The questions linger, unanswered and unsettling: Why remains Jocelyn Ballantine employed by the Department of Justice? Why wasn’t she dismissed after demonstrable misconduct? And why has she faced no legal repercussions for her actions?
Ballantine was a key attorney in the prosecution of Michael Flynn, a case marred by the Department of Justice’s own admission of evidence tampering. Initially dismissed as an “inadvertent mistake,” her role in altering documents and withholding crucial information from the defense cast a long shadow.
The concerns didn’t end there. Ballantine reportedly provided altered documents to Sidney Powell and submitted a redacted FBI interview report, obscuring vital details of the Flynn case. Even after the government moved to dismiss the charges against General Flynn, she refused to sign the dismissal motion.
Her involvement then extended to the highly controversial Proud Boys trial, where accusations of egregious misconduct surfaced. Prosecutors, under Ballantine’s leadership, allegedly fabricated evidence, coerced defendants into false testimony, and even planted evidence within the group’s online communications.
The aim, critics allege, was to secure lengthy prison sentences for the defendants – and they succeeded, with some men facing over a decade behind bars. The trial became a focal point of accusations of political persecution and a relentless pursuit of conviction at any cost.
Recently, investigative journalist Julie Kelly revealed a startling development: Ballantine hasn’t been removed from the DOJ. In fact, she’s been assigned to the case involving the January 6th pipe bomber, Brian Cole Jr. This assignment has ignited a firestorm of questions and outrage.
Kelly expressed disbelief, suggesting that current DOJ and FBI leadership may be unaware of Ballantine’s past actions. She described Ballantine as “among the worst of the worst,” placing her at the top of a list of prosecutors who should have been terminated.
During the Proud Boys trial, the defense team stumbled upon a disturbing spreadsheet detailing FBI correspondence. It allegedly revealed discussions about destroying evidence and illegally surveilling communications between the defendants and their attorneys while they were in pretrial detention.
As the defense prepared to present this evidence in court, Judge Tim Kelly – a known associate of Ballantine from their time at the DC US Attorney’s office – abruptly halted the questioning. Shortly after, Ballantine claimed the communication contained classified information, successfully preventing the jury from seeing it.
This incident exemplifies, according to critics, a pattern of behavior designed to secure convictions, regardless of ethical boundaries. Ballantine and her team pursued harsh sentences, including a 22-year sentence for Enrique Tarrio, ultimately commuted by a later presidential action.
The consequences of these prosecutions were devastating, shattering families and ruining lives. The pursuit of these convictions, some argue, was a stepping stone towards a larger goal: the attempt to permanently incapacitate a political opponent. Ballantine’s continued employment raises profound questions about accountability and the integrity of the justice system.
