Posted on 07/01/2024 12:12:10 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 @julie_kelly2
Now is a good time to remind everyone that Jack Smith is and always has been a stone-cold loser.
His J6 case is barely on life support in DC after he fudged the case. Judge Cannon is systematically destroying his docs case in addition to destroying the reputation and sanity of his prosecutors in Florida.
And Justice Thomas just gave Cannon one more reason to dismiss docs case for unlawful appointment of Smith--a defense motion currently pending in her court:
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
Julie Kelly is the new mode of operation for Journalism.
Justice Thomas says it’s hard to see how Jack Smith holds “an office established by law” according to the Constitution.
The libtard justices wanted to keep jailing political opponents illegally
Unfortunately, she seems to be a [fabulous] Singularity.
I read Thomas’ concurrence. Combined with the Meese amicus brief, Thomas lays out the very solid argument that Jack Smith has no lawful authority to prosecute Trump.
On top of that, Trump had the authority to declassify the documents he had delivered to Mara Lago. That was a clear official action of a President.
These two issues leave Cannon no real choice other than to dismiss the case.
curious why this law isn’t mentioned about appointing an SC ?
28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600
Justice Thomas is a National Treasure.
It would be better to consider all of the arguments as she is doing now since it would build a case for consideration by a higher court if it gets that far. Plus, it is burning time before the election lessening the chances of an appeal.
And Kavanaugh has succumbed to the threat of the racist and bigoted Chuck Schumer. We want our country back. Democrats are NOT Americans, they are communists.
Anyone know what case that Thomas wrote that about?
Biden Justice Department eyeing ways to sustain obstruction cases against Jan. 6 defendants
The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a criminal obstruction statute used against hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol. Prosecutors are evaluating how to preserve obstruction charges against people who rioted on Jan. 6.
By KYLE CHENEY, politico.com, 07/01/2024
Federal prosecutors began signaling Monday that they may attempt to salvage dozens of felony cases they’ve leveled against Jan. 6 defendants, even after a Supreme Court ruling seemed poised to upend them. It’s a sign the Justice Department does not view last week’s ruling from the high court as a blanket rejection of their efforts to apply a 20-year-old obstruction law — a vestige of the Enron financial crisis — against hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol in 2021 in Donald Trump’s name.
The Supreme Court ruled in Fischer v. United States on Friday that the obstruction statute in question was meant to punish the destruction, manipulation or concealment of physical documents in an investigation. Trump and his allies celebrated the ruling as an indication that many of the 350-plus obstruction cases against Jan. 6 defendants could be invalidated, since they weren’t related to the impairment of physical documents.
Justice Alito questions DOJ use of ‘obstruction’ in Jan. 6 cases. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined the court’s majority, separately emphasized that prosecutors might still be able to sustain cases against the Jan. 6 defendants because of their role in blocking Congress from accessing the Electoral College ballots to certify Joe Biden’s victory. The Justice Department seems to be weighing her suggestion.
“The Court did not reject the application of [the obstruct law] to January 6,” federal prosecutors wrote in a court filing Monday in the case of Donovan Crowl, a member of the Oath Keepers who is awaiting sentencing for a Jan. 6 obstruction charge. “Rather, the Court explained that the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records … or attempted to do so.”
The prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for 30 to 60 days to “evaluate the impact of the Court’s decision in Fischer on the defendant’s case.”
In a second Jan. 6 obstruction case, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb granted prosecutors’ request for an indefinite delay to consider the impact of the Fischer ruling as well. And in a third, prosecutors urged U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell to wait for further clarification of the obstruction charge before resuming the case.
Jackson, Biden’s lone appointee on the Supreme Court, emphasized that the Jan. 6, 2021, meeting of Congress — when lawmakers were tasked with certifying the vote of the 2020 presidential election — relied on physical records that may have been impaired by Joseph Fischer’s conduct when he joined the mob that day. “If so, then Fischer’s prosecution [for obstruction] can, and should, proceed,” Jackson wrote. “That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine.”
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.