patrick.net

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/corrupt-obstruction-thursday-december

Yesterday, NBC ran an electrifying story headlined, “Supreme Court agrees to hear Jan. 6 case that could affect Trump prosecution.” It’s at once the best January 6th news we’ve had for a long while and it’s also very promising news for the Trump prosecution. ...

As you may know, the federal government criminalized January 6th protestors and Capitol tourists by re-purposing a rarely-used evidence law, originally passed to stop people from destroying evidence in white-collar crimes. The repurposing wasn’t surprising. Ever since Biden occupied the White House and appointed Grandma Garland to the DOJ, we’ve seen nonstop criminal prosecution of conservatives via ‘creative’ legal theories, which have delighted democrats and the compliant corporate media, who have no imagination or ability to extrapolate whatsoever.

Anyway, hundreds of peaceful Capitol protestors have been convicted by D.C. juries under 18 U.S. § 1512(c)(2), a law passed in 2002 after the infamous document shredding story fell out of the Enron case. The law provides up to 20 years in prison for illegally destroying evidence or — and this is the tricky bit — when someone “corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

Someone at DOJ saw that language, which was supposed to be about illegally (“corruptly”) destroying evidence so it couldn’t be used as evidence at trial (the “official proceeding”). The DOJ saw that and thought “Eureka!” Congress had assembled on January 6th to certify the presidential vote totals, and the meeting could be described as an “official proceeding.” The Trump supporters didn’t want the vote to be certified yet, so they were allegedly trying to “obstruct, influence, or impede” that proceeding.

And there you have it. Voilá! Twenty years.

The DOJ picked Jacob Chansley as its guinea pig to test out its new legal theory. Chansely was the colorful “QAnon Shaman” who’d be certain to inflame a cerulean-blue DC jury. And the DOJ’s strategy worked perfectly: the jury gave Chansley five years, and the DOJ got its precedent.

Since then, hundreds more J6 defendants have been convicted under the same re-tooled evidence statute. Relying on that swelling, Frankensteinian body of legal precedent, Jack Smith indicted President Trump for the very same crime in the DC ‘election interference’ case.

In yesterday’s thrilling development, the Supreme Court granted certiorari — agreed to hear — an appeal from a January 6th defendant named Edward Lang who’d been convicted under the evidence statute. In essence, Lang argues the evidence statute is “unconstitutionally vague,” letting prosecutors twist the law like Chinese bioweapons engineers into any shape they want. Significantly, the appellate court decided 2-1 to uphold the DOJ’s novel interpretation of the statute.

That’s significant because, if the four Supremes who voted to accept the case had agreed with the appellate court, they wouldn’t need to take the case. They could just deny certiorari, and then the DOJ’s interpretation would become the law.

So the bare fact the Supremes took the case is highly suggestive that at least four of them have something they want to say about it. Most observers think it doesn’t look too good for the government.

The decision created a lot of excitement, as it should have. If the Supreme Court throws § 1512(c)(2) out as unconstitutional, all those J6 prisoners will be released, and most of the election interference case against President Trump will dissolve just like a fresh dusting of snow evaporating on a warm morning.

Some folks, like WND News, even went so far as to predict Jack Smith, Trump’s prosecutor, will be forced to drop the charges just because the Supreme Court took the case.

My take is: this is a perfect, politically expedient opportunity for the Court to weigh in on a bunch of politically-difficult issues without taking the hit. Nearly every conservative judge in other courts who’ve looked at this issue found the statute to be too vague, so the Supreme won’t have to stretch at all to reach that conclusion. They can just quote lower-court opinions. And the Court could also easily help out President Trump, in a case that on its face has nothing whatever to do with Trump. Easy peasy.

This is an exciting and encouraging development. If you like the legal stuff, you can read Ed Lang’s Petition for Certiorari here.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/corrupt-obstruction-thursday-december

Yesterday’s best clip featured Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy on a live CNN Town Hall, rapidly tossing truth grenades like Hunter’s laptop, the Wuhan lab leak, and the Gretchen Whitmer fednapping trial (resulting in the jury finding the defendants not guilty). Vivek seized the live TV opportunity to go full-on, 100% January 6th Truther, while CNN anchor Abby Phillip was desperately trying to interrupt the candidate and redirect the question and was losing her mind:



As I’ve said before, I think we’re going to hear a lot more like this as new politicians enter the pipeline who weren’t connected with any of these awful scandals. I think it will happen for the jabs, too.

There’s a whole lot to love in Vivek’s answer, but I think my very favorite part was when Vivek said, “Abby, what I want CNN’s audience to know…” In other words, Vivek knew who he was really talking to: he wasn’t talking to Abby Phillip, but to the CNN audience, who are mainly people who think only white guys named Trump believe the government coordinated January 6th.

Say what you want about Vivek Ramaswamy, but it sure is fun watching him spar with woke reporters.

https://notthebee.com/article/vivek-ramaswamy-educating-cnns-audience-on-fbi-entrapment-is-never-going-to-get-old-and-this-video-will-age-like-fine-wine

https://twitter.com/DavidYeshua4/status/1737860372411961797

This video was deleted from President Trump’s account by Twitter, on January 6th 2021, shortly after tweeted out.

Would have been great if Trump pardoned all non-violent persons involved on Jan 6th in his final 2 weeks in office which he was legally allowed to do.

But because Trump doesn't know how to work the levers of government or have any allies that can play the game (or was too buy sucking Fauci's cock and giving him awards) Trump has left all these people to hang out and dry.

Trump will abandon you like he abandons everyone out of incompetence and/or malice. Trump is already tacking Left kissing up to Democrats and we aren't even out of the primary yet!

MAGA building a new party of BLM, Islamists, Trannies and soft Democrats to make up for all the Conservatives he lost.

If Trump is able to win the General, he will be more wounded and worthless than Arnold Schwarzenegger was as Governor of California after the Unions defeated his propositions.

socal2 says

Would have been great if Trump pardoned all non-violent persons involved on Jan 6th in his final 2 weeks in office which he was legally allowed to do.

At that point they weren't even indicted!

socal2 says

If Trump is able to win the General, he will be more wounded and worthless than Arnold Schwarzenegger

You really don't like Trump, do you?

"Fuck your freedom."
Arnold

Onvacation says

socal2 says

Would have been great if Trump pardoned all non-violent persons involved on Jan 6th in his final 2 weeks in office which he was legally allowed to do.

At that point they weren't even indicted!

Trump had the legal authority to proactively pardon before indictments. Other Presidents have done it.

So Trump was either too stupid or too cowardly to do the right thing.

https://twitter.com/JoshPower80/status/1736883498768633955

Onvacation says

socal2 says

If Trump is able to win the General, he will be more wounded and worthless than Arnold Schwarzenegger

You really don't like Trump, do you?

"Fuck your freedom."
Arnold

I will vote for him again if he is our nominee.

I just think he is going to lose badly. If he manages to win, he will have no one working for him that knows how to get anything done and will let the Deep State run rings around him like they did his first 4 years.

socal2 says

I just think he is going to lose badly.

To whom? And why?
socal2 says

he will have no one working for him that knows how to get anything done and will let the Deep State run rings around him like they did his first 4 years.

Disagree. He got a lot done in his first four years like no new wars and exposing how corrupt and powerful the deep state really is. socal2 says

Trump had the legal authority to proactively pardon before indictments. Other Presidents have done it.

How would he know who to pardon? How could he know the deep state was going to go as far as they did?
socal2 says

So Trump was either too stupid or too cowardly to do the right thing.

Why would you even consider voting for someone you think so little of?

Not expecting cogent answers.

Onvacation says

To whom? And why?

Anyone not Biden.

Onvacation says

Why would you even consider voting for someone you think so little of?

Not expecting cogent answers.

Because it is a binary choice and Trump will be better than any Democrat.

Still - I'd rather have the chance of 8 years of a DeSantis administration that is competent and effective than 4 years of Trump dealing with legal issues and drama while he tries to cut deals with the Democrats and Media to salvage his legacy.

socal2 says

I'd rather have the chance of 8 years of a DeSantis administration

Like Bush Jr?

How many wars do you want?

socal2 says

Trump dealing with legal issues

Do you think Trump’s legal issues are legit?

Maybe DeSantis will proactively pardon Trump for things he might say or think.

socal2 says

Trump had the legal authority to proactively pardon before indictments. Other Presidents have done it.

Interesting if true.

socal2 says

So Trump was either too stupid or too cowardly to do the right thing.

https://twitter.com/JoshPower80/status/1736883498768633955

When did a president ever pardon unindicted criminals within two weeks of them committing crimes? Your link doesn't say.

Carter gave amnesty to half a million draft dodgers but he did not pardon them. Do you really think Trump could pardon or give amnesty to anyone who might have been invited into the capitol on Jan 6? He still says that anyone who was violent or caused damage SHOULD be prosecuted.

Trump’s consideration of preemptive pardons quickly hit a wall. It was unclear how he could pardon an entire class of people that hadn’t been charged. “You didn’t know who the FBI was going to arrest down the road,” the first adviser said.

At the same time, the White House counsel’s office was forcefully telling Trump what he could not do as president, this person said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/02/trump-considered-blanket-pardons-for-jan-6-rioters-before-he-left-office-00004738

Patrick says

socal2 says

Trump had the legal authority to proactively pardon before indictments. Other Presidents have done it.

Interesting if true.

I don't think Trump realized, at the time, how evil his opponents were.

Onvacation says

I don't think Trump realized, at the time, how evil his opponents were.

This - he thought he could win-win most people over, not realizing how vicious the swamp creatures were to his drainage program.

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/whatever-it-takes-wont-be-enough/

Also, in a sane world interested in truth and justice, the Republican-majority Congress would have months ago convened new hearings about the Jan 6/21 Capitol riot to undo the manifold perfidious frauds instigated by the previous Democrat-majority committee under Chairman Bennie Thompson. By now, testimony should have been compelled from Nancy Pelosi, the then Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, and former Defense Secretary Chris Miller about Ms. Pelosi’s refusal to call in national guard troops to reinforce security around the building, and to answer for the odd behavior of the Capitol Police, such as opening doors for the mob and then serving as ushers to show off the place. It seems obvious that many elected Republicans also have an interest in supporting the Jan 6/21 “insurrection” fairy tale. Do you still wonder why the evil entity infesting Washington is called “the blob”?

The Substack blogger who styles himself as El Gato Malo offers the alluring theory that a SCOTUS ruling on whether the 14th Amendment clauses that were applied to the presidency in the Colorado case, could enable Special Counsel Jack Smith to slip-in a superseding indictment (replacing the original indictment) in his DC Jan 6 case against Mr. Trump with new insurrection / rebellion charges, thus setting-up a fortified argument for states to chuck Mr. Trump off any ballot. More “lawfare,” you see. Whatever it takes. . .!

More curiously even, we learn today, that an amicus brief has been filed in the SCOTUS by former Attorney General Ed Meese (under Ronald Reagan), and two constitutional law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, challenging the legality altogether of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel for prosecuting Mr. Trump. The amicus is filed in the matter of Jack Smith’s certiorari petition to the court to schedule Mr. Trump’s DC trial the same day as the Super Tuesday primary —against the defendant’s objections. The amicus presents compelling arguments that Attorney General Merrick Garland acted illegally in appointing Mr. Smith, and if SCOTUS chucks him out of the special counsel job, the whole mendaciously constructed scaffold of the Jan 6 prosecution goes out the window, along with the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

According to the camera recording released from Capitol, it is hardly any "insurrection" by definition. Dems and Pelosi wanted it to look like insurrection and that direction was provided to FBI agents implemented into crowd. The name "insurrection" must be picked before Jan. 6 happened for exact purpose to sue and remove Trump from future role in government. Why Republicans do not try to give clarification that Jan. 6 event do not meet qualification for "insurrection" definition. That will clear a lot of cloud from Trump and his supporters. Dems use this word freely without consequences or objection.

Patrick says

It's boolshit, that's what happened. WTF is "Ukrainian .... military .... film... crew" anyway? Is that picture supposed to act as a proof of something? What does it show?

RWSGFY says

WTF is "Ukrainian .... military .... film... crew"

They're the ones who dodged the draft.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/new-video-hidden-public-q-shaman-stands-outside/

NEW VIDEO – Hidden from Public: Q Shaman Stands Outside Doors of US Capitol and Tells Everyone to Go Home – Reads Trump Tweet to Stay Peaceful and Go Home

Q Shaman Jacob Chansley: “We’re going to throw up the tweet. Donald Trump has asked everybody to go home. Okay? – This is America. You guys want to stay, that’s fine. Donald Trump has asked everybody to go home.”

Fellow Protester: “Wait, read this.”

Jacob Chansley: “Hold on… Donald Trump, quote, I am asking for everyone in the US Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence. Remember, we are the party of law and Order. Respect our law enforcement. … There’s a video.”

This video, among others was omitted from Chansley’s trial. The Arizona man was later sentenced to 41 months in prison for walking inside the US Capitol, asking police if he was allowed to be there, was then escorted through the building by police, led a prayer in the US Senate chamber, and then read Trump’s tweet to be peaceful before leaving the premises.

The DC Courts sentenced Chansley to 41 months in federal prison for this.

Six months prior to January 6, Democrats, leftists, and communists torched Washington DC – nearly 2 billion dollars in damages was caused by leftist BLM rioters in the summer of 2020. Many of these protesters were later paid by their communities.

It pays to be a Democrat!

https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/january-6

... this new documentary just came out about January 6, and I thought OK, let’s invest an hour and see what actually happened…it’s worth your time especially if you think the mainstream narrative on January 6 is true or mostly true.

(click link at top of this comment to see the video)

It’s very hard for most to conceive and believe that the government is willing and able to create False Flags.

But Empire requires narratives.

False Flags are necessary ingredients of narratives.

January 6 was a surprisingly easy, and “cheap”, narrative created to usher in more central control and marginalization of the growing dissident population.

Empire weaponized the public’s grieving over the theft of their vote.

Anyway, you can reach your own conclusions on what you think happened on January 6 by watching the documentary and reading the couple of summarized chapters from Julie Kelly’s book.