Lieutenant Says Biden’s DOJ “Invented” Charges Against His Son

(RepublicanDaily.org) – Leo Brent Bozell IV, the scion of known conservative pundits, was recently sentenced to close to four years in prison over his participation in the January 6, 2021 riots in the Capitol.

His father, L. Brent Bozell III, claims that the charges against his son are fabrications and deceptions spun by the administration of President Joe Biden and what the elder Bozell calls “Biden’s Justice Department.” The elder Bozell says that his son was merely a part of a “church group” who prayed the rosary over the results of the elections and marched to the Capitol on January 6 to protest what they believed to be an injustice against former president Donald Trump.

The elder Bozell took particular issue with the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding – as the election returns were set to be certified that day – saying that the charge was the key to the “narrative” of “insurrection” the Biden administration wants to perpetuate. The elder Bozell also disputed the claim that his son “barreled into a policeman” during the protest, saying that his son actually helped police officers try to establish order during the riots.

Bozell, who said he unequivocally supports Trump in this year’s elections, called the DOJ’s treatment of his son “political prosecution” with the entirely of the resources of the available to the federal government.

He added, “because my son, Leo Brent Bozell IV, carries his father’s name, and his father has influence,” and on top of that, the elder Bozell said, “is supporting President Donald Trump in 2024.”

The younger Bozell’s sentence was only a third of the 140 days prosecutors were asking for, with Judge John D. Bates calling the prosecution’s desired jail time “untethered to the circumstances of this case.” Judge Bates also acknowledged that the younger Bozell’s actions during the January 6 riots “technically” fit the description of terrorist activities – another charge hotly disputed by the Bozells – it did not feel “appropriate” that the defendant be labelled as such.