The Democrat Party’s strategy of waging lawfare to derail Donald Trump’s re-election campaign suffered a major blow.
Attempts by Democrats to put Trump on trial to secure a guilty verdict before Election Day keep running aground.
And now Clarence Thomas asked one question that ended a criminal case against Trump.
Biden prosecutor Jack Smith watched nervously as a majority of Supreme Court justices dismantled the core of his case against Donald Trump relating to January 6.
Although Trump’s name was never mentioned once, the case of Fischer v. United States looms large over Smith’s sham prosecution of Trump.
That’s because the justices heard oral arguments that the Biden administration stretched the meaning of Sarbanes-Oxley – a law passed in the wake of the Enron collapse in 2001 – that criminalized the destruction of documents to qualify as obstruction of an official proceeding to apply to January 6 protesters who entered the Capitol.
These obstruction of an official proceeding statutes carry a penalty of up to 20 years in prison and this allowed Biden prosecutors to charge Trump supporters with felonies as opposed to misdemeanors that likely carried no jail time.
Two of the four counts of Smith’s indictment against Trump are for obstruction of an official proceeding.
During oral arguments, Clarence Thomas kicked off a parade of questions about the Biden administration selectively prosecuting Trump supporters using this statute while giving left-wing mobs who invaded congressional hearings a pass.
“There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings,” Thomas asked, “Has the government applied this provision to other protests?”
Justice Neil Gorsuch doubled down on the selective prosecution theme citing the example of Democrat Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York pulling a fire alarm last fall to interrupt a House vote on a spending bill.
“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” Gorsuch pressed government lawyers to answer. “Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”
Justice Samuel Alito said “what happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious,” but that there were protests during Supreme Court oral arguments and no one was charged with obstructing an official proceeding.
Even Amy Coney Barrett, one of the more wobbly conservatives on the Court, seemed taken aback by the Biden administration’s manipulation of the statute.
“Tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about the breadth of the government’s reading?” Barrett exclaimed.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar tried to argue that the Biden administration could be trusted to decide when a political protest morphed into an obstruction of an official proceeding and the justices should rule in their favor.
But the idea that the Biden administration wants to keep in its back pocket the nuclear option to crush political opposition by deeming their protests criminal while never once employing the same statute against their ideological allies appeared to horrify a majority of the Supreme Court.
American Patriot Daily will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.
