Posted on 12/13/2023 7:57:30 AM PST by RandFan
The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear a court fight involving the breadth of a federal obstruction law that has been used to prosecute scores of defendants for their alleged actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, as well as former President Donald Trump.
An eventual decision from the Supreme Court in the case known as Fischer v. U.S. could have far-reaching impacts, since the Justice Department has charged more than 300 people under the obstruction statute in cases related to Jan. 6.
Most significantly, special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with a single count of corruptly obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, namely Congress' certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6. The former president has pleaded not guilty to that offense and the three others he is facing in the case related to the 2020 presidential election. A trial in Trump's case is set to begin in March.
Arguments before the Supreme Court will take place next year, with a decision, which could threaten Trump's charge, expected by the end of June.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
“… which could threaten Trump’s charge…”
Yes, CBS.
The USSC will hear a court fight involving the scope and dimension of a federal obstruction law used to prosecute scores of innocent Americans, defendants for allegedly attacking the US Capitol Jan. 6, 2021.
The charge also was misplaced on President Donald Trump.
the bummer is that it looks like we won’t hear back til June 24
I hope Trump’s lawyers can circumvent that.
The SCOTUS is on trial here as is the entire judiciary.
What remains of the American people have seen them for what they are: a vengeful guardian of the gangster state, no different from Soviet “judges”. Beryl Howell is Exhibit 1.
So they can either get this right or they go out of business. Maybe Roberts can get a job teaching history at a gay school.
The inferior courts are established by Congress. They can be un-established by Congress. Clearly, fiddling with the laws to make them responsive isn’t working: they just babblespeak a way around any law they don’t like.
Nobody in my family 240 years ago fought for a tyrannical hyperstate run by psychos in robes. The checks and balances put on them clearly didn’t work. Time for something different.
So wouldn't that force the DELAY of the March 4 J6 Trump trial until after that?
The SCOTUS is on trial here as is the entire judiciary.
Excellent post!
And next year, at election time, SCOTUS will decide abortion pill. Democrats win.
But if the very basis of the charges against Trump is awaiting a SC decision, it is hard to see how the March 4th trial date goes forward.
I had the same observation.
yes, let’s seriously hope and pray for expedition
good point. not sure but it seems like it should
Is there a lawyer in the House? If so, please let us know if this will DELAY the March 4 J6 trial of Trump. I'll find out the answer for sure on Sunday night from Robert Barnes on VivaFrei but I would like an answer sooner than that.
Could be wrong, but Barns might be on “America’s Untold Stories”. It’s their Free Form Friday.
Overly extending the statute's meaning is what turned most of the J6 prosecutions from misdemeanors into felonies.
The prosecutors and judges are guilty of false arrest, false imprisonment and abuse of authority under color of law.
Assuming a Trump victory next year and the fact that the AUMF from 9/11 is still in effect and the same technique was used against Trump, the offending judges and prosecutors should be hauled before military tribunals for treason, convicted, and then shot.
Demand they watch the video.
It is clear to anyone that this was a organized effort on the part of Pelosi, DC police and the FBI.
Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Yes of course. It cuts both ways as they say.
The interruption of official business as a criminal charge against most J6 prisoners would be used also against Pres Trump, wouldn't it be?
I am one who thinks the double jeopardy claim has great merit in the case against Pres Trump who was acquitted by the senate after a trial about exactly what Jack Smith is pursuing. Furthermore, the only true jury of peers of a president would be the senate.
It was presided over by the chief justice, correct? Do what makes it not a trial?
Also, the constitution specifically allows for further prosecution of those CONVICTED, but not for those acquitted.
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.