Most of the Jan 06 people are going to be freed in June
- Thread starter SIXERS24
- Start date
Gorsuch "Would that include someone pulling a fire alarm to stop or delay a vote?"
I’m almost certain this thread won’t go as OP envisions.
If they're released, I fully expect several will be speaking at the RNC nominating convention in July.
While there are about 1,350 Jan. 6 defendants in total, only 350 have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding. The average prison sentence for those who were charged only with felony obstruction has been 26 months.
The defendant in this particular case is an angel aside from the obstruction charges. He faces charges of assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, among others. So it’s clearly a witch hunt and lawfare against otherwise good guys
The defendant in this particular case is an angel aside from the obstruction charges. He faces charges of assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, among others. So it’s clearly a witch hunt and lawfare against otherwise good guys
I'd like to report a murder.
"Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?" conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch asked. "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?"
"Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?" conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch asked. "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?"
What idiotic questions. What a bunch of BS.
Um, Neil, none of those things is anything like the assault on our Capitol by the traitors who have been convicted.
Someone please explain how the incidents provided by the justices are connected to stopping an election and the peaceful turnover of power?
Pulling a false fire alarm is a danger all on it's own. And when done to stop a friggin' congressional vote, makes it a thousand times worse. And the fact that you don't call that person a treasonous piece of shit, makes every time you call a MAGA voter one, completely meaningless.
The law at question is "attempting to obstruct congressional business", which is exactly what those examples did...especially Bowman.
They may be idiotic questions, but Gorsuch is a Supreme Court Justice, and, well, you aren't. I'm guessing Gorsuch doesn't go searching for quotes from left wing journalists to make his points.
Everyone remember that time OP tried arguing that the word "cracker" is as offensive to white people as the n word is to black people?
He has the latitude to feign ignorance and compare apples to oranges to arrive at whatever outcome he desires.
I’m going to think on this one for a bit. I am trying to get over how according to the justices intent is universal. Get back to you after stewing on this.
Whoa buddy, you should probably edit to "c word"
That would be
wildly incorrect. Most of the J6 people were convicted on multiple charges, and the one at issue here is but one of them. At most, some of them may have their sentences reduced.
I think the common thread here is the attempted disruption of an official proceeding,.. Stew away.
it is certainly true that they are very different.
But the questions are actually analytically very relevant, and quite typical, to the argument. Recall that the defendants' basic argument is that the 'disruption of official proceeding" language in subparagraph (ii) should be read in light of the preceding subparagraph (i) to apply only to things like document requests, etc. It is the G that is saying, "no, the plain language of (ii) stands on its own" and can/should be interpreted broadly to encompass all sorts of disruptions and all sorts of official proceedings. The questions actually flow pretty naturally from that, and it is quite ordinary for the justices to test the logical implications/extensions of the parties' arguments. Indeed, I'd wager that this is about 80% of what goes on in any oral argument before the court.
Last edited:
I imagine a lot of these white trash MAGAt Conservative losers will off themselves when they try injecting the same amount of heroin they were using while being violently stupid cucks for Trump.
A peaceful sit in is like violently breaking into the capitol, beating up cops, and destroying everything you see? And here so thought that my opinion of the right wing justices couldn't get any lower.
They'll all have book deals with the same publishing company Rittenhouse used.
Still makes me mad
mad that no one believed him and his incredibly reasonable and valid point. That word is rooted in such hate, such violence. It's harms people to extents that some may never know.
Don't say c*****r
I’ve asked OP to give me his thoughts on Tyrese Maxey for many years now but he never replies.
I don’t think you understand the argument. Each is designed to obstruct an official proceeding. One used violence, yes. And those will have additional charges.
But think of it in the context of the arguments at the Supreme Court for the individual at topic.
Try not to go anal when you respond.
Great, so prosecute the representative that pulled the fire alarm. The amount of mental gymnastics some of you do to justify Jan 6th is outstanding. Tell us again how you're not going to vote for Trump....... again
Thoughts from my over imaginative brain. Stick with me and I'll tie it all together with a conspiracy thrown in.
I understand and agree about why the questions were posed. My reply is taking the questions at face value as to the judges making a case for how they want/will vote.(not as questions to test boundaries)
I think Clinton said it best, It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is. Now substitute "official" in place of "is". If the government charges the defendants with the garden variety charges and not "official" charges the case is completely different and probably doesn't go up the chain.
Now for the conspiracy- This is all a rouse to define or establish a baseline for "official" acts. Thus paving the way for the Court to rule all acts done by a president are official. {giant.smiling.gif}
@Rifler
