Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Elon Musk beats Trump at his own game
Business by Indy!     July 23, 2024 8:50 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [19 views]


‘The upside for Harris is huge’: Democratic poll finds Kamala needs to define her brand quickly
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 23, 2024 5:40 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [40 views]


Harris/______?
Politics by Ponderer     July 21, 2024 12:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (45 comments) [337 views]


Kammy's Wisconsin speech
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 12:07 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (12 comments) [110 views]


Yes, Kamala is a cop. This time, it could help her win an election.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 23, 2024 11:41 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (14 comments) [83 views]


Harris leads Trump 44% to 42% in US presidential race, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 23, 2024 12:14 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [39 views]


538: Kamala Harris approval tanking
Media by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 4:26 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [52 views]


Harris Is Uniting and Energizing Democratic Voters — and Polling Better Against Trump
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 23, 2024 5:18 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (15 comments) [96 views]


The Kackler wins enough support to clinch Democratic nomination
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 3:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [36 views]


Donald Trump is angry and frustrated today.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 21, 2024 8:55 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (30 comments) [206 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction charge used in Jan. 6 cases
By oldedude
June 28, 2024 10:53 am
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

This is the first of many decisions that are headed up to SCOTUS that deal with selective enforcement and an extremely broad definition of the laws. When I saw these charges, I thought it was a babylon bee article. I couldn't figure out how these folks impaired the availability or integrity of the records. In order to do that, they need access to the records, which they didn't.

Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction charge used in Jan. 6 cases

Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a former Pennsylvania police officer who was charged with obstructing an official proceeding after he entered the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, and narrowed the Justice Department's use of a federal obstruction statute leveled against scores of people who breached the building where Congress had convened to count state electoral votes.

The court ruled 6-3 in finding that to prove a violation of the obstruction law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined five conservatives in the majority, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the two other liberals.
The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings, and the court said it can assess the sufficiency of the obstruction charge brought against defendant Joseph Fischer in light of its ruling.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that accepting the Justice Department's reading of the law would give prosecutors "broad discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw fit to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonment."



I was just wondering how many folks we're talking about. In his writing for the court, Roberts said the courts were using this as a "catchall provision that reaches far beyond document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place." To me, this shows the lack of integrity of the courts and prosecutors trying to chickenshit supposed rioters. The other issue with this is the charges carry a possible 20 year penalty.

Jan. 6 cases

The Supreme Court's decision could affect the ongoing prosecutions of nearly 250 defendants charged with obstruction for their participation in the Jan. 6 assault. It could also upend cases that have already been adjudicated, since those who were convicted of violating the obstruction statute or pleaded guilty could seek resentencing, withdraw their pleas or ask for new trials.

There are 52 cases in which a defendant was convicted and sentenced on charges where the obstruction count was the sole felony, and of those, 27 are currently incarcerated, according to the Justice Department.


So this is one of the first in line to check the broad strokes of illegal activity by the pedoDOJ. Additional cases are; trumpster being accountable for classified documents, but for the same crime, no one else is charged. Classic case of selective prosecution. NY State revising the statute on braggs case against trumpster. Bragg ran on the promise he would get trump "no matter what it took." So they changed the law to include trumpster.


Cited and related links:

  1. msn.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction charge used in Jan. 6 cases":

  1. by Indy! on June 28, 2024 11:01 am

    Another big payoff coming for the Supreme Whored.


  2. by HatetheSwamp on June 28, 2024 11:02 am

    Thanks, OD. I saw that, too. I understand that part of the charge against the Orange Turd is this law and that it could impact the DC trial... but, I'm not a former Supreme Court clerk and Ivy League law school professor.


  3. by Indy! on June 28, 2024 11:09 am

    You don't need to know anything about law to know why the Whored are passing these laws. Funny how suddenly you guys are in love with legislating from the bench.


  4. by oldedude on June 28, 2024 11:32 am
    Well, let's see. THE LAW in question, says it has to do with having access to the ballots or ballot information. I would think (again) that someone with your "intelligence" could actually read the article, check the law if you chose to look at that, and read the court writings.

    I guess that's too much to ask.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction charge used in Jan. 6 cases"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page