|
June 30, 2024
Supreme Court Thoroughly Rebukes Biden DOJ For Abusing Law To Go After Trump And His Supporters - This Could Affect Over 350 Political Prisoners
By Katelynn Richardson -All News Pipeline
The Supreme Court held Friday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) interpreted an obstruction statute too broadly when using it to charge hundreds of defendants for their behavior in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
The court sided 6-3 in Fischer v. United States with a defendant who challenged the statute, Section 1512(c)(2), which holds up to 20 years in prison for anyone who obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.
To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority ruling. The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Of the 1,424 defendants charged following Jan. 6, over 350 were charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, according to May numbers from the DOJ. Multiple defendants charged under the statute were granted early release in light of the justices decision to hear the case.
Joseph Fischer, who was charged under Section 1512(c)(2), argued the DOJs use of the statute to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants for obstructing Congress certification of the 2020 election was an unprecedented expansion.
Fischer noted it was enacted as part of the Corporate Fraud and Accountability Act of 2002 to target crimes of evidence tampering, focusing on deterring fraud and abuse by corporate executives.
The lower courts will now have to assess the sufficiency of the charge brought against Fischer and likely hundreds of other defendants indicted under the same statute in light of the Supreme Courts ruling.
PLEASE HELP ANP! Due to the globalists war upon truth and the independent media, our monthly revenue has been cut by more than 80% so we need your help more now than ever before.Anything at allANP readers can do to help usishugely appreciated.)
The Governments reading of Section 1512 would intrude on that deliberate arrangement of constitutional authority over federal crimes, giving prosecutors broad discretion to seek a 20- year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw fit to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonmentfor example, three years for harassment under 1512(d)(1), or ten years for threatening a juror under 1503, Roberts wrote.
The ruling also has implications for special counsel Jack Smiths election interference case against former President Donald Trump. Two of the charges in the indictment, which alleges Trump employed knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified, are related to the statute.
The Supreme Court will also soon rule on Trumps bid to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity.
(RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: FEC Commissioner Rips Biden DOJs Dangerous Decision Not To Intervene In Braggs Trump Prosecution)
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority in limiting the statutes scope.
Notwithstanding the shocking circumstances involved in this case or the Governments determination that they warrant prosecution, today, this Courts task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here, Jackson wrote in a concurring opinion. I join in the Courts opinion because I agree with the majority that 1512(c)(2) does not reach all forms of obstructive conduct and is, instead, limited by the preceding list of criminal violations in 1512(c)(1).
Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned the dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Barrett wrote that the majority failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches.
There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute, Barrett wrote. Yet Congress, not this Court, weighs the pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.'
ANP is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program.ANP EMERGENCY Fundraiser: Dangerous, Derogatory, Harmful, Unreliable! Those are some of the exact words used by Googles censors, aka 'Orwelliancontent police,' in describing many of our controversial stories.Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
So if you like stories like this, please consider donating to ANP.
All donations are greatly appreciated and will absolutely be used to keep us in this fight for the future of America.
Thank you and God Bless. Susan and Stefan.
PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:
Or https://www.paypal.me/AllNewsPipeLine
Donate Via Snail Mail
Checks or money orders made payable to Stefan Stanford or Susan Duclos can be sent to:
P.O. Box 575McHenry, MD. 21541
Anything at all at Amazon purchased after clickingthis ANP link will allow ANP to make a bit of revenue, all of which will be used to keep ANP online and to keep a roof over our heads. |
