Free Republic

It is unlikely that Harris knows much about the plot, but she knows enough to keep her mouth shut. It’s time for someone in the media to ask her what, in fact, she does know. This past week, pundits have been quick to label the July 13 attempt on Donald Trump’s life an “inside job.” A little too quick. The pundits may be right, but they do not yet have enough evidence to make that claim. I was deep into the research for my new book, Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6, before I felt comfortable...

Sen. Tom Cotton is proof an Ivy League degree doesn’t guarantee an understanding of basic word definitions. In fact, the Arkansas Republican showed during a Tuesday interview on CNN that he has no idea what the word “coup” means. Here’s the back story: Ever since Joe Biden stepped down as a presidential candidate on Sunday, the Republicans who previously demanded he step down got mad that he stepped down, and claimed it was a “coup.” It’s not. A coup is typically defined as “the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group,” and not “delegates of...

Americans are demanding answers. They want to know how it was so incredibly easy for a gunman to shoot President Trump and kill one of his innocent supporters. Clearly, there was at least a communication breakdown, and right now, we can’t rule anything out until we know more. Information is still coming in slowly. For instance, Senator Hawley has just revealed some disturbing details from a whistleblower about President Trump’s security details. According to this source, most of Trump’s security team that day in Butler, PA, weren’t even official Secret Service agents. Hawley claims they were unprepared and inexperienced personnel...

Incredible audience reception. Delivers fiery speech. Brings wife onstage at the end. "I went to prison so you won't have to." "We got this."

A federal judge in Florida threw out the prosecution of former President Donald Trump on Monday in the “documents” case because she ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith had not been appointed in a constitutional or lawful manner. Judge Aileen Cannon granted a defense motion after ruling that Smith, who was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate as other U.S. Attorneys have been in the past, could not lawfully bring the indictment against Trump in federal court. “In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad...

With President Biden's poll numbers continuing to fall and projections for November's elections looking grim, desperate Democrats called the January 6 buffalo guy on the phone to see if he'd be willing to stage another insurrection. "Yes, is this Jacob Chansley? Yes, I'd like to order an insurrection," Nancy Pelosi said to the infamous QAnon Shaman. "I know we've been saying insurrections are bad and stuff, but things are looking ugly for us and we've tried just about everything we can do to turn it around, but it's not good." "If you could maybe overthrow the government and force Biden...

As much as I admire Trump advisor Steve Bannon’s fighting spirit, two recent experiences have convinced me that his call for legal retribution is impractical, perhaps impossible. My first experience was the March trial of Rebecca Lavrenz in Washington, D.C.’s federal district court. Lavrenz, one of the 10 women I profile in “Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6,” is a great-grandmother. On January 4 and 5, 2021, she drove 25 hours by herself to D.C. to pray for the nation. On January 6, when a Capitol door opened from the inside, Lavrenz walked in, prayed for...

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants. “Obstruction of an official proceeding” had been used in hundreds of cases, and those convictions are now invalid. But the biggest impact of the decision may occur elsewhere. For years, calling January 6 an “insurrection” has been a litmus test for press, pundits and politicians. Members of Congress such as Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) claimed a conspiracy of “armed and organized insurrectionists.” The claim is legally absurd but politically advantageous. It now seems like the insurrection increasingly looks more...

WASHINGTON — President Biden slammed the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to grant former President Donald Trump absolute immunity from prosecution for “official acts” during his presidency — saying voters “deserve” a speedier trial for his prospective election rival. Biden, 81, spoke from the red-carpeted Cross Hall for about four minutes — reading closely from a pair of teleprompters before turning to leave as reporters peppered him with questions about his disastrous performance at Thursday’s CNN debate against Trump, 78. “Mr. President, will you drop out of the race?” a reporter shouted as Biden turned away from his lectern. “What makes...

On Monday evening, President Joe Biden addressed the nation on Trump v. United States, a 6-3 decision which found that presidents has immunity when acting in what the Court stressed was their official capacity. How did he manage to do so? He spoke for less than four minutes, and left without taking any questions. In case there was any doubt how he felt, the president screeched that he agreed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, declaring "I dissent!" That doesn't mean Biden wasn't prone to some truly hypocritical points in his remarks, which were very clearly prewritten by someone else and...

The Biden campaign on Monday responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers. Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts. The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts. .... Snip.... The Biden-Harris camp didn’t take the Supreme Court’s decision well. They issued an unhinged statement and attacked Trump with lies. “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after...

John Solomon @jsolomonReports Justice Department looks for ways to continue January 6 cases after Supreme Court ruling From justthenews.com 4:15 PM · Jul 1, 2024

One wonders what thoughts passed through the fevered mind of Officer Lila Morris as she struck the seemingly lifeless Rosanne Boyland over the head with a branch, then struck her again, and then struck her a third time so hard that the branch snapped in half. If Morris thought Boyland a hateful white supremacist who deserved her fate, one could, if not forgive her, at least understand how she came to think that way. For the last two years, Morris had heard little else about these MAGA minions and the monster who led them. President-elect Joe Biden had set the...

Today, on June 28th, 2024, a significant event occurred in my life that I will always remember. My name is Ryan Samsel, and last night, I witnessed Donald J. Trump’s victory over Joe Biden. As always, I said my nightly prayer and woke up feeling a sense of goodness that I can’t quite explain. Then, someone informed me that the Supreme Court overturned the 1512(c) charges. I was in a state of shock and disbelief, unable to fully comprehend the news. Let me begin by sharing that I have endured immense suffering and hardships throughout this entire ordeal since January...

Legal experts surmise higherups within the Justice Department directed U.S. Marshals to move them to the facility notoriously hostile to J6ers in a bid to stop them from continuing to expose the government’s bogus narrative surrounding the “conspired” J6 “insurrection” and may have even been an attempt to take or threaten Samsel’s life.

The decision could have implications for charges against Trump.. The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Justice Department went too far in slapping obstruction charges on hundreds of January 6 defendants. The court voted 6-3 in favor of defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer seeking to dismiss his charge of obstructing an official proceeding, Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. However, the court ruled that an obstruction charge may be filed if prosecutors are able to prove that a protester was trying to stop the arrival of certificates used to count electoral votes to certify the election...

In a move that could upend scores of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot prosecutions, the Supreme Court on Friday narrowed the use of a charge of obstructing an official proceeding. In a 6- 3 decision in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the conservative majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal dissenters, the high court concluded that prosecutors need to hang closer to the statutory langue of the obstruction charge used in a slew of Jan. 6 prosecutions. “The Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of...

In the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Fischer v. United States, the court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. The case is returned to the lower court to determine whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.

The US Supreme Court on Friday delivered a devastating blow to Biden’s corrupt Justice Department and overturned the obstruction charge used to jail hundreds of January 6 defendants. Biden’s corrupt DOJ charged more than 300 J6ers with 18 USC §1512(c)(2). Additionally, two of the four charges against Trump in Jack Smith’s DC case are conspiracy to obstruct so the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday torpedoed the special counsel’s case against Trump as well. The Supreme Court earlier this year heard oral arguments in Fischer v. United States and at issue was statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2): Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys,...

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Fischer v. United States that a federal obstruction law does not apply to January 6 protesters. The case affects hundreds of individuals who participated in the mostly peaceful "breach" of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Those sentences will all need to be reviewed now. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. Plaintiffs argued that prosecutors misused a felony law, 18 U.S. Code § 1512, which involves tampering with a witness, victim, or informant against J6 suspects. The law was used...