Justice Gorsuch Throws Shade at Jamaal Bowman During J6 Hearing, and It’s Glorious

[Doc7505]

Exposing the Lies: ​

How DOJ’s Elizabeth Prelogar Misled The Supreme Court​

Exposing the Lies: How DOJ's Elizabeth Prelogar Misled The Supreme Court - Flopping Aces

by Julie Kelly

floppingaces.net

by Julie Kelly

As I noted yesterday, Elizabeth Prelogar totally misrepresented (lied?) how DOJ routinely handles sentencing requests for those convicted of 1512c2.
Under questioning from Kavanaugh about prison sentences, Prelogar tried to make it sound like 1512c2 defendants with other nonviolent offenses (common misdemeanors) only get about 24 months in jail.
She quickly mentioned the “Brock” case–referring to Larry Brock, a man from Texas convicted at bench trial of 1512c2 and 5 misdemeanors–and the “enhancement” recently overturned by DC appellate court in 1512c2 convictions.
So what did DOJ ask for in Brock case? Not 24-26 months as Prelogar attempted to mislead Kavanaugh into believing.
NO–DOJ asked for 60 months in prison.
This is far more representative of what DOJ has requested in similar cases. And yes it included the now unlawful enhancement but that was the enhancement DOJ ASKED FOR.


Commentary:
Like Maduro, Joe Biden wants to destroy the Supreme Court by packing it with Ne0-Marxists. Right now, only it has the power to stand in the way of the Democrat’s totalitarian police state agenda.
The Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh point was not "whataboutism" but to make the point that overbroad interpretations of statutes being used for actions they never meant to criminalize illustrates the dangers of selective prosecution.
Everyone is watching and waiting for their decisions on a few things. They need to make the right decisions, not bend the law for what we all saw happen on Jan. 6. They should obey the oath they all took to uphold the Constitution and save our Republic.

​

 

[DudleySmith]

Arbitrary justice is no justice at all. Liberal abuse of power has clearly demonstrated that corruption rules the day in Garland/Biden DOJ.

First the dopers destroy the rule of law, then they snivel about the results of their idiocy; it's never their fault. Mommy says so.

 

[Clipper]

So for Gorsuch the Congressman who pulled a fire alarm in an office building should be treated the same as the violent rioters at the Capitol Building on Jan 6th. Didn't he have his day in court and already plead guilty?

Did any of the violent rioters get 20 years for this charge only?

It is a not too surprising a specious argument comes from the current Hacks we have in the SC.

How many died after that fire alarm was pulled? Cops with skulls bashed in? Lives threatened by MAGA thugs?

 

[jc456]

A brilliant point.

How does a rally for Trump that unwittingly disrupts congress get charged with disrupting congress but pulling a fire alarm is nothing more than a slap on the wrist when it is the Democrat committing a crime with the intent to disrupt congress.

Democrats all across America disrupted the publics life, yet that is all "legal" and allowed to continue?

Doesn't matter, demofks are only in this for them and no one else. You could tell him/her anything and it would disagree. obstinate.

 

[Doc7505]

How many died after that fire alarm was pulled? Cops with skulls bashed in? Lives threatened by MAGA thugs?

~~~~~~
LOL!

UVA Light Reduced Virus Loads in COVID-19 Patients

Ultraviolet light treatments introduced into the tracheas of five critically ill COVID-19 patients appeared to be safe and associated with a reduction in the respiratory load of SARS-CoV-2—the virus responsible for COVID-19—in all but one patient, according to a study conducted by...

www.cedars-sinai.org

**********​

Ultraviolet light treatment

Ultraviolet light is a treatment for a type of skin cancer called T cell lymphoma. One type of UV treatment is called PUVA (psoralen plus ultraviolet A).

www.cancerresearchuk.org

 

[Votto]

MSN

During oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito exposed the Biden administration’s inexcusable practice of selective prosecution of protesters and rioters.

The case, Fischer v. United States, involved the contention by Pennsylvanian Joseph Fischer that the charges of “obstruct[ion of] … any official proceeding,” based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), should not apply to his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Fischer, who also was charged with assaulting police officers, is hardly a sympathetic figure. His claims that he wasn’t trying to obstruct or “impede” official (and important) congressional business, in the ordinary (nonlegal) sense of those words, are specious, but Gorsuch and Alito were interested in a point broader than Fischer’s particular circumstances.

More than 300, of nearly 1,400 total, other Jan. 6 defendants also have been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The two justices were puzzled by inconsistencies with which President Joe Biden’s appointees apply the law and with the wide scope they claim for it against disfavored defendants. Contrarily, when people on the Left, even including members of Congress, disrupt government proceedings, including by use of force, Biden and his officials look the other way.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?" Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) used the fire alarm stunt before a key spending vote last Sept. 30 and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge carrying negligible penalties, but he bragged about not being charged for obstructing House proceedings even though that’s what he had obviously done when the alarm forced an evacuation. That mandatory mass exit interrupted attempts to ward off a government shutdown.

When Prelogar’s attempt to draw distinctions sounded weak and confusing, Gorsuch pressed further. Using the catchphrase favored by liberal news media and others about urban riots, even ones where police were injured, cars were burned, and federal courthouses were significantly damaged, resulting in trial relocations or delays, Gorsuch somewhat mockingly asked why “a mostly peaceful protest … that actually obstructs and impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.”

Prelogar stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.” Yet it is clear that at least a significant subset of the Jan. 6 rioters, while knowing they should not be in the Capitol, and thus being criminally liable for trespassing or disorderly conduct, were clueless about the congressional proceedings rather than intentionally trying to interfere with them. Yet this administration is throwing the book at scores of them.

The point isn’t that the Capitol rioters should avoid all penalties but that the Biden administration is choosing for ideological reasons when and how to apply laws against illicit protests.

Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.

It really disgusts me what the DNC has done to the legal system. It's as almost as if the law was only there to punish opponents of the DNC.

 

[JGalt]

Ok, protesters and rioters.

Now do political opponents, Supreme Court. And supporters of political opponents.

 

[Votto]

Ok, protesters and rioters.

Now do political opponents, Supreme Court. And supporters of political opponents.

Ok, protesters and rioters.

Now do political opponents, Supreme Court. And supporters of political opponents.

We already saw what they did to Kav and Thomas.

Their appointments to SCOTUS were the most brutal in US history.

The Left is truly pond scum.

But with Kav, they even tried to assassinate him as the Left told the loons where he lived, and where his family attended school and church.

That is when someone arrived at the house of Kav to murder him.


I will never forget that on one in power in government from the Left condemned the event, rather, they just ignored it.

Never thought I would see the day.

 

[sparky]

The point isn’t that the Capitol rioters should avoid all penalties but that the Biden administration is choosing for ideological reasons when and how to apply laws against illicit protests.

The line betwixt domestic terrorist and patriot just became a lot thinner in America......

~S~

 

[elektra]

Sadly, our courts have been unjust forever. Certainly not all individual courts but the tyranny in courts is hardly acknowledged or known.

I been in court, too many times. I have seen prosecutors simply make things up with the defense attorneys not saying a word.

There are so many incompetent lawyers at best you have a 50/50 chance of getting a good one.

Courts were supposedly designed so that a simple man could defend himself, now if a simple man appears in court, the expense is so great it destroys his life.

It is not just political targets, non-political innocent people are getting destroyed in our courts every hour of the day all across our nation.

 

[rightwinger]

Jan 6 Thugs are Hostages

 

[DGS49]

Well, the law may be bullshit, but there is no question that the most enthusiastic of the 1/6 rioters were absolutely trying and hoping to DELAY the certification of the election results pending a closer examination into a totally unprecedented election process.

What they naively failed to consider was that there would never actually be a close examination into what happened because the Justice Department was fine with the result, and wouldn't do ANYTHING that might have cast doubt on the stolen election.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, the law may be bullshit, but there is no question that the most enthusiastic of the 1/6 rioters were absolutely trying and hoping to DELAY the certification of the election results pending a closer examination into a totally unprecedented election process.

What they naively failed to consider was that there would never actually be a close examination into what happened because the Justice Department was fine with the result, and wouldn't do ANYTHING that might have cast doubt on the stolen election.

Trump lied and told them that stopping the certification of the EVs would Stop the Steal. He also told them that Mike Pence could stop the process

He never told them how exactly to do it but it was their responsibility

 

[schmidlap]

MSN

During oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito exposed the Biden administration’s inexcusable practice of selective prosecution of protesters and rioters.

The case, Fischer v. United States, involved the contention by Pennsylvanian Joseph Fischer that the charges of “obstruct[ion of] … any official proceeding,” based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), should not apply to his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Fischer, who also was charged with assaulting police officers, is hardly a sympathetic figure. His claims that he wasn’t trying to obstruct or “impede” official (and important) congressional business, in the ordinary (nonlegal) sense of those words, are specious, but Gorsuch and Alito were interested in a point broader than Fischer’s particular circumstances.

More than 300, of nearly 1,400 total, other Jan. 6 defendants also have been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The two justices were puzzled by inconsistencies with which President Joe Biden’s appointees apply the law and with the wide scope they claim for it against disfavored defendants. Contrarily, when people on the Left, even including members of Congress, disrupt government proceedings, including by use of force, Biden and his officials look the other way.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?" Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) used the fire alarm stunt before a key spending vote last Sept. 30 and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge carrying negligible penalties, but he bragged about not being charged for obstructing House proceedings even though that’s what he had obviously done when the alarm forced an evacuation. That mandatory mass exit interrupted attempts to ward off a government shutdown.

When Prelogar’s attempt to draw distinctions sounded weak and confusing, Gorsuch pressed further. Using the catchphrase favored by liberal news media and others about urban riots, even ones where police were injured, cars were burned, and federal courthouses were significantly damaged, resulting in trial relocations or delays, Gorsuch somewhat mockingly asked why “a mostly peaceful protest … that actually obstructs and impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.”

Prelogar stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.” Yet it is clear that at least a significant subset of the Jan. 6 rioters, while knowing they should not be in the Capitol, and thus being criminally liable for trespassing or disorderly conduct, were clueless about the congressional proceedings rather than intentionally trying to interfere with them. Yet this administration is throwing the book at scores of them.

The point isn’t that the Capitol rioters should avoid all penalties but that the Biden administration is choosing for ideological reasons when and how to apply laws against illicit protests.

Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.

It really disgusts me what the DNC has done to the legal system. It's as almost as if the law was only there to punish opponents of the DNC.

Hyper-partisan zealots fantasize that there is a vast conspiracy, masterfully-conducted by the otherwise senile President, to persecute the Cry Baby Loser and his worshipers.

In reality, the paranoids have failed to contrive evidence of any such nefarious caper, all criminal charges by independent prosecutors being based upon substantive evidence and sworn testimony (mostly by Republicans.) Individuals like Merrick Garland and Jack Smith are apolitical, never having registered with any political party.

Trump worshipers, instead of trashing certified democratic elections, police defending democracy against goon attacks, our justice system, and those who serve and their families, should stop whining for the media and attempt coherent defenses before juries of the defendant's peers. Despite all the pissing and moaning attacking America, it's a damned good system.

 

[struth]

Trump lied and told them that stopping the certification of the EVs would Stop the Steal. He also told them that Mike Pence could stop the process

He never told them how exactly to do it but it was their responsibility

Can you provide us a link of Trump saying this?

 

[rightwinger]

Can you provide us a link of Trump saying this?

No need to

Are you denying that Trump told the crowd that they could “Stop the Steal” or that Mike Pence could stop the count?

Did you miss that Hang Mike Pence stuff?

 

[struth]

No need to

Are you denying that Trump told the crowd that they could “Stop the Steal” or that Mike Pence could stop the count?

Did you miss that Hang Mike Pence stuff?

I’m asking you to provide the link of him saying that

 

[MarcATL]

Sadly, our courts have been unjust forever. Certainly not all individual courts but the tyranny in courts is hardly acknowledged or known.

I been in court, too many times. I have seen prosecutors simply make things up with the defense attorneys not saying a word.

There are so many incompetent lawyers at best you have a 50/50 chance of getting a good one.

Courts were supposedly designed so that a simple man could defend himself, now if a simple man appears in court, the expense is so great it destroys his life.

It is not just political targets, non-political innocent people are getting destroyed in our courts every hour of the day all across our nation.

Of course the SCOTUS is corrupt, that's what happens when we elect partisan hack Presidents who elect partisan hack judges that were chosen for that purpose by the partisan hack organization called the Heritage Foundation.

It's high time we rectify that.

 

[Dante]

MSN

During oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito exposed the Biden administration’s inexcusable practice of selective prosecution of protesters and rioters.

The case, Fischer v. United States, involved the contention by Pennsylvanian Joseph Fischer that the charges of “obstruct[ion of] … any official proceeding,” based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), should not apply to his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Fischer, who also was charged with assaulting police officers, is hardly a sympathetic figure. His claims that he wasn’t trying to obstruct or “impede” official (and important) congressional business, in the ordinary (nonlegal) sense of those words, are specious, but Gorsuch and Alito were interested in a point broader than Fischer’s particular circumstances.

More than 300, of nearly 1,400 total, other Jan. 6 defendants also have been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The two justices were puzzled by inconsistencies with which President Joe Biden’s appointees apply the law and with the wide scope they claim for it against disfavored defendants. Contrarily, when people on the Left, even including members of Congress, disrupt government proceedings, including by use of force, Biden and his officials look the other way.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?" Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) used the fire alarm stunt before a key spending vote last Sept. 30 and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge carrying negligible penalties, but he bragged about not being charged for obstructing House proceedings even though that’s what he had obviously done when the alarm forced an evacuation. That mandatory mass exit interrupted attempts to ward off a government shutdown.

When Prelogar’s attempt to draw distinctions sounded weak and confusing, Gorsuch pressed further. Using the catchphrase favored by liberal news media and others about urban riots, even ones where police were injured, cars were burned, and federal courthouses were significantly damaged, resulting in trial relocations or delays, Gorsuch somewhat mockingly asked why “a mostly peaceful protest … that actually obstructs and impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.”

Prelogar stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.” Yet it is clear that at least a significant subset of the Jan. 6 rioters, while knowing they should not be in the Capitol, and thus being criminally liable for trespassing or disorderly conduct, were clueless about the congressional proceedings rather than intentionally trying to interfere with them. Yet this administration is throwing the book at scores of them.

The point isn’t that the Capitol rioters should avoid all penalties but that the Biden administration is choosing for ideological reasons when and how to apply laws against illicit protests.

Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.

It really disgusts me what the DNC has done to the legal system. It's as almost as if the law was only there to punish opponents of the DNC.

Make believe post. In bold, no less.

SCOTUS did NOT call out Biden for using the law to target political opponents​

 

[SeaMajor7]

Make believe post. In bold, no less.

SCOTUS did NOT call out Biden for using the law to target political opponents​

Either way, Biden IS using "the law" to TARGET POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
Him and Obama and many others need to be HANGED ON LIGHT POSTS for this SOVIET TREACHERY in America!!!!!!