ABOVE: Unruly protesters being removed by Capitol Police during Brett Kananaugh Senate Judiciary Committee confIrmation hearings in September 2018. PHOTO: Getty Images
‘By unfairly targeting over 350 J6 defendants, so-called Law 1516(c2) ‘is yet another example of how legal powers can be twisted to clamp down on dissent and make an example out of those who stand up to powers that be.’
THE REVOLVER NEWS Editorial Staff reports:
The Supreme Court is right now in the thick of a heated debate over a federal obstruction statute that’s been used to go after hundreds of January 6th political prisoners. This isn’t just any legal tussle—it has massive implications for these punished patriots and also for the election interference case against President Trump.
Everyone’s watching closely.
The case at the heart of all this is Fischer v. United States. The big question is: Can federal prosecutors use a law created after the Enron scandal to punish the January 6 defendants? This law makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct or impede an official proceeding.
But defense attorneys are pushing back hard. They argue that the DOJ is using this law as a “dragnet” to catch and punish those who disagree with the current regime.
Before January 6, this statute wasn’t even on the radar unless there was some level of evidence-tampering involved. But now, it seems like it’s being used to silence anyone who goes against the Biden regime, unfairly targeting over 350 J6 defendants.
It’s yet another disgusting example of how legal powers can be twisted to clamp down on dissent and make an example out of those who stand up to the powers that be.
It’s anybody’s guess how the justices will swing on this one, especially in today’s supercharged political climate.
Yet Justice Gorsuch is already tearing into Biden’s DOJ, which seems set on painting their protesters as the only ones who “protest the right way.” Gorsuch isn’t buying any of that twisted logic.
Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch nukes Joe Biden’s DOJ over January 6th sentences:
Gorsuch lists multiple cases of folks who “obstructed a Congressional proceeding” without receiving a 20 year sentence.
1. Sit-ins at a trial (Kavanaugh protests)
2. Pulling a fire alarm (Rep. Bowman)
3. Hecklers in the crowd (Palestine)
4. Mostly-peaceful protests (BLM)So, in a nutshell DOJ attorney Elizabeth Prelogar is arguing that the difference between the January 6 defendants and all the other radical left-wing protests, like BLM Marxists, Kavanaugh whackos, Pro-Hamas radicals, climate nuts, etc., is because she possesses magical powers, somehow knows the “intent” of every J6 defendant, and is labeling them as “different” and “corrupt,” unlike the gentle souls who protest all things right-wing.
Sure, like these fine, upstanding folks:
Because nothing says “average American protester,” like clubbing innocent people in the head with a pipe because you’re mad about the outcome of an election.
Clearly, Justice Gorsuch wasn’t buying what Ms. Prelogar was selling.
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices heard two hours of arguments over the law’s interpretation. However, it remained unclear how they would rule.
A lawyer for a man who stormed the Capitol and was prosecuted under the law argued before the Justices that “a host of felony and misdemeanour” crimes already exist to prosecute his client’s actions.
The 2002 law passed in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal, Jeffrey Green said, was not one of them.
US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar counterargued that rioters deliberately attempted “to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the election,” therefore obstructing an official proceeding.
Both fielded skeptical questions from the Justices.
At one point, Mr Green argued that there is no historical precedent in which the law was used to prosecute demonstrators.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor replied: “We’ve never had a situation before where (there was an attempt) to stop a proceeding violently, so I am not sure what a lack of history proves.”
On the other hand, Ms Prelogar fielded questions from Justice Neil Gorusch on whether the law could then be stretched to apply to a “sit-in that disrupts a trial” 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?” he asked, appearing to reference an incident in which Jamaal Bowman, Democrat House representative, pressed a fire alarm in the Capitol.
Of course, Justice Gorsuch is talking about the Democrat Congressman who tried to stall a vote by pulling a fire alarm and then lied about it.
Gorsuch also referenced the Kavanaugh hearings, where 200 frothing females screeched and humped the ground like unshaven banshees over Justice Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court hearing. Apparently, these angelic ladies weren’t trying to “stop” the hearing; maybe it was just their time of the month and they were acting out, or something.
It took less than two minutes for the first protester to be ejected from Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s opening day of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Seconds later, a second demonstrator was thrown out of the hearing room, followed by another, followed by another.
“This is a mockery and a travesty of justice,” yelled one protester this week. “Kavanaugh can’t be trusted,” shouted another. Some protesters wore shirts that read things like “I am what’s at stake.” Others arrived on Capitol Hill dressed as characters from The Handmaid’s Tale, the story of a dystopian future in which women are treated as property of the state.
At least 227 demonstrators were arrested between the start of the nomination hearings on Tuesday and the end of testimony on Friday, according to the U.S. Capitol Police. Most of those charged this week with disorderly conduct, crowding or obstructing paid fines of $35 or $50.
Look, we all know if those were right-wing protesters behaving that way at a Supreme Court hearing, they would’ve been tossed in prison immediately. The US injustice system has been weaponized by the Biden regime.
And further to that point, January 6 was such a horrific so-called “insurrection” that not a single defendant has ever been charged with 18 U.S. Code § 2383—rebellion or insurrection. Isn’t that interesting?
Let’s hope that when all is said and done, J6 political prisoners will sue the hell out of anyone and everyone who ever called them an “insurrectionist.” ##