Justice Gorsuch Lays Waste to the Biden Administration's Argument for Jail Sentences

[Billiejeens]

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Fischer v. United States case, which related to whether the DC Court of Appeals “erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512 obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence,” according to SCOTUSblog. This criminal statute was slapped against hundreds of January 6 defendants, many serving years behind bars.

During oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch poked holes in the Biden Justice Department’s case, listing four instances of “obstructing a Congressional proceeding,” mentioning Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-NY) fire alarm stunt last year:

The best part is when the Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said they would need evidence of intent in these circumstances.

“Oh, they intend to do it alright,” replied Gorsuch.

In March, a federal appeals court ruled that up to 100 January 6 defendants might have had their jail sentences improperly enhanced.

Bj - I listened to some of the proceedings all of this selective J6 persecution will be overturned 6-3 (5-4 at the worst)
Selective prosecution just scratches the surface of this injustice.

Justice Gorsuch Lays Waste to the Biden Administration's Argument for Jail Sentences

townhall.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Fischer v. United States case, which related to whether the DC Court of Appeals “erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512 obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence,” according to SCOTUSblog. This criminal statute was slapped against hundreds of January 6 defendants, many serving years behind bars.

During oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch poked holes in the Biden Justice Department’s case, listing four instances of “obstructing a Congressional proceeding,” mentioning Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-NY) fire alarm stunt last year:

The best part is when the Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said they would need evidence of intent in these circumstances.

“Oh, they intend to do it alright,” replied Gorsuch.

In March, a federal appeals court ruled that up to 100 January 6 defendants might have had their jail sentences improperly enhanced.

Bj - I listened to some of the proceedings all of this selective J6 persecution will be overturned 6-3 (5-4 at the worst)
Selective prosecution just scratches the surface of this injustice.

Justice Gorsuch Lays Waste to the Biden Administration's Argument for Jail Sentences

townhall.com

The entire J6 Committee and their overseers need to be in Gitmo

 

[1srelluc]

Yeah, it did not sound good for FJB's team of misfits.

 

[Billiejeens]

The entire J6 Committee and their overseers need to be in Gitmo

You are definitely not wrong.

 

[Billiejeens]

Yeah, it did not sound good for FJB's team of misfits.

True.

Honestly, I did not think that Fischer's team stressed the importance of the selective prosecution to the level that it could have been.
They stressed the obvious point of the law being misapplied, but -

 

[Billiejeens]

Once SCOTUS rules appropriately on this it throws half of Jack Smith's charges right in the trash bin.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The overcharging of the Jan6 protesters is another symptom of the Democrat Party being a dangerous totalitarian political cult.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Biden's Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is another radical left Democrat Cult knuttjob.

 

[Billiejeens]

The overcharging of the Jan6 protesters is another symptom of the Democrat Party being a dangerous totalitarian political cult.

Taking the White House under, at best, very dubious circumstances and them jailing anyone that questioned those dubious circumstances is a straight-line path to a totalitarian regime.

 

[Billiejeens]

Biden's Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is another radical left Democrat Cult knuttjob.

DEI only makes for the best hires -

(insert eyeroll here)

 

[Billiejeens]

the Supreme Court scrutinized Tuesday the DOJ’s decision to broaden an obstruction law — widely considered inadequate — to prosecute protestors involved in the Jan. 6 protests.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were direct in their interrogation of Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar regarding the DOJ’s utilization of a provision of the Oxley Act of 2002 in their Jan. 6 prosecutions.
The law includes provisions concerning obstruction of official proceedings, historically applied against individuals who tampered with evidence in such cases rather than those who caused a temporary halt in the proceedings, similar to the events of Jan. 6.

Barrett joined in, asking: “Tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about the breadth of the government’s reading?”

The judges will now weigh the merits of the case and issue a ruling in June, according to media reports.

The case originated from criminal charges filed against Joseph W. Fischer, a former cop who was arrested after entering the Capitol on Jan. 6 and charged with obstruction of an official proceeding.

 

[Libby von H]

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Fischer v. United States case, which related to whether the DC Court of Appeals “erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512 obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence,” according to SCOTUSblog. This criminal statute was slapped against hundreds of January 6 defendants, many serving years behind bars.

During oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch poked holes in the Biden Justice Department’s case, listing four instances of “obstructing a Congressional proceeding,” mentioning Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-NY) fire alarm stunt last year:

The best part is when the Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said they would need evidence of intent in these circumstances.

“Oh, they intend to do it alright,” replied Gorsuch.

In March, a federal appeals court ruled that up to 100 January 6 defendants might have had their jail sentences improperly enhanced.

Bj - I listened to some of the proceedings all of this selective J6 persecution will be overturned 6-3 (5-4 at the worst)
Selective prosecution just scratches the surface of this injustice.

Justice Gorsuch Lays Waste to the Biden Administration's Argument for Jail Sentences

townhall.com

Biden should be in jail. Give him free rein and you get something like : HUNTER

 

[berg80]

All but one of the 15 judges overseeing Jan. 6-related cases in the D.C. federal courthouse have sided with the government on this question, ruling that the rioters who sought to keep Congress from certifying Biden’s victory were “otherwise” obstructing that proceeding. The outlier was U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump nominee, who said the word “otherwise” refers only to other efforts to tamper with or destroy records or documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/

Good morning, cuck.

 

[kyzr]

All but one of the 15 judges overseeing Jan. 6-related cases in the D.C. federal courthouse have sided with the government on this question, ruling that the rioters who sought to keep Congress from certifying Biden’s victory were “otherwise” obstructing that proceeding. The outlier was U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump nominee, who said the word “otherwise” refers only to other efforts to tamper with or destroy records or documents. Good morning, cuck.

That still doesn't address the pass that Jaamal got for pulling the fire alarm to obstruct "the proceeding".
The USSC is always right dumbass.

 

[berg80]

That still doesn't address the pass that Jaamal got for pulling the fire alarm to obstruct "the proceeding".
The USSC is always right dumbass.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defending the Justice Department, told the court in filings that the second clause should be read as a “catchall” that ensures that “unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — like occupying the Capitol building and forcing the suspension of Congress’s joint session certifying the election results — are prohibited, while giving a judge discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime.”
The word “otherwise” means “in a different manner,” Prelogar wrote, and makes clear that Congress intended to prohibit obstruction broadly, beyond the destruction of records or documents listed in the first section of the law.

You, as a dumbass, are always wrong.

 

[MarcATL]

What we have are FOXNEWS watching, MAGA loving, hard rightwing, corrupt, activist judges that have infested our Supreme Court.

We're living in dangerous times.

 

[Billiejeens]

All but one of the 15 judges overseeing Jan. 6-related cases in the D.C. federal courthouse have sided with the government on this question, ruling that the rioters who sought to keep Congress from certifying Biden’s victory were “otherwise” obstructing that proceeding. The outlier was U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump nominee, who said the word “otherwise” refers only to other efforts to tamper with or destroy records or documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/

Good morning, cuck.

SCOTUS will smack it down - Cultist.

 

[berg80]

Those of us who are not blind understand exactly what is going on here. Trump is also charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. If the Court's conservatives can find a way to reduce Don's criminal exposure in the Jan. 6 case they will obediently do so.

The overwhelming majority of judges have read the obstruction statute broadly enough to encompass the January 6 defendants. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted in its opinion saying that Fischer could be charged under this statute, several federal appellate courts “have applied the statute to reach a wide range of obstructive acts.”

Similarly, of the 15 federal trial judges who’d heard January 6 cases, “no fewer than fourteen district judges in this jurisdiction have adopted the broad reading of the statute urged by the government to uphold the prosecution of defendants who allegedly participated in the Capitol riot.” Of these 15 judges, only Judge Carl Nichols, the judge who heard Fischer’s case, disagreed with this consensus view.

The Supreme Court will weigh in on the January 6 insurrection. What could possibly go wrong?

The Court’s decision could potentially undermine over 300 January 6 prosecutions, including Trump’s.

www.vox.com

 

[Billiejeens]

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defending the Justice Department, told the court in filings that the second clause should be read as a “catchall” that ensures that “unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — like occupying the Capitol building and forcing the suspension of Congress’s joint session certifying the election results — are prohibited, while giving a judge discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime.”
The word “otherwise” means “in a different manner,” Prelogar wrote, and makes clear that Congress intended to prohibit obstruction broadly, beyond the destruction of records or documents listed in the first section of the law.

You, as a dumbass, are always wrong.

Prelogar sounded like a 2nd year law student.

Not good.

 

[berg80]

SCOTUS will smack it down - Cultist.

Let's be specific. The conservatives in Don's pocket will try to justify a ruling in his favor.