There was no underlying law Roberts could cite.
Posted on 12/10/2023 7:38:49 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 @julie_kelly2 We should know in the morning whether SCOTUS will hear the first challenge to DOJ's use of 1512(c)(2), obstruction of an official proceeding, in Jan 6 cases.
It is one of four counts in Jack Smith's J6 indictment of Donald Trump.
4 of 9 justices must agree to grant cert in a petition filed by 3 defendants charged with the most common J6 felony.
Only one judge--Carl Nichols (Trump)--on DC District court dismissed the charge. At least 12 other judges have denied similar motions to dismiss.
When Nichols ordered the charge dismissed, DOJ appealed. In April, a 3-judge panel on DC appellate court issued what one judge called a "splintered" ruling on DOJ's interpretation of the statute.
In essence, the muddled decision resulted in 3 different opinions.
Given DOJ's "novel" use of 1512c2--as the Dem judge on the panel admitted--it seems imperative that SCOTUS weigh in. More than 300 J6 defendants face this felony; it has resulted in numerous plea deals and years-long prison sentences. (Think Jacob Chansley.)
If SCOTUS refuses to review the appeal, it will be safe to assume the judges are once again too afraid to wade into politically fraught matters that might favor Trump or his supporters--just like the 2020 election
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Prayers up.
yep.
Whatever helps the govt and deep state is how they’ll decide.
SCOTUS needs to hear it so that President Trump can refute the 1512(c)(2) charge by citing 18 U.S. Code § 2102.
According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 does not meet the definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of obstructing of a proceeding?
In 18 U.S. Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions, is this:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act, invalidating Jack Smith's charge against Trump.
-PJ
Over the last 2-3 years courts in this country....every single one...has shown breathtaking cowardice when dealing with issues connected to voting fraud. It’s very easy indeed to imagine SCOTUS to continue that cowardice.
Not holding my breath
The case is not mature and the arguments still aren’t very clearly articulated. Plus there’s no precedent.
SCOTUS could very well throw Trump to the lions on this.
WHY do journalists think it is normal and ok to not tell readers the key info that the supreme court always accepts such a tiny percent of cases presented to it?
It’s not ok, it is not good journalism. It is unprofessional neglect.
Pennsylvania vs. Texas. A decision that has forever stained the Court of Supreme Whim. Not holding my breath Roberts will do the right thing.
Hmmm…. I think that case had Texas as plaintiff.
They have found a way in, threats are real and they know it. Thier decisions on anything leave you in doubt because of this
Please ping me when you know more - thanks for posting !
Roberts got the call, so he’ll be the one to do the wrong thing.
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.