10

Supreme Court Takes Up Obstruction Case Affecting J6 Defendants (and Again the Traitor, Justice Barrett, Is Siding With Left-biased Traitor Judges Kagan, Sotomeyer and, and Jackson )

Posted by freedomforall 1 week, 6 days ago to Politics
8 comments | Share | Flag

This article is anything but clear but the case is challenging the government's broad application of a law that was designed and passed for very narrow application. The law is being used to charge the protesters Jan 6 and Trump for actions that are simply expression of protest, an action that the fedgov has no constitutional powers to stop.

The leftist incompetent judges want to broaden the application along with the now obvious leftist traitor Barrett.

If the Supreme Court allows the government to broaden this, those who vote in favor of that should be hanged as traitors. They are enemies of freedom and have acted as traitors.
Excerpt:
"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up Fischer v. United States, a case that could fundamentally change many cases of January 6th defendants, including the prosecution of former president Donald Trump. The case involves the interpretation of a federal statute prohibiting obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations.



The case concerns 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which provides:

“Whoever corruptly—(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Joseph Fischer was charged with various offenses, but U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols of the District of Columbia dismissed the 1512(c)2 charges. Judge Nichols found that the statute is exclusively directed to crimes related to documents, records, or other objects.

The D.C. Circuit reversed and held that Section 1512(c)(2) is a “catch all” provision that encompasses all forms of obstructive conduct. Circuit Judge Florence Pan ruled that the “natural, broad reading of the statute is consistent with prior interpretations of the words it uses and the structure it employs.” However, Judge Gregory Katsas dissented and rejected “the government’s all-encompassing reading.”

The Court will now consider the question of whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

The law itself was not designed for this purpose. It was part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and has been described as “prompted by the exposure of Enron’s massive accounting fraud and revelations that the company’s outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents.”"
D.C. NIFO
SOURCE URL: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/oral-argument-favored-defendants-supreme-court-just-ended-hearing-obstruction-case


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Commander 1 week, 6 days ago
    Looks like it subverts the intent: Tampering with a witness, victim or informant.
    18USC ss 1519 is regarding documents.

    A little slight of hand at work?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 week, 5 days ago
    Yeah, I had problems with the word INFLUENCES.
    If it generates EMOTIONS... It Influences.
    By either strengthening or weakening someones reasons/convictions at doing something.

    What value is the 1st Amendment if it CANNOT INFLUENCE?
    (Which, to me, includes to make someone THINK).

    They are dancing AWAY from and AROUND this word...

    It just takes one person (Pelosi) to say the Jan 6th Event influenced her to change the room, and hold the vote. Influenced her to call the capital police during session.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tutor-turtle 1 week, 5 days ago
    When a peaceful objection to government abuses is outlawed, then we are being ruled by outlaws.
    We have a moral duty to dismantle that government and start anew.
    It is written in the Constitution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo