a PITA and I obsess over tiny details but back on February 27th I point blank asked:
At any rate - I promised my littles that we would go visit Nana today because being vaccinated (See CDC link) means my family can return to a quasi normal post Covid-19 life - but the littles still need to wear a mask because they aren’t vaccinated (yet) whereas most of the adults in my family are.
Have a great Saturday and try to do something today that makes you happy.
xo -Filey
I'm glad all is returning to a somewhat normal life for the Filey Family. :)
You know, I don't get all the whining from the folk getting arrested now. They get busted, video evidence and all, yet their privilege won't allow them to comprehend how badly they've messed up their own lives. One had the temerity to ask to be allowed to travel for business. (?!) Man, did he think the judge would take one look at him and OK it? SMDH May they live in interesting times.
I honestly took the 'big' deal people were making this was this was literally the FIRST transcript that people have seen, and you and I know that utter morons have been saying, "WuT aBoUt people higher up? TELL US TELL US!!!! TELL US NOW!!!!!" So, all this shows is that they ARE doing due diligence and asking interviewees if: 1) They have had contacts with any of those 3-4 sources. If they have not and they are actually fairly certain that is true (which might be true here), fine one and done. The 'deal' is that they are demonstrating that they 'are' indeed following this line of questioning and up the ladder. 2) There WILL be individuals they interview where they have objective evidence that they DID and were in contact with those individuals and groups, and they will get them on the record LYING. They may let it go as simple as this on the first pass and not let on, because they are building a case. The person just perjured themselves under oath in a deposition. They bring them back a second time and say, "Remember last time when we asked you about X? well....." Or maybe next time they get charged..... I think that is the 'context' of it being asked, not that 'he' was asked.