A Huge Number of Biden’s Jan 6 Prosecutions Could Fall Apart THIS MONTH, Here’s Why…

The United States Supreme Court is set to decide Fisher v. United States, a case in which January 6 Capitol riot defendant Joseph W. Fisher is challenging a federal felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding. Justices heard oral arguments in the case in mid-April, and are likely to rule by the end of June.

This provision is what Biden’s DOJ used to file enhanced felony charges against the January 6 defendants and former President Trump after congressional proceedings were delayed for a few hours on January 6, 2021.

April’s oral arguments saw the Supreme Court‘s six originalist justices probe the Biden government over the broad application of Sarbanes-Oxley’s obstruction provision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged the DOJ on why the obstruction charges were needed, pointing out that Fisher faced six other charges for his actions on January 6, 2021.

While Justice Clarence Thomas inquired if the Sarbanes-Oxley provision had ever been used in a case prior to the January 6 trials to prosecute “violent protesters.”

Even Justice Elena Kagan — one of the court’s more liberal members — appeared to agree with Thomas, noting the intent of Sarbanes-Oxley was to address financial crimes, not protests at the Capitol, which caused a short-term nuisance.

In his questioning, Gorsuch made specific references to several recent incidents, one where a Gold Star father was arrested for shouting at President Joe Biden from the House gallery during the recent State of the Union Address. The other regarded Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who pulled a fire alarm while the House of Representatives voted on a government funding bill in September last year.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” the Justice asked before probing further: “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?”

If the Justices rule against using Sarbanes-Oxley in the Jan 6 prosecutions, it would also invalidate two of the four felony charges brought by DOJ special counsel Jack Smith in the Washington, D.C.-based prosecution of former President Trump.

LINK