Skip to comments.Supreme Court to consider hearing Jan. 6 cases that could affect Trump prosecution
Posted on 12/01/2023 7:35:27 PM PST by 11th_VA
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will soon consider whether to hear appeals brought by people charged with offenses relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol in cases that could have a major impact on the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
The justices are weighing three different appeals brought by defendants Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang and Garret Miller...
The three men are seeking to dismiss a charge accusing them of obstructing an official proceeding, namely the certification by Congress of President Joe Biden’s election victory, which was disrupted by a mob of Trump supporters.
Trump has been charged with the same offense, as well as others, in his federal election interference case. As a result, whether the court takes up the appeals or rejects them could affect his case.
If the court rejects the appeals, a lower court ruling that allowed the government to pursue the charges against the defendants would remain in place.
But if the justices take up the cases, it would lead to a monthslong delay while they hear oral arguments and issue a ruling sometime during the court’s current nine-month term, which ends in June. At least four votes are needed for the nine-justice court to hear a case.
The last time the Supreme Court considered an appeal related to Jan. 6, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas did not participate. That case involved John Eastman, who advised Trump on Jan. 6 …
Trump’s lawyers could use the Supreme Court's involvement as one opportunity to delay his election interference trial, which is scheduled to start in March.
Should the court hear the cases, Trump “could credibly ask to delay his trial until the case is resolved,” said former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, who teaches at George Washington University Law School…
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
The justices will now consider the cases at a later date, possibly as soon as next Friday.
They’ll see Trump’s name and won’t hear it.
Now, Joe, they live to ride in and save his ass, 24 x 7 / 365.
They may get the 4. The outrages treatment the j6 got is well known l think 4 may have a shred of humanity in them
I think they’ve effectively ruled against Trump about 10 times, usually by not taking up his cases and not protecting Executive Privilege.
We are about to find out if the Supreme Court is corrupt.
Capitol rioter Garret Miller says he was following Trump’s orders, apologizes to AOC for threat
cnbc.com ^ | January 25, 2021 | Dan Mangan
Posted on 1/25/2021, 8:30:00 PM by lowbridge
A Texas man charged with invading the Capitol and threatening Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Monday that he was effectively following then-President Donald Trump’s orders when he joined a mob that stormed Congress on Jan. 6.
Garret Miller also apologized to Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for writing “Assassinate AOC” in a Twitter post. He said he would be willing to testify to Congress or in a trial about the riot....
So did he like ‘hear voices’ ???
We already know that they are mostly constitutionally lawless.
And sadly Trump made it worse.
I don’t have much hope the Court of Supreme Whim will do the right thing. They let us down in Texas vs. Pennsylvania.
Something noteworthy. I was watching the floor live as it went down. Certification was not interrupted, “Challenge” was interrupted. This is why Pelosi arranged it, the election was about to be officially and legally challenged. The shot rang out and the floor was cleared right in the middle of the last representative needed to successfully challenge. That rep was Paul Gosar.
We are finding out the checks and balances in the US are something we can’t depend on anymore.
AND 200 FBI assistants who set up the whole thing on behalf of the DOJ & DNC?????
Check it out!
with four of the justices female and two of questional gender, we have a supreme court with a severe testosterone deficiency.
Where can we find verification of this?
I’m not questioning your post, I just want to be able to share that evidence.
“We are about to find out if the Supreme Court is corrupt.“
They already ensued to hear an original jurisdiction case. I don’t think they can come back from that.
“We are about to find out if the Supreme Court is corrupt.”
Many of us don’t have to wait. We already know. The leak of the Roe v. Wade decision, for the express purpose of impacting the election, is evidence enough. If not, then how’s Chief Justice Robert’s investigation to find the leaker going?
I think they’ve effectively ruled against Trump about 10 times“
This is true l am hopeful 4 will at least give this a hearing
The Supreme Court already ruled in 2015 a President cannot be held legally liable for anything as President of the United States.
So it will be interesting if they change their minds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.