Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of J6 Protester

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Rules in Favor of J6 Protester

    Supreme Court Rules in Favor of J6 Protester

    The Supreme Court on Friday made it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, a charge that also has been brought against former President Donald Trump.

    The justices ruled that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category.

    The decision could be used as fodder for claims by Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly.

    It's unclear how the court's decision will affect the case against Trump in Washington, although special counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected.

    The high court returned the case of former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer to a lower court to determine if Fischer can be charged with obstruction. Fischer has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

    Fischer is among about 350 people who have been charged with obstruction. Some pleaded guilty to or were convicted of lesser charges.

    About 170 Capitol insurrection defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

    Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal was pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court ruled against the Justice Department. They include Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    Most lower court judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.”

    But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

    More than 1,400 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Approximately 1,000 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or a judge after a trial.

    The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, which has handled Jan. 6 prosecutions, said no one who has been convicted of or charged with obstruction will be completely cleared because of the ruling. Every defendant also has other felony or misdemeanor charges, or both, prosecutors said.

    For around 50 people who were convicted, obstruction was the only felony count, prosecutors said. Of those, roughly two dozen who still are serving their sentence are most likely to be affected by the ruling.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Supreme Court Rules in Favor of J6 Protester

    The Supreme Court on Friday made it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, a charge that also has been brought against former President Donald Trump.

    The justices ruled that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category.

    The decision could be used as fodder for claims by Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly.

    It's unclear how the court's decision will affect the case against Trump in Washington, although special counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected.

    The high court returned the case of former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer to a lower court to determine if Fischer can be charged with obstruction. Fischer has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

    Fischer is among about 350 people who have been charged with obstruction. Some pleaded guilty to or were convicted of lesser charges.

    About 170 Capitol insurrection defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

    Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal was pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court ruled against the Justice Department. They include Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    Most lower court judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.”

    But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

    More than 1,400 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Approximately 1,000 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or a judge after a trial.

    The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, which has handled Jan. 6 prosecutions, said no one who has been convicted of or charged with obstruction will be completely cleared because of the ruling. Every defendant also has other felony or misdemeanor charges, or both, prosecutors said.

    For around 50 people who were convicted, obstruction was the only felony count, prosecutors said. Of those, roughly two dozen who still are serving their sentence are most likely to be affected by the ruling.
    You beat me to it you lowdown scallywag

    This is yet another body blow to the left, though probably not as big as last night's debate.

    Interestingly, I noticed that some news outlets have switched from calling the defendants "insurrectionists" to "rioters."

    NBC: Supreme Court rules for Jan. 6 rioter challenging obstruction charge

    CNN: Supreme Court limits obstruction charges against January 6 rioters

    AP: Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, charge Trump faces

    LA Times: Supreme Court throws out obstruction charges lodged against hundreds of Jan.6 rioters

    Forbes: Supreme Court Limits Obstruction Charges For Jan. 6 Rioters—And It Could Affect Trump

    Reuters: US Supreme Court boosts Jan. 6 rioter's bid to challenge obstruction
    Last edited by rogue06; 06-28-2024, 10:46 AM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      The Left has no problem with a person kidnapping a Senator to influence a SCOTUS appointment vote or attempting to prevent a House vote by illegally pulling a fire alarm as long as it's for the "correct" reasons.
      P1) If , then I win.

      P2)

      C) I win.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        The Left has no problem with a person kidnapping a Senator to influence a SCOTUS appointment vote or attempting to prevent a House vote by illegally pulling a fire alarm as long as it's for the "correct" reasons.
        The right has no problem with a President trying to overthrow an election, inciting an insurrection, violating the Constitution, obstructing a session of Congress, targeting his VP to be murdered, or attempting to kidnap his VP in order to put to a close that same confirmation process. In other words the right (in general) and you in particular, are in league with with treason against the U.S.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JimL View Post

          The right has no problem with a President trying to overthrow an election, inciting an insurrection, violating the Constitution, obstructing a session of Congress, targeting his VP to be murdered, or attempting to kidnap his VP in order to put to a close that same confirmation process. In other words the right (in general) and you in particular, are in league with with treason against the U.S.
          That's some imagination.
          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JimL View Post

            The right has no problem with a President trying to overthrow an election, inciting an insurrection, violating the Constitution, obstructing a session of Congress, targeting his VP to be murdered, or attempting to kidnap his VP in order to put to a close that same confirmation process. In other words the right (in general) and you in particular, are in league with with treason against the U.S.
            wow
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

              That's some imagination.
              Nothing imaginary about. You're simply in denial of what your own eyes have seen.
              Do you deny Trump did and continues to promote the "big lie" of election fraud and that he actually won the election "by a lot" for which he has zero evidence. Yes, you obviously do. You're in denial!

              Do you deny that Trump summoned that mob there on the very day of the "confirmation process", that he incited them, sent them to the Capital and told them "to fight like hell, that if they didn't fight like hell they wouldn't have a country anymore." Which "in reality" meant of course meant that he would lose his presidency!!! Of course you do, you're in denial!!
              Do you deny that Trump pressured Pence, his VP, to violate the Constitution and reject the legitimate electoral votes, to send them back to the states to be replaced by "fake electors", fake electors who are now be prosecuted for their roles in the fake electors scheme. Of course you do, you're in denial!!!
              Do you deny that Trump by these acts obstructed a session of Congress, i.e. the confirmation process, his goal being stop the confirmation of Biden in order to retain power for himself. Of course you do, you're in denial!!!
              Do you deny that he targeted his VP , as the one man who if he didn't "do the right thing" i.e. to violate his oath, then Trump would lose the Presidency? That they had a car waiting for him in order to take him away from the Capital, but Pence refused to get in that car, telling his aides that he knew it was a kidnapping plot and that he knew that they would never bring him back to perform his Constitutional duty of Confirming the vote.? Of course you do, you're in denial!!!
              If these actions, directed by the President, are not treason, I believe they are, then they are certainly " high Crimes and misdemeaners. Do you deny that as well? Of course you do, you're in denial!!!
              Either you're in denial, or you know full well these facts, and just don't care, which in my opinion just puts you in league with the traitor. And that goes for the "Wow" guy in the above post as well.
              Last edited by JimL; Today, 07:55 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                ... inciting an insurrection ...
                That says it all in a nutshell. Instead of saying "inciting a riot" - something I could actually agree with - you say "inciting an insurrection", which is ridiculous on the face of it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Nothing imaginary about. You're simply in denial of what your own eyes have seen....


                  Dems freak out over Biden’s debate performance: ‘Biden is toast’



                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                    That says it all in a nutshell. Instead of saying "inciting a riot" - something I could actually agree with - you say "inciting an insurrection", which is ridiculous on the face of it.
                    I'm surprised you can even admit to that, that Trump incited a riot. So, what do you suppose was the reason for Trump inciting a riot?
                    And what about the rest of the post, you're still in denial of it all right?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post

                      I'm surprised you can even admit to that, that Trump incited a riot.
                      Pretty much the same thing Tom Bradley did in 1992. And I condemned him for that. But it is becoming so commonplace these days (public figures ranting and raving in public and being irresponsible in front of the public) that it hardly seems noteworthy to point out any specific event.

                      So, what do you suppose was the reason for Trump inciting a riot?
                      And what about the rest of the post, you're still in denial of it all right?
                      A mixture of inaccuracy and irrelevancy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                        That says it all in a nutshell. Instead of saying "inciting a riot" - something I could actually agree with - you say "inciting an insurrection", which is ridiculous on the face of it.
                        If you look at Trump's actual speech on January 6 when he told his supporters to make their voices "peacefully and patriotically heard", I don't think you can even make the case that he incited a riot, and certainly not an insurrection.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                          Pretty much the same thing Tom Bradley did in 1992.
                          That's a lie. Bradley never made up a "big lie," never said anything like "you got to fight like hell, if you don't fight like hell you'll lose your country" or anything similar. He said just the opposite, "that we must not strike back, we must stay calm and not lose all the progress we've made. He never incited them to riot, he tried to stop them from that looming inevitability.

                          And I condemned him for that. But it is becoming so commonplace these days (public figures ranting and raving in public and being irresponsible in front of the public) that it hardly seems noteworthy to point out any specific event.
                          More nonsense. And if it has become so commonplace, why did you need to go back 22 years to come up with a single example, and a poor example at that?


                          A mixture of inaccuracy and irrelevancy.
                          Yeah, you're a mixture of inaccuracy and irrelevancy.

                          But I do appreciate the fact, even though you would probably wish you hadn't admitted to that now, that Trump incited that mob!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post

                            That's a lie. Bradley never made up a "big lie," never said anything like "you got to fight like hell, if you don't fight like hell you'll lose your country" or anything similar. He said just the opposite, "that we must not strike back, we must stay calm and not lose all the progress we've made. He never incited them to riot, he tried to stop them from that looming inevitability.
                            Oh PuH-LEEZ! I was born and raised in the suburbs of Los Angeles and am quite familiar with all of the events. Bradley incited the 1992 riots through his reckless denunciation of the Rodney King verdicts. When he got in front of the microphones, seething with anger, saying that the outrageous verdicts must not stand, that he understands everyone's rage, that something must be done about it .... and then says "but I'm not suggesting people riot" it was akin to challenge to the city residents to take to the streets. I watched that all live and KNEW a riot was going to follow Bradley's speech. It was inevitable.

                            https://www.ebony.com/how-the-la-rio...ys-reputation/
                            In the post riot assessment of what went so terribly wrong, Bradley took much of the blame for variously inflaming the rioters with his criticism of the verdict and for letting the city drift into a dangerous malaise.


                            More nonsense. And if it has become so commonplace, why did you need to go back 22 years to come up with a single example, and a poor example at that?
                            Because incitement to riot doesn't always lead to a riot. DuH. Like Schumer inciting violence against Kavanugh and Alioto, or Maxine Waters inciting violence any time Trump's family was seen in public, or Kamala Harris advertising bailing out rioters in Minneapolis. Get a clue.

                            Yeah, you're a mixture of inaccuracy and irrelevancy.

                            But I do appreciate the fact, even though you would probably wish you hadn't admitted to that now, that Trump incited that mob!!!
                            I never said he was innocent of that. I said the insurrection charge against him is ridiculous.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                              If you look at Trump's actual speech on January 6 when he told his supporters to make their voices "peacefully and patriotically heard", I don't think you can even make the case that he incited a riot, and certainly not an insurrection.
                              I take into account all of Trump's public comments leading up to that day. The rioters showed up before J6, before Trump said anything on J6. They were fired up ahead of time.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 03:49 PM
                              18 responses
                              110 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by seer, 06-28-2024, 11:42 AM
                              39 responses
                              197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by Cow Poke, 06-28-2024, 10:24 AM
                              20 responses
                              127 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by VonTastrophe, 06-28-2024, 10:22 AM
                              27 responses
                              153 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Slave4Christ  
                              Started by VonTastrophe, 06-27-2024, 01:08 PM
                              52 responses
                              321 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X