Supreme Court Set to Review Landmark January 6th Case

Flopping Aces ^ | 12-13-23 | Curt

[Starman417]

Today the Supreme Court decided to hear a January 6 case, Fischer v. United States, which is HUGE!!!!

This case challenges section 1512(c)(2), a provision that criminalizes the obstruction of an official proceeding. Notably, two out of the four charges levied against President Trump in his DC case are linked to 1512(c)(2).

Here’s how Jack Smith impacted by SCOTUS decision to review 1512c2.

Two of four counts tied to obstruction charge.

By granting cert today, 4 of 9 justices agreed the “splintered” appellate decision required a review. pic.twitter.com/Wy5s3DL07g
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2023

Here's Julie Kelly on the background of this bogus charge from the DOJ:

In Washington, D.C., prosecutors are using a financial crimes statute passed by Congress in 2002 in response to the Enron scandal to bring felony charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump and Robertson. Lawyers for both and for other Jan. 6 defendants argue the law is being misapplied. The controversy could soon wind up before the Supreme Court.

Defense attorneys say the government is using the power of law enforcement to misinterpret, and even weaponize, nebulous language in the legal code.

In three separate motions filed on Oct. 23, Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised objections based on the “vagueness” factor of the four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal indictment against Trump. Those four charges are: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of an official proceeding.

“President Trump’s alleged conduct — publicly and politically disputing the outcome of the election, attempting to convince Congress to act, and allegedly organizing alternate slates of electors — falls outside the plain language of the charged statutes,” John Lauro, Trump’s lead attorney in the Jan. 6 case, wrote in a motion to dismiss the charges.

One of the key statutes in question is 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed by Congress to prevent fraudulent financial reporting by corporations. The statute was meant to close a loophole in other obstruction laws related to the destruction of evidence, but left open to interpretation the terms “corruptly” and “official proceeding” in the following passage – to the point where, defense lawyers claim, it can be used to criminalize political activity. The passage reads:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, 

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

DOJ’s legal basis rests on the argument that the Joint Session of Congress held on Jan. 6 to debate and certify the 2020 election was an “official proceeding,” as opposed to a ceremonial gathering. Those who interrupted Congress, prompting a six-hour delay, or planned to disrupt it, committed that particular obstruction felony, prosecutors contend.

Federal prosecutors so far have charged more than 300 Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction under that statute. In August,  Smith’s office handed down a 45-page indictment against Trump, claiming his attempts to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to reject some electoral college votes and organize alternate slates of electors, among other acts, also represented an attempt to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.

It's hard to convey the importance and significance of this decision which will impact hundreds of J6 defendants. If the Supreme Court determines that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has misapplied the statute, it could be a game-changing moment.

[Revel]

I wish that I had any confidence in the USSC.

[blackdog]

The Beltway deep state will never again allow a transformative candidate run for national office. The USSC will embrace that reality and screw the law and constitution in plain view. Without a condom, or a cleanup crew with mops. The mess will be forever.

[Made In The USA]

Not a lawyer, can anyone with a good understanding of law explain: How is it proper for language in Sarbanes-Oxley can be applied to J6 prisoners or President Trump? I recall SOX as being a compliance law relating to a business keeping certain financial records, attesting to their accuracy, etc. A law to protect shareholders, investors and other entities with an interest in a public company.

[Sacajaweau]

But none of these people “stopped” the proceeding...Nancy Pelosi stopped it.

[Nateman]

The Fedsurrection was organized by Nanzi and carried out by the FBI . Nanzi has specialized in such propaganda productions her whole life in order to create a narrative for her willing idiots to repeat ad nauseam. She calls it ‘The Wrap Up Smear’. If anybody is responsible for using fraud to delay an official proceeding it is Nazi and her fellow plotters.

[teeman8r]

i am planning to be in Washington this Jan 6th

[xzins]

The electoral count act specifically provided a means to challenge an electoral count. It cannot be corrupt to be relying on what was the law at the time.

[ClearCase_guy]

DOJ’s legal basis rests on the argument that the Joint Session of Congress held on Jan. 6 to debate and certify the 2020 election was an “official proceeding,” as opposed to a ceremonial gathering.

Trump supporters on Jan 6 -- "I sure hope Vice President Pence steps up and demands that the states take another look at the vote counts. He doesn't have to certify if he has doubts."
Democrats: "He absolutely has to certify! He has no power to stop this! It's all just ceremonial!"
Vice President Pence: "I will not hinder this. My role is strictly ceremonial."

Also Democrats: "We need to pass a law that takes away the Vice President's power to stop this stuff in the future."

[Sacajaweau]

This is what I think will happen. When the Senate voted on the second impeachment, Biden had already been sworn in...it was like February. So...he has been already tried as a private citizen and that would make the new case...double jeopardy.

[qaz123]

You might be right with your concern.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/12/11/special-counsel-jack-smith-asks-supreme-court-to-decide-trump-immunity-highest-court-immediately-drops-all-business-to-comply-with-special-counsel-request/

Quick Context. Mary McCord was the architect of all Trump targeting efforts. The FISA on Carter Page, the weaponization of the DOJ-NSD, the installation of Michael Atkinson as Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), the companion to Sally Yates in the Flynn targeting, lead staff for the Schiff/Nadler impeachment effort, later appointment by FISA Presiding Judge Boasberg to be amicus to the FISC, in combination with Chief Justice John Roberts holding authority over the FISC, and the discovery that Sheldon Snook, McCord’s husband works in Robert’s office as “special assistant to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s counselor. The counselor’s office advises the chief justice not only on the management and budget of the Supreme Court but also on his interactions with the executive and legislative branches, along with numerous other public roles in which Roberts serves.”

Yes, the Supreme Court is compromised.

It really is amazingly simple to correct all of this.

What was that meme from a while back? “Me and my homies would’ve been stacking bodies by now” .... -George Washington, 2019 probably

If anyone knows how to post images, feel free .... https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71LskFf3NgL._AC_SY450_.jpg

[Signalman]

You’re correct. Definitely a case of double jeopardy.

[Magnum44]

[DiogenesLamp]

[MayflowerMadam]

Except that George Washington would’ve used proper English.

[Fury]

Also Democrats: "We need to pass a law that takes away the Vice President's power to stop this stuff in the future."

That law is likely unconstitutional.

[ClearCase_guy]

Oh, I agree with that. They were trying to get a Constitutional Amendment just by passing a law. But it doesn’t work that way.

But it remains an interesting fact that Pence COULD have done what Trump was hoping he would do. Ask the states to double-check their counting. The Democrats clearly know that Pence COULD have done this. That’s why the Democrats staged J6. They wanted to make damn sure that Pence did not exercise the power that he had. The Democrats obstructed an official proceeding so that they could move into an emergency session. Maybe someone should ask the Supreme Court if that’s kosher.

[Fury]

But it remains an interesting fact that Pence COULD have done what Trump was hoping he would do. Ask the states to double-check their counting

I know it's unpopular, but I don't believe Pence should have done that, as dozens of cases were filed which did not carry the day. But so it goes.

[qaz123]

Thanks.