The problem with this statute is that it is applied in a partisan way. Activities which might be protected under the Bill of Rights can be prosecuted. And whoever controls the prosecutor's office is the one who decides whether or not it's protected.
There was no “insurrection”, and they were not “insurrectionists”.
Just another day in the land of lies.
“anyone who ‘obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so’ commits a very serious federal felony and can be imprisoned for up to 20 years.
Yeah, 20 years is a little excessive.
Vox is a liberal rear facing Oraface. I’m sure it was difficult for them to write that.
insurrectionists?
No such thing happened.
Vox and the writer are assholes.
5.56mm
They will justify it Ian Millhiser, because there was no insurrection. See how easy that is? If you actually possessed a functioning brain, you wouldn’t have even needed to ask such a stupid question in the first place.
Way too broad. 20 years is way too much.
Arguing or hearing arguments.
The article is clearly left biased.
The problem with this statute is that it is applied in a partisan way. Activities which might be protected under the Bill of Rights can be prosecuted. And whoever controls the prosecutor's office is the one who decides whether or not it's protected.
Ad Ian to the Helocopter list.
“insurrectionists” = protestors who dared to enter the serpents den/satan’s command post.
Someone has to pay for the anguish and suffering of false accusations.
Furthermore, I believe that someone committed suicide due to such an accusation and a murder inside the Capitol; all for a dirty plot to hide the gigantic fraud of the democratic party
“...insurrectionists”
aaaand... there went the author’s credibility.
Is justice supposed to be blind?
Though it is far from clear how those justices will justify such an outcome.
Not because they were not insurrectionists only peaceful protesters they didn’t burn the place down or kill anyone or hold anybody hostage but security did murder someone.
The left always claims the extreme charges when it’s not their tribe doing arson and murder.
The law broadly applied can be used against anyone who walks in and holds up a statement poster.
What is the freaking case name?
I only see 2 cases argued on 4/15/24
23-108 Snyder v. United States
23-50 Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon
Neither one appears to reference Jan. 6 at all
“Insurrectionists”???
Baloney!!!
They’re PATRIOTS!!!
Definitely no bias in the article. /s
what a biased article
how about equal justice under the law
free speech
selective prosecution to penalize free speech you don’t agree with
cruel and unusual punishment
just to name a few off the top of my head!