July 03, 2024
DOJ Going After J6 Tourists Anyway
Timothy Birdnow
The Supreme Court slapped the DOJ down hard in their court ruling last week that said they couldn't use the novel interpretation of the law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal to prosecute J6 protesters. But will that stop the Stasi at the Injustice Department?
Nope.
The Supreme Court slapped the DOJ down hard in their court ruling last week that said they couldn't use the novel interpretation of the law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal to prosecute J6 protesters. But will that stop the Stasi at the Injustice Department?
Nope.
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.
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.
The Left just does as it pleases and disregards anything that discommodes them.
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.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:29 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.
22kb generated in CPU 1.0744, elapsed 1.2952 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.9157 seconds, 169 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.9157 seconds, 169 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
