BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To January 6 Obstruction Charge
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 апр 2024
- On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard Fischer v. United States, a case that challenged January 6 obstruction charges.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
“Would pulling a fire alarm to delay a vote in Congress qualify for 20 years in prison, then?”😂😂😂😂😂😂DOH!
Fake news it was Obama what pulled the alarm. It wot my mamma learn me.
I'm a retired 32 year career firefighter and what that Senator did is a felony and he should be in prison
The alarm puller was not armed with something that could hurt or kill a person with
He was a minority so it would be racist to accuse him of a crime.
ONLY CHILDHOOD ACTS ... KIDS SHOULD LEARN NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR YRS WITH NO CHARGES IS TREASON AND SAD
Easily a 6th Amendment's right of speedy trial, to know the specific charges so as to be able to them, to face one's acusers, to have legal representation.
J6 prisoners have been deprived of liberty without due process of law. For some, their 8th Amendment right against cruel & unusual punishment (interminable solitary confinement is considered torture in the world courts).
This Biden misadministration is completely out of control!! Biden & AG Garland need to be impeached (no hope of removal, as the ridiculous Shumer & every Dem just wouldn't address & hold Senate trial even after the Myorkas impeachment was handed to them by the House impeachment managers; still, it would be useful to the to outline all their constitutional abuses, and all the people who've directly suffered, and the evidence against them, so the electorate can understand who they're voting for.)
Very sad.
Sorry tried to fix all my there, their, and they’res but YT wont let me back in to fix….Also noticed they removed a few lines……
This is such nonsense what is being done to these people.
@@cherylfitch3183 YT is messing with your comment more than just removing a few lines. From my point of view the entire comment has been removed.
They’re arguing Symantecs when in reality nobody in that crowd had any thought of overthrowing anything. They know it and if people are honest about it everyone knows it
The government knew this wouldn't stand. They did it for propaganda reasons knowing this would get thrown.
That's why hey were not charged with insurrection. Guess it was obstruction of allowing government to work. But then no charge for the Democrat pulling a fire alarm, or the times Democrats walk out.
You are so right. The riot obstructed official counting of the votes. These people did not know that activity was taking place nor were they trying to obstruct any other proceedings. If anything they would assume no business was taking place this day.
Gallows were erected at 6:30 am that morning. Are you kidding me? They were not taken down? Protesters assumed they were for Nancy. She wasn’t having that so democrats pushed the Mike Pence agenda.
Don’t get me started on who conservatives really are. Average age is what? 40-50. Take it from me, no one in that age category wants a physical fight with anyone. A simple fall could change the course of your life. The word conservative means exactly that. Holding back with caution.
5 people died that day. People certainly were serious about not "overthrowing anything".
@@MissTi23 then you are aware of four more people than can be proven. One woman was shot in the face and died. One officer died later of heart failure. Probably related.
The four officers. Have any family members come forward? Any suicide notes left or quoted? Did the fake J6 report say anything about them? Did any of their fellow officers say anything,during testimony? The answer is no to each question. It would be great if American citizens actually wouldn’t buy everything they are told. I watched the congressional hearings. Did you? Make sure to watch the most recent one with the DC National Guard testifying. Very eye opening.
Why was Nancy Pelosi’s daughter there that day with a video camera? What was she prepared to film?
Andy told her ahead of time they had plans and she didn’t want to miss out !
She just wants to punch him out!
Let’s talk about that and the State of the Union address ripping up of the speech.
90 some odd indictments. Gee, can’t imagine where those come from.
@@nonyabisness-cg7mf🎯🎯🎯
The evil that comes with the D cabal and the sell outs like Pence & Bill Barr, cowardly and treasonous activism, there was no insurrection # bottom line.
Because Pelosi wants to know if she needs to flee the country for being a traitor! She doesn't want to be sentenced to death. Which she should be.
So wouldn't you have prosecuted the protests at justices homes over the abortion issue weren't they obstructing the Supreme Court
No that is different because those people were not conservative.
MAKES2MUCH SENSE
Threatening justices is against the law. Entering the capital is not against the law. It is the peoples house,maintained by the people. The representatives are our guests and servants.the people have the right to go in and address the representatives. That was why the people were there. They were not threatening them. There were a few bad actors amongst the crowd. Some were working for the fbi and planted to arouse trouble.
We have two tiers of justice. If liberal judges were being singled out those protestors (and the people who leaked their addresses) would have been arrested. But since they were conservative judges none of the laws against it were enforced. We have a real problem in this country right now which is why we're on the verge of having a president this time next year that no one ever thought would be re-elected. I didn't vote for him last time but I'm going to this time because this two-tiered justice system needs to end.
@@Cab520 My reply disappeared. Apparently writing a phrase that sounds like 'too teared' gets hidden here.
So why wasn't Ray Epps charged?
I’ve always wondered why the Capitol police opened the doors and let people in. There’s one video of someone dressed like a protester who was in the lobby by himself and he tried to open the doors. The doors were locked so he looked behind him and up and motioned for the doors to be unlocked. Someone unlocked them from above and the doors opened. Who was that?
That seems to have been overlooked.
The F....B....I
@@francheech941only by the dems and ppl setting trump up. It's a shit show
Ray Epps
C. I. A
How about the SCOTUS clerk who released the opinion on Roe before the court ruled? Wasn’t that obstruction of justice literally?
No.
When you have a case brought to the public to fix, then it IS A PUBLIC MATER, NO COURT CASE IS PRIVATE. They are public by their very nature.
That is why they have to have a public record of it all.
Yes it does,BUT THEY WERE A DEMOCRAT SO THAT DIDN'T COUNT.
Democrats do not have to Adhere to LAW .. Also they get to Make Up Laws .. Tyrannical
@wesoldham3675 I am pretty sure they have to be released to the public not leaked to the public.
they Should Have been Let Go On The Spot But WE ALL KNOW The DEMS take Care Of Their OWN !!
Peglose should be CHARGED!!
The Ring Leader and Adam Schiff and Schumer
Don’t forget Liz head of the group
Pelosi Was The Main One That Refused Mr. Trumps Offer Of The National Guard Being called In The DEMS Refused Them Because They wanted This To Happen !!
All of them that aided Piglosy as well
Should be thrown in jail with no charges just like jan6 protestors. See how she likes it
Why wasn't the capitol policeman charged with shooting Ashley Babbit.
That guy killed her with a stick.
@@tammyjohnson5174a gun
Because she tried to climb through a locked and baracaded door where members of Congress were being protected.
@@augustineabram1545 she was unarmed, and a few police were around her at the time who didn’t do anything or say anything, she wasn’t warned, the house is public property, people has right to protest government.
Yes, that is what I keep thinking about. Over and over, plus all the crimes committed by the Bidders, and all the turmoil that has been committed against Trump and is family.
*Imagine, 20 years in prison for walking around in the Capitol Building. It is insane!!!*
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WERE INVITED IN BY THE SECURITY GROUP IN CHARGE!
Especially when they let them and the wife out if he was watching. And that is the people's house not Biden's house. The people built that house with people is supposed to be able to walk around in that house anytime they want. Maybe not in bother living areas or the officers. But they should be allowed in that lobby. At any time that was for the last 200 years. However long It has been there
If the proceeding was obstructed, how did Biden get the keys to the White House?
@mvy40 *Excellent point, Biden was named president that very day. Jan 6. 2021*
This is ignorance at its finest. Pelosi own relatives led the insurrection and innocent people are being held accountable.
He used voter fraud, and mail in ballots.
❤🤍💙🇺🇸
CORRUPTION!!! Plain and SIMPLE!!!
Clever Justices!!! 20 yrs is unacceptable penalty for a temporary disruption of an official proceeding!!
There was no disruption they chose to stop the objections
It was a set up. Trump approved National Guard ahead of time. It was Pelosi and Merial Bowser who said it wouldn't be good optics. Byron Donald called them out in Congress. There were also 2 ghost busses that had FBI officers dressed up as Trump supporters. Kash Petel and Steven Sund brought this up in Congress. If you start doing some comparisons on pictures of these people you'll notice differences. Take Biden, he's got pictures where his ears are connected to his face and pictures where ears aren't connected to his face. The biggest giveaway is that he no longer has blue eyes.
All the judges should dismissed all the charges and free the people
AMEN
The actors OF THE TREASONOUS REGIME "PELOSI, BIDEN, OBAMA, CLINTON ARENA FBI AND SUCH WILL AND SHALL BE HELL ACCOUNTABLE!!!! THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE ACT OF TERRORISM AGAINST AMERICANS IS IN FACT WHAT HAPPENED UNDER THE PELOSI REGIME!
And anyone who impedes that action should be held for false imprisonment
Not happening anarchist
Congress even said that there was no insurrection.
No the Insurrection Was All Through 2020 & 2021 When ANTIFA & B.L.M. Looting And Burning Down The Whole North West DEM Run Cities And Naddler Told The Press ANTIFA Was Just A Republican Myth They did not Exist The Whole time The fires Were Burning Causing Many BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DAMAGE !!
FBI said there was NO insurrection!!
Time to go after Pelosi!
Pelosi was not involved in riot !
Absolutely, and Pence was involved with Pelosi.
Pelosi , Clintons , Biden , his son , his brother .... but somehow Democrat's crimes never get mentioned or brought up to charges.
Evil Prosecutors put innocent grandparents in prison for just showing up.
The purpose was to request an investigation of the election improprieties and protocol. Election integrity.
Which is obstruction. They wanted an “investigation” but the only investigation they wanted was one that made Trump winner. They would tolerate no investigation that ended with Biden winning.
You would think this would be about Ray Epps
Or BLM or ANTIFA or Pro-Abortion or Pro-Palistine.. 2 sets of Rules regarding Adherence to LAW
It was a rally. No one wanted to stop the proceeding. They were hoping that to have Congress look into whether there should be new electors asked for. The result did not help the Patriots but it did helped the Democrats to shut down any review of the electors.
And that's why they had guns? and attacked police? Rally = peaceful protest, riot = unlawful behavior
It was not only a rally, they had a permit for the rally! How many of the lefts far more destructive riots had permits! Few, if any, of those lefty led rally’s that started during daylight and ended as violent, murderous, destructive riots once night fell, had legal permits!
No one wanted to stop the proceedings except the past president.
Lol those who stole the elections needed the objections to be stopped @@augustineabram1545
EPOCH TIMES documentary [ What really happened on Jan 6th] lotsa unseen footage from Citizen Journalist & people on scene Absolutely worth checking out. However, it left me in tears. 😢
Why was evidence destroyed by the committee.
That is a great question.
So the Gov't chooses who to apply the statutes and clauses, who to pursue, who to ignore.
How bout when people obstructed proceeding when confirming kavanaugh to scotus were those people charged 20 yrs
No because they were paid hacks by the dems. Just like the lady coming forward. All typical Democrat tactics.
What you are ignoring, is that a mere 350 of the 1,380 j6 rioters were charged using this statute.. DOJ isn't just willy nilly burdening all criminals with random unrelated charges.
Ask Nancy the party planner of Jan 6th!
Ask Nancy Pelosi what part she played in Jan6th.
If evidence or document way then the prosecution could be charged for withholding the video along with how many other things
So you can actually charge somebody on hypothetical situations and not actual crimes that they did not commit
Exactly. BS.
Violently broke in and took a guided tour by the capitol police and posed for selfies 😂
I am not exaggerating when I say that every Single time I listen to a Democrat Talking 9 times outta 10 I find myself asking wtf are They Talking About ¿¿
I'm pretty sure those same Democrats have no idea what they're saying as well.
It’s funny to listen to lawyers talk about right and wrong they could care less and they don’t know the difference. It’s just procedural a lot of them to where they financially profit off of everything.
😊weren’t the proceedings adjourned/recessed prior to breech of “protesters” entering the U.S. Capitol
Then re-convened 3-4 hrs later that evening and finished the proceeding of electoral vote counts?
Avoiding legal proceedings of one congressman and one senator requesting legal debate of alternate electors be considered
You are correct.
😅
Hey Jan 6er, you were invited in but were you given any house rules by Nancy at the door?
There has been a couple of times here recently that was the same thing if not worse and nobody has been arrested charged or hunted down.
Without all the tangling words, the statute relates only to 'DOCUMENTS'.
Love justice Thomas!!
Why?
So do the people that gave him $500,000.00 Vacations and a Prevost (little RV Greyhound bus) paid mamma s hours off ect ect Koch Bros and Citizens United. What a joke American Supreme Court has become .
So do the Koch brothers and Citizens United that gave him $500,000.00 Vacations and a Prevost plus paid of the Mammas houses they loves em also
Love him lol...Why ? he is just another loon. Accepting "gifts" and such .
He's a narcissistic, regular blood Ginni!!!😮
The government attorney talked too … fast and too much. She is inexperience in oral arguments in front of the justices.
She has argued a number of times. The last one they heard, she was there
Pelosi even said that I’ve been waiting for this.
Yep! That's what I heard too! There's so much evidence, people seem to intentionally overlook it!
And the solicitor pushing this is Elizabeth Prelogar appointed bu Biden in 2021 a Harvard graduate you know the liberal college. She reports to the AG Garland
It's very obvious that one can not be tied to the other for convenience, which is what they did.
If this is going to be for Jan 6 then all the ones that have been to capital and done sitins,yelling etc are to be charged same. Pink,I can’t remember them all. Pull them in now also
Would County District Attorneys and offices be subject to the Enron-Oaxley Law intent of witholding records. Or would county DAs be subjectvte another withholding records Law.
Don't lawyers everyday try to make sure evidence isn't presented in court that goes against their case isn't that what part of the hearings about evidence rules of evidence is about? So far so therefore is the Justice not saying that every lawyer is obstructing the court? For example in the infamous Georgia case with funny Willis the attempts to wash subpoenas in evidence by the prosecution?
To this day, 4/20/24, there are still 352 people charged for actions on Jan 6 2021, who haven't been adjudicated. What happened to a fair and speedy trial? Are we going to have neither?
There are still people being held in prison who haven't even been heard at all. That's how we treat terrorists at black sites in countries that have no respect for law or very lax laws about holding people without charging them. (Or in international waters)
... eyeroll. You have to invoke the right for a speedy trial. It isn't an automatic thing. If you are going to spew BS, then at the very least try to research first!
What they want to do is throw innocent people under the jail just because they were in the bank while it was being robbed.
The question I have why no lawyer has sued the gov based on the following:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
#desolvethebarassociation
So glad that woman knew what thier intentions were for entering the capitol to begin with they could just have well been looking for a bathroom
Love how Google fact checks Supreme Court. That’s a little ridiculous
Everyone should be fact-checked!
@@HOHLfmlywho fact checks google?
@@HOHLfmlyWhat happens when the fact checkers are wrong? Or have a political bias? I believe they went to court over this and the court ruled that "fact checkers" fall under "opinion." Like opinion news at Fox, CNN, abc, MSNBC, nbc, CBS.
Phuq Google, I didn't ask for their opinion.
We will tell you what you are allowed to believe, or you will be jailed.
No cameras in the SCOTUS. How ironic the 1st Amendment doesn't apply here, take it up to the peoples court. What a joke.
How does not having cameras interfere with the 1st amendment..
Freedom of press. Any public place, property or entity where the people are the owners bring your video recorder. Town halls, sidewalks, police station lobby, etc. Most people give up the right to the law enforcement when they try to enforce feelings or policy, which do not trump the US Constitution and they loose thier qualified immunity. Plenty of case law and audit videos out there. Do your homework.
@@prebaned The arguments used by the media for allowing television cameras in the courtroom are based on the assumption that such broadcasts would educate and inform the public about the criminal justice system. However, the media interest is mainly in good theatre, and a 2-minute televised news story cannot adequately impart the complexities in many cases. Furthermore, a fragmented version of a trial is apt to persuade the public to take sides on the basis of limited information, and distorted views may lead to unfounded public decisions about the judicial process. Moreover, television cameras in the courtroom would disrupt the proceedings. For example, the wide dissemination of the faces and testimony of witnesses would make them fair game for ridicule and pressure. The recognition that accompanies television exposure may also intrude on jurors' attentiveness and subject them to harassment or coercion. Also, the rule separating witnesses may be impaired when a trial is broadcast, and witnesses may become judges of their own and other witnesses' credibility. Grave constitutional issues may be opened if trials are allowed to be broadcast selectively. For example, disparate treatment may raise an equal protection problem. It would also have to be determined if the broadcast media have a right of access protected by the sixth amendment. The results of a survey taken in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1980 show that the presence of television cameras in the courtrooms have a substantial deleterious influence on participants in trial proceedings. For example, 50 percent of the jurors, 30 percent of the witnesses, and 54 percent of the lawyers have felt distracted by the cameras. Although an open trial is essential to a fair trial, that objective is served adequately by a full transcript, a public presence, and the presence of media representatives in the courtroom. Statistical data and footnotes are included.
@prebaned this isn't a public hearing though and has written transcripts for public record. That's why. The 1st amendment is limited but only time place and manner. Time being while the public place is open. Place being what that place is used by the public for. And manner will the first amendment directly hinder the use for the public place.
Basically you can film what you can see, but very few people see this court. Because it is not open to the public. I could be wrong ❤
@@prebaned By your silly rules, "the people" should be allowed to film the bedroom at the presidential residence.. the bathroom as well..
If Scotus strikes down the obstruction charge then Jack Smith loses 2 of his counts in DC case!!
Wrong. Jack smith said this won’t change anything with the charges Trump is facing.
Of course he did
@@mezenmanprosecute the summer of love goons
@cameron Have you ever looked into how many were prosecuted? Maybe don’t just believe the crap the right tells you. Take a second and do a tiny bit of research. Don’t be a sheep.
I’m also 100 percent ok with them getting prosecuted. I live in a small town. We heard rumors they were headed to our town. Our buildings were guarded. I live in the sticks. My house is close to the road. I sat on the hill that over looks my house with a rifle. I have no respect for those clowns or the Jan 6 idiots.
@@mezenmanhe doesn't really have a choice in that matter
The court is not being fold by her testimony.
The 1st Amendment we all have 24/7 and she brings up showing up in a theater and shouting. The Great Capitol Theater of DC would be a PRIVATE PROPERTY while the Capitol is PUBLIC PROPERTY, but, if, STFU...
0:57 a "catch all" IS a "dragnet"...
I swear, people are stupid
Let the hostages go!!!
You mean prisoners charged with made up charges.
They are criminals not hostages 55:00
DOJ using the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to put protesters in jail for 20 years is a dangerous broadening of what the law was designed to do. When asked to give an example of the law being applied in this manner, the SG couldn't come with one. In 22 years not a single example.
When was the last time the US Capitol was broken into by thousands of angry people during an official congress session, especially when certifying an election? This particular situation is completely unprecedented.
I have not followed all the cases, but is it being used on people that entered the building or people that was not in the building? I was fine that day when people did not enter the building, but the minute the entered a closed building it was no longer protect it was something different.
@@connor7048
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!...👈🤣
@@connor7048
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!....
........👆🤣👆..
When are people going to think for themselves and use what can be seen on all the film of that day, that the crowd was incited to riot that it was just a riot by a very small group of people, that the police opened up and let the crowd in and that the vast majority of the people were not violent or destructive and most importantly that members for government have gone to great lengths to promote a specific narrative that is at its base is completely false and politically motivated. We are watching the complete destruction of the rule of law being impartial and not political
I wish I could tell which Justice is asking the Questions.. I can only hear it
Those laws are dangerous. It is too easy to manipulate.
18 U.S.C. 1512:
(c) 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.
Democrats better be careful, these laws can easily be used against them.
Otherwise means altering or destroying to accomplise the same thing. Her interpretation would make, otherwise, anything she could dream up. She is a very dangerous person and her barr licences should be revoked.
She has an agenda like the other 8. It's another political power play lacking ethics.
She used a hypothetical where the word "obstruct" wasn't the same when used in law. Could also say "otherwise" wasn't used properly. Taking a picture wouldn't necessarily obstruct a play. Regardless, rules for a private business aren't law. And like the guy said, the "otherwise" section was added in 2002 because of communication and documents becoming digital. That section is about fraudulently manipulating or destroying documents. Someone found guilty can get up 20 years in prison. The next section covers using harassment to hinder, delay, or prevent an official hearing. That has a max of three years. They're obviously overstepping
Given that only 350 of the 1,380 j6 rioters were charged and convucted using this 1512 C2 portion of the law, it is clear that she isn't advocating runaway abuse of the statute.
The Supreme Court has not seen all the videos that I saw or they would know congress was living on what happen at that time Polosi is corrupt and her followers.
Congress could not have been clearer about the behavior it intended to
capture under the Sarbanes-Oxley criminal provisions. The Act’s preamble
explicitly states that the bill was designed to “protect investors by
improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made
pursuant to securities laws.” Prosecutors are misusing and courts are
misinterpreting the Sarbanes-Oxley obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512.
ATF has already been told they don't make laws or rules that they can prosecute for. The EPA needs to hear the same. Time to hold the heads of government agencies accountable.
The courts should always error on the side of the defense if it is not exactly sure what the provisions of the law is. If you don't more people will be swept up by the government depending on what party is in power.
But smashing a blackberry with a hammer isnt proveable intent but protesting is...weird analysis.
THEY DESTROIED EVADENCE TO PREVENT ANY APPEAL.
AND TO PROTECT THEIR OWN BEHINDS.
This violates so many rights
How about pulling a fire alarm, ripping down signage? Oh and right before a vote you didn't like..hummhh....
OMG ... Is that Kegan adding words to the "statue? The word CONGRESS does not appear ANYWHERE in the text of the statute. BZZZ!! Try again.
**CORRECTION- I misspoke by saying Kagen. The comments came from SOTOMAYOR. 😂😂😂😂
To me, it was painful to hear the government dancing around the questions about what this could apply to (e.g., peaceful protests, minor disruptions), how/when this was applied before, whether the mens rea / "corruptly" burden is limiting, or how unusual the sentences could get. This is such blatant special pleading. The real rationale for the exception being made here is the elephant in the room. Sotomayor and Kagan were obviously trying to justify making an exception. Barrett and Jackson were fishing for anything remotely rational that they could latch onto to rule in favor of the government. While the other 5 justices, especially Alito, were bringing the special pleading to light every chance they got.
Right she never answered the question cuz they've never done this to any protesters (except a few extremes years ago) and there was plenty of them
‘Otherwise’ the whole thing was clear as mud. 😂
Ya'll need to listen to the audio again, and pay attention this time...
Great
They illegally obstructed a constitutional proceeding. Facts in evidence.
As she said, I'ma not listening to your bs whining when no one in history has committed this crime before
Go after Ray Epps who was pushing the crowd to go into the capitol using the fence barrier.
Wikipedia is now a valid source?
A valid source of goverment propaganda that is
Under WHAT pretense are ANY in D.C. in a preceding related to being a "witness, victim or informant?" Those SPECIFIC NOUNS are in the NAME of this particular CODE. When did people become so OBTUSE??
Sonia Sotomayor telling counsel the provision doesn't provide for attempts. Then reads out attempts. Genius.
Ya most people think a Stop Sign is vague typical ignorance of uneducated folk
Hilarious gaffe from Sotomayor.
Come to think of it, when Sotomayor says we've never had a situation where people tried to use violence to stop a proceeding, i beg to differ. There have been a number of recent occasions in which official government proceedings were impeded . They were interrupted by democrats and so they weren't charged for anything very serious if anything at all. Like i said, it's happened a number of times with the democrats, it's just that when you have a justice system that is not charging criminals but does charge Republicans with non- crimes because that's what corrupt political tyrants do to their political opposition.
First counsel is right to take heed of the heading/title above the statues. It is the clearest indicator of legislative intent showing that this rule had a limited scope and doesn’t really apply to this particular situation.
Context is of paramount import in interpretation.
I like to know why no one was arrested when they burned down police headquarters in Minneapolis that was a government building. Or no accountability for those that looted State Street in Madison Wisconsin. 😢
One of the appellate judges who heard this case, Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker, also suggested another way to limit the law. Walker homed in on the fact that the statute only applies to someone who “corruptly” obstructs a proceeding, and he wrote in an opinion that this word should be read to only apply to defendants who acted “with an intent to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person.” One of the appellate judges who heard this case, Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker, also suggested another way to limit the law. Walker homed in on the fact that the statute only applies to someone who “corruptly” obstructs a proceeding, and he wrote in an opinion that this word should be read to only apply to defendants who acted “with an intent to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person.”
If nothing else, this is a terrible look for the Supreme Court. And it suggests that many of the justices’ concerns about free speech depend on whether they agree with the political views of the speaker.
Justice is blind...to the wolfs clothing
Imagine a world where BLM protesters were held to the same standards 🧐
Are they ignoring the first word before otherwise - it's OR Otherwise. To me the OR is more important and stop this lunacy.
What a big problem in these statutes is the language interpitation.
!0 minutes hearing this , I had enough of this BS.
That Theater Act #2 is correct; accomplish an impairment. Why TF is Killary free?
The answer was no. Nancy adjourned the congress before people entered. Nancy stopped the vote. The people wanted to be there for the vote,they wanted the vice president to do his constitutional duty and listen to questions of fraudulent voting. Also,this is the peoples house ,not congresses. We maintain,you are our guests voted to represent us,we belong on our property.
....The Capital Police removed the Barriers and waved the Crowd in, and even directed the Crowd exactly where to go! (&) Nancy Pelosi's Son-in-law was outside the Capital Building for over 45 minutes, talking to the 'Shaman Guy, wearing the Viking Horn Head Wear....
Hmmm
C1 is doctoring the document
C2 is if your doctoring document obstructs or impedes the documents arriving.
That was a beautiful closing on the part of counsel of the petitioner(s).
Crooked DOJ, FBI, and CIA! Bring out the gallows!!!
With all due respect o e must put themself in the position of p. TRUMP in the sense that you know it was cheated and it was.bhow upsetting this would be. Trump told the people to go in peace
The Election was RIGGED
Telling them to go in peace, and ALSO telling them to "fight like hell or they won't have a country"
It was clear that thousands fought like hell..
YOU live your life with blinders
The title of the law must be read with each point of the law. "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant." It was written to criminalize:
(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, ( Witness, Victim, or Informant), with intent to-
(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person (Witness, Victim, or informant), in an official proceeding;
(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, (by a Witness, Victim, or informant) in an official proceeding; or
(C) prevent the communication by any person ( Witness, Victim, or Informant) to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS!
Seems to be very clear but I don't have a political agenda. How do lawyers sleep? Oh I know, they lie on one side then roll over and lie on the other.
These are the individuals determining the laws over 300 million citizens live by? We really are in deep shit.
ANY person. The language says ANY person. Not just witness, victim, or informant, even though the title says witness, victim, or informant. And the other sections include use of physical force and use of intimidation or threats, not just killing or attempting to kill. Laws have been used outside of their original intent PLENTY of times. This is not the first time a law is being applied to a circumstance that was not intended when creating the law.
@@connor7048
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!...👈🤣
@@connor7048
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!
...... 🤣👆...
Laws so vague even the Supreme Court has trouble with it.
It’s sort of the other way around tbh. The Supreme Court only takes the cases where the law is unclear. It declines to take the vast majority of cases. It mostly just takes the ones where the judges in the circuit courts can’t agree on what the law is. So just by listening to the Supreme Court yes it is going to be vague. Usually the law actually is very clear and so the lower courts settle it.
That's rich, considering this SCOTUS is dismantling the foundations of this country and intentionally taking away citizens rights!
It is the character of a Republican to say a Stop Sign is so very vague.
The participants of January sixth participants were not out to disrubt an official preceeding. Only protest the vote count
Stop interrupting, Justice Sotamayor 😡
Everything this lady says sounds like she’s talking about Ray Epps !!
We all love thomas an trump an yes I am white
For the1st lawyer who spoke for evildems,
Proverbs29:20
DOYOU SEE SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS IN HASTE?
THERE IS MORE HOPE FOR A FOOL THAN FOR THEM
Hey Connor, I am not arguing for Donald Trump, but for you and I. What if it was you? Wouldn't you want the judges to read each section according to the purpose of the law stated in the title, "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant." Witness tampering is the intent.
If otherwise is all obstructions, then why don't they charge every politician who interrupts a proceeding, because under their meaning anyone is breaking this law that interrupts that proceeding, including the speaker.
So by Green, evidence such as the video showing a protester on Jan 6 could be used. Thanks for making the argument for instead of against
Epoch has shown the latest-released tapes, worth watching.
What happened to citizens addressing their concerns to their representatives at the people's house
Sure, if done lawfully Jan 6 was not a lawful protest bo matter how it started
WE the people lets go Brandon
She used a hypothetical where the word "obstruct" wasn't the same when used in law. Could also say "otherwise" wasn't used properly. Taking a picture wouldn't necessarily obstruct a play. Regardless, rules for a private business aren't law. And like the guy said, the "otherwise" section was added in 2002 because of communication and documents becoming digital. That section is about fraudulently manipulating or destroying documents. Someone found guilty can get up 20 years in prison. The next section covers using harassment to hinder, delay, or prevent an official hearing. That has a max of three years. They're obviously overstepping to make an example of poltical opposition
You should take the time to actually digest this audio.. It is clear you missed many important pieces.
Produce fact's or nothing is Found Liar's 🕺
They even said it twice.