Posted Jun 29, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

Pelosi’s Son-in-law

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the Jan. 6 defendant in a dispute over an obstruction charge that was clearly unconstitutional and a selective prosecution. The Court ruled in favor of a former Pennsylvania police officer charged for his alleged participation in the U.S. Capitol attack, saying a felony obstruction charge was improperly applied in his case. It was a 6-3 opinion that came from Chief Justice John Roberts but was joined by a Democratic appointee, Ketanji Brown Jackson. The majority also included Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

In the debate, Biden called those people criminals. The case centered on whether a 2002 law enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal to prevent the destruction of evidence in financial crimes could be used against defendant Joseph Fischer and others alleged in an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. My investigation was this: this was most likely organized by the FBI to enable Pelosi to declare an emergency rule to shut down 7 states that were challenging the vote. They had to call this an insurrection to try to go after Trump on the 14th Amendment, but then to imprison everyone who dared to support him. Had just one challenge been allowed, the case could have ended in the Supreme Court, and Trump would have been president. But we would not have an open border, climate change nonsense, and this proxy war in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Asia had the Neocons not gained power under Biden.

The court’s majority wrote that the twisted interpretation of the statute was overly broad. To prove a violation of the law at hand, the court said; “the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s reasoning is very disturbing, and she was appointed by Trump. In her dissent, she said that while the events of Jan. 6 may not have been the target of the 2002 law, it includes a sweeping provision for any conduct that obstructs or impedes any official proceeding. Barrett wrote:

“The Court does not dispute that Congress’s joint session qualifies as an ‘official proceeding’; that rioters delayed the proceeding; or even that Fischer’s alleged conduct (which includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement) was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results.”

“Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” she continued. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.”

I am very disappointed in Barrett for her position. If any prosecutor can twist the words of a statute to apply to a new theory, then somehow that is OK. The Constitution declares that the PEOPLE are to draft laws – not prosecutors. If you put cash in a safety deposit box, that can now be charged as Money Laundering because you are “hiding” money from the government. The money laundering statute was created against drug dealers. What Barrett advocates is total tyranny by unelected prosecutors to twist the words into things that Congress never expressed.

Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed disappointment in the court’s decision but said it would have a limited impact on the Justice Department’s prosecutions. He is only maintaining the right to twist statutes to suit political agendas. Garland said in a statement.

“The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision.” 

Meanwhile, Garland is facing arrest for contempt of Congress, and we see how the Department of Justice is totally out of control, refusing to prosecute Garland when they throw Bannon in prison for contempt of Congress. This is selective prosecution, and the DOJ is now just political.