Latest News

April 17, 2024

Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of Joseph Fischer v. United States, concerning a statute that was used to up-charge over 300 January 6 defendants --- including President Trump.  All of them allegedly obstructed or impeded the election certification by Congress, whether they were even there in the Capitol at that time.  Yesterday, we brought you the analysis by investigative reporter Julie Kelly.

“I didn’t realize how much they had to torture the law to make any of this illegal,” Scott Adams said of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s use of the statute during his Tuesday podcast.  “...The Enron law was about someone specifically destroying records.  So they wanted it to be illegal to destroy records that are part of an official proceeding, such as a court case.”

“...So, they [Smith’s office] had to stretch it from the original intention, of destroying evidence, to simply interfering with an official proceeding, ‘cause I guess they thought the language of the law was broad enough that they could get away with that.”

(Note:  Actually, one part of this law --- the vague, badly-written part --- allows for the possibility of “otherwise” interfering.  Scott might not have taken this into account, but the point remains that this law arose from a concern about destroying documents.  SCOTUS has to decide what “otherwise” includes.)

Some of the protesters were indeed interfering with an official proceeding, Adams said, though not by destroying records.  “But they were specifically trying to IMPROVE it, which somehow gets left out of the conversation.”  They wanted to interfere “to make sure that the system was working, not to break the system.  They wanted a delay to make sure the count was accurate.”

They would’ve been fine with taking a couple of days to at least look at the concerns, he said.  We would add that they felt this protest was their last chance to keep the Titanic from hitting the iceberg after the courts had refused them “standing” to bring such a case and had shown they wouldn’t touch the election with a 10-foot pole.  Really, in a sane world, wouldn’t any Trump voter with evidence that the outcome was likely affected by cheating have standing to file suit?  That person has been damaged.

“So, apparently this law is complete BS,” Adams said, “that they stretched from some Enron thing [involving destroying records that would be necessary in a court case, very bad] protesting and using your First Amendment --- but too aggressively, you know, the trespassing was over the line --- to improve a process.  Publicly, improve a process that appeared to them to be broken at the moment.”

Prosecutors tortured this law, he said, to put people in jail.

So what happens, he asked, if the Supreme Court rules that the people in jail for this are free to go?  He voiced the same question that leftist, anti-Trump DC judges have shown to be their overriding concern: “What does this do to the narrative?”  Ah, the all-important narrative --- much more important than the objective truth or an individual’s civil rights.  Better to let those people rot in jail than to weaken the carefully nurtured J6 “insurrection” narrative.

Scott also pointed out that the slates of so-called “fake electors” Trump and his attorneys are accused of creating were simply assembled to preserve the states’ legal challenge.  “Basically, just a legal strategy,” he said.  (Even the term “fake electors” is fake; we always call them “alternate electors.”)

As for these judges, “I feel they could torture anything into anything,” he said.

But Adams sees more evidence of people now trying to take matters into their own hands.  “Generally, everywhere you look, there’s something like a limit that’s been reached,” he said.  So far, we’ve been able to handle seeing Trump in court because we can see him coming out of that.  But he thinks that if Trump spends even one day --- one hour --- in jail, “the social contract will be gone.”

And, in his opinion, “it should be.”  Though he doesn’t recommend violence --- you know we certainly don’t, and shouldn’t have to explain why at this point --- Adams said that if the Democrats want to push it to the breaking point, that’s where they will find it.

Scott starts this discussion about 47 minutes into his podcast…

For a brief summary of the case, here’s Jonathan Turley’s Tuesday column.

We’ll have Turley’s analysis tomorrow.  For now, here’s Katelynn Richardson at the DAILY CALLER, reporting that most of the justices appeared skeptical of the government’s broad reading of the statute.  It does look to us that at least some of them, particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch, were asking spectacular questions:

--- Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a courthouse qualify?

--- Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at a State of the Union address?

--- Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote also qualify for 20 years in prison?

That last zinger, the best question all day, no doubt was a reference to Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York pulling the fire alarm in the Capitol building before the House vote on a GOP funding package intended to avert a government shutdown.  The whole building had to be evacuated.  Security-cam video clearly showed him doing this on purpose, first removing two “Emergency Exit” signs.  But all Bowman got for this INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING was a slap on the wrist, in the form of his guilty plea to a misdemeanor violation of the local DC code last October.  He paid a $1,000 fine and had to apologize in writing to the police.  He should’ve at least had to write it on the blackboard 100 times.  The House censured him (214-191), but that was it.  The House Ethics Committee dropped their review of his actions.  The End.

(Side note:  Rep. Bowman had the gall to run for re-election after this, but polls show him trailing his Democrat primary challenger, George Latimer.  The issue, however, isn’t “Fire Alarm-gate” so much as his stance on the Israel-Hamas war.  He’s in lockstep with the Squad, and, gosh, that’s apparently not playing so well with Jewish voters in his district.)

But back to the SCOTUS.  Justice Thomas, too, asked great questions, notably whether the government had ever applied this statute to other protests in the past.  Um, that would be a NO.

It’s great to see that the questioning went the way it did.  Now, we wait.

FOX NEWS’ lengthier report has additional details...

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Major win for Free Speech

The Alito Flag Kerfuffle

Disappointing Court Rulings:

No Comments