Columns, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Politics, Supreme Court

Insurrection-Lite: The Supreme Court Downsizes the “Insurrection” to Largely Trespassing

Below is my column in the Hill on the Supreme Court decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. to reject hundreds of charges in January 6th cases for the obstruction of legal proceedings. For many cases, that will leave relatively minor offenses like trespass or unlawful entry. It is only the latest blow to efforts to portray the riot as a massive conspiracy to overthrow the government. While portrayed by pundits and press in strictly ideological terms, it actually produced an interesting line up with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voting with the majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voting in dissent.

Here is the column:

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants. “Obstruction of an official proceeding” had been used in hundreds of cases, and those convictions are now invalid.

But the biggest impact of the decision may occur elsewhere.

For years, calling January 6 an “insurrection” has been a litmus test for press, pundits and politicians. Members of Congress such as Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) claimed a conspiracy of “armed and organized insurrectionists.” The claim is legally absurd but politically advantageous.

It now seems like the insurrection increasingly looks more like a legal case of mass trespass and unlawful entry.

I have always believed that criminal charges were warranted for the riot of Jan. 6, 2021. But this week’s decision shows how the Justice Department has wrongly prosecuted hundreds of people for the obstruction crime. It was all part of what Justice Department official Michael Sherwin proudly declared in a television interview, that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe…it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ …We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”

The Fischer opinion will bring an end to a minority of cases that were based entirely on the charge under 1512(c)(2). The section had been enacted after the Enron scandal in 2001 with the collapse of an energy company accused of corporate fraud. It was designed to allow criminal charges for the destruction of evidence in the form of documents and records.

The Justice Department chose to interpret that provision to broadly include any obstruction of any legal proceeding, and then used it in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases. At least a quarter of the prosecutions included this charge. Most also included other charges, including trespass and unlawful entry. A small number involved serious offenses like violence against officers and an even smaller number involved charges for “seditious conspiracy.”

For most cases, the decision may require resentencing. Others with pending charges will go to trial without an obstruction claim.

One of those is former President Donald Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith brought four charges in Washington, D.C.: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights. The Fischer ruling means that half of the indictment would be dropped. Smith could be compelled to seek a superseding indictment.

The loss of the obstruction counts seemed to rip the wings off the plane that Smith has been trying to get off the ground before November. It was the obstruction theory that held the indictment together — the notion that Trump was directing his followers to stop the certification from occurring by charging the Congress.

The court rejected this theory and noted that that the “novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.” Smith has been here before. He was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in his conviction of Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Notably, as with today, the court found his theory to be dangerously “boundless.”

Smith has made a trial before the election his highest priority. Judge Tanya Chutkan has been all-in on that effort with Smith, including accepting his obstruction interpretation. She may allow Smith to go forward on the two remaining counts, but that may depend on what occurs next when the Supreme Court issues its ruling on presidential immunity, including a possible remand to the trial court for further proceedings that could extend beyond the election.

The obstruction charges helped complete the insurrection narrative for many in the press and politics. I have long disagreed with that claim. As shown by polls, most citizens view January 6 as a protest that became a riot, not as an attempt to overthrow the government.

I was contributing to the coverage on January 6. I did not agree with then-President Trump’s claims to challenge the certification, and I criticized his speech while he was still giving it. But that speech was entirely protected, in my view, under the First Amendment. Importantly, it included a call to his supporters to remain peaceful.

The insurrection myth was used previously in court as Democratic secretaries of state sought to bar Trump from ballots under a meritless constitutional claim that was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court.

Now the remaining charges are largely for trespass and unlawful entry into the Capitol. Yet, the myth will continue as a mantra in the media that this was an attempt to overthrow the government.

The disconnect is not simply with the cases. Biden continues to claim that “democracy is on the ballot,” and many have claimed that this will be our last election if Trump wins. This hyperbolic claim ignores the many safeguards in our constitutional system, the very safeguards that led to the certification of Biden’s victory in 2020.

The greatest problem is that Biden’s line about democracy is not resonating with the public, despite the virtual echo chamber in the media. According to a new poll of swing-state voters from the Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, over half of respondents view Biden as a threat to democracy and not its savior. Forty-four percent said that Trump would do a better job at protecting democracy compared to just 33 percent who believe Biden would be better for democracy.

Part of the problem is the array of court decisions finding that Biden has repeatedly violated the Constitution, including engaging in racial discrimination and attempting to rule by circumventing Congress.

Biden has also become the most anti-free speech president since John Adams, including the establishment of a massive censorship system described by one court as “Orwellian.” As I discuss in my new book, the Biden administration has brought together an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate and academic interests to target and silence those with opposing views.

These, combined with the weaponization of the legal system and his party’s efforts at ballot cleansing, hardly make Biden look like the defender of democracy to many citizens.

For those who have been found guilty under these unlawful charges, it is a bit late to convert the Justice Department’s “shock and awe” into a mere “aw shucks.” It can also seem just awful for many citizens who see the political rage of Jan. 6 replaced by a type of state rage. As a result, Fischer suggests for many that democracy may be on the ballot, but the threat is not exactly what the press and the pundits have suggested.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

263 thoughts on “Insurrection-Lite: The Supreme Court Downsizes the “Insurrection” to Largely Trespassing”

  2. The lawfare folks have this whole ‘election interference’ thing worked out. Once SCOTUS remands the case back to Chutkan for further proceedings to determine if immunity applies, she holds an extensive evidentiary hearing or mini trial, before the election dontchaknow. Although only to determine whether immunity applies, Chutkan can let everything in, and we get the melodrama of a trial before the election. She might even demand his presence to get him off the campaign trial, and gag him to shut him up.

    1. The Lawfareists are nothing but criminals. They go way back to Enron.
      But recently–we have Alex Jones, disbarring brilliant conservative lawyers, etc.

  3. I am reminded that all charges had already been dropped against all defendants who rioted, burned, and vandalized downtown DC on Trump’s inauguration day.
    “‘This is huge news,’ said Dylan Petrohilos, a Washington-based activist who was one of the original defendants, but had his charges dropped earlier this year. ‘The solidarity we showed as defendants won out.'”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/government-drops-charges-against-all-inauguration-protesters-n889531

  4. AG Garland at the direction of the Democratic National Communists (DNC), has embarked on a scored earth persecution campaign against anyone associated with or strongly supporting DJT. His 1512 obvious overreach and selective enforcement (Bowman Fire Alarm escapade), is just one example of the “protecting democracy” operations of the DOJ and its surrogates. When viewed in its totality (Clinton, CIA/FBI domestic spying, Hunter, Bannon, Stone, Bowman, BLM, ANTIFA, etc…..), the picture is clear to anyone except DNC ideologies, that the actual and real “threat to Democracy” is the current Regime not anyone else.

  5. As with so many other historical events whose circumstances were under shadow of doubt at the time of their occurence, January 6th will be left to the curiousity, investigation, and setting down by a future historian. Those who were actually there, in whatever capacity, and those who witnessed same will have all gone to dust. There will be no accountability. Will the future have learned anything from the past? No more or less than the present has

  6. Joe RBG Biden is just another example of hubris biting liberals on the backside. He (like RBG) stayed too long, he (like RBG) is making a mockery of the “adoration” of him and liberals will never speak of him again. When was the last time you heard some progressive moron cite RBG as one of the greats? Prior to her death there were documentaries, little dolls, clothing lines and a hagiography that bordered on insane and now she is like a Soviet leader after passing…invisible. This will be Joe Biden because they want to blame the coming loss on the man and not on the policies.

  7. Mike Davis. @mrddmia

    “The Biden Justice Department illegally and maliciously contorted, politicized, and weaponized a post-Enron obstruction-of-justice statute to cruelly drop the hammer on Biden’s political enemies.

    Real Americans in Real America who dared to question–and protest–the rigged and corrupt 2020 election.

    January 6th was a lawful protest, permitted by the National Park Service, that devolved into a riot.

    There are 3 categories of protesters, including those who:

    1. Follow the rules, even if you think their positions are wrong or even crazy = protected.

    2. Trespass = charge with trespass.

    3. Violent = treat most severely.

    But we can’t have different rules, based upon political views.

    The Biden DOJ has charged no one with “insurrection”–because the evidence does not exist. How many “insurrectionists” go unarmed into a nation’s capitol, get to the senate floor, walk through velvet ropes, follow police direction, and don’t burn down the damn place?

    The Biden DOJ destroyed the lives of hundreds of Americans and their families who supported Biden’s political enemy, with these malicious prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1512.

    All while the Biden DOJ gives amnesty to Biden’s allies–like BLM, antifa, Hamas, Planned Parenthood and other abortion-industry activists, and trans terrorists.

    I served as the Senate staff leader for the Kavanaugh confirmation, when abortion-industry paid activists and other radicals trespassed, disrupted proceedings, threatened senators and their staffs, and attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power on the Supreme Court. Not a damn thing happened to them.

    The Supreme Court, including even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, drove a stake through the heart of the Biden DOJ’s political persecutions with its Fischer decision.

    (Shame on Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a rattled law professor with her head up her ass, for her appalling dissent.)

    Now the Biden DOJ is spinning to minimize the damage it has done–and as
    @julie_kelly2
    reported months ago, even plotting to do an end-run around the Court’s ruling by stacking misdemeanor sentences against Trump’s January 6th supporters.

    Most shockingly, the Biden DOJ states “only 27″ are still sitting in federal prison right now following their bogus, political 1512 convictions.

    These 27 are political prisoners–and the courts must free them immediately.

    Starting on January 20, the Biden White House, DOJ, and outside allies who concocted and perpetuated these 1512 political persecutions must face severe legal, political, and financial consequences for their malicious prosecution of Trump and his allies.”

    https://justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/fact-sheet-fischer-v-united-states

  8. Been a bad week for leftist Democrats.
    Another of their narratives failing.

  9. What about the mobs that invaded and tried to stop the Kavanaugh hearing? We all remember the mobs actually going after weak AZ senator Jeff Flake IN THE SENATE ELEVATOR!!! Were they charged? Were they even hit with trespass charges let alone 15(c)(2) charges? If not…why not?

  10. Let’s hope President Trump will be re-elected and appoint an AG who will make the likes of Swalwell and Schiff live by their party’s own rules? Does this correction in charges mean the unarmed white woman “trespassing” was murdered and her killer will face the appropriate charges?

    1. Margot Ballhere said: “Let’s hope President Trump will be re-elected and appoint an AG who will make the likes of Swalwell and Schiff live by their party’s own rules?”

      My preference for AG (which I doubt will be realized) would be Ken Paxton. His appointment would make DC a truly interesting place to observe for the next 4 years…

  11. The radical left wing activist movement took a direct hit when the President of the United Ststes was unmasked as the incompetent dolt he is. Tens of millions of people cannot un see what occurred during the debate. Then comes a series of rulings that reveal the corruption of this administration.

    There are two wars raging, our enemies are circling, our Southern border is a disaster, military recruitment has fallen sharply and the Commander in Chief with access to the nuclear arsenal doesn’t know what day it is, rarely shows up for work and his official schedule is largely empty.

    Meanwhile, a power thirsty First Lady and radical stakeholders keeps the charade in motion as long as they can. The Biden’s have run out of slack. He will very likely not be on the upcoming ticket.

    One can sense the panic.

  12. I would also wonder if mass tresspass and unlawful entry is grounds to shoot and kill an unarmed demonstrator climbing thru an already broken entry way or window. If I were to do that in my own house I would likely be prosecuted. Especially if they are weaponless and not directly threatening me.
    Of course the feds could still use the SOUTHPARK defence. When the kids would go out with friends into the hinterlands outside of hunting season the friends would shoot a deer while exclaiming “Oh my god it’s coming straight at us. BANG”.
    I think Ashli Babbitt’s assassination merits a relook.
    Of Course Jack Smith was a perfect fit for his present billet. It’s to get him another try since he failed so badly against the Virginia Governor.
    He has practiced at the International Kangeroo Court where there are political overtones to almost any action whether they are war crimes or not or whether they have jurisdiction or not. Alas the ICC has turned into the political football that the United States, Israel and others thought it would be. No wonder that the Europeans love it so. As do George Clooney and his not so unbiased wife.
    Jack has forgotten about the review process and the fact that our written law does indeed have teeth and protections, slow though the may be.
    Would it not be nice, if the Supreme Court overturned your conviction by at least 7-2 or better, you get all your attorneys fees paid by the state or the feds who prosecuted you.

    1. Agree. Ashli was unarmed and the police officer shooter should have been charged. All the other police officers, even those who were actually being assaulted, never fired a shot. Something is very wrong.

    3. Babbitt was a traitor who deserved to die. It is too bad she was the only one.

    4. Yes, Ashli Babbitt’s death DOES deserve another look–WHY was she there? She was shot trying to proceed through a broken window of the last barrier to the Speaker’s Lobby. WHO lied to her that a “landslide victory” was “stolen” and that she, among others, should “fight like hell” or they weren’t going to have a country any more? WHAT was she planning to do after she and the others got to the floor of the House? If she wanted to protest, that could be done without assaulting police officers, smashing windows and doors and breaking into the Capitol. WHY did she proceed to enter a broken window with police officers pointing guns at her? Was she lawfully present at the door to the Speaker’s Lobby?

      Babbitt is dead because of Trump and his LIES–pure and simple. Trump and MAGA media have the temerity to try to blame a killing committed by a migrant on Joe Biden when Trump is directly responsible for the death of Ashli Babbitt due to his Big Lie. Trump actually pandered to the family of the woman killed by the migrant–has he ever contacted the Babbitt family? Has he ever accepted responsibility for her death? He can’t do that because to do so would be admitting he lied–something his mental illness prevents. He can never be wrong. The Big Lie must be true–even though it isn’t. How can people like you and suzy 1951 be so willingly blind to reality? Was the Capitol Police Officer just supposed to let her and others get onto the floor of the House and attack members of Congress?

    1. Steve Bannon: “I’m a political prisoner of Nancy Pelosi and Merrick Garland. If it took me going to prison to finally get the House to start to move, to start to delegitimize the illegitimate J6 committee, then hey, guess what? My going to prison is worth it.”

      1. Anonymous8:22AM
        Steve could have gone to congress and sat there and said “I do not recall”. Or plead the 5th.
        It worked for Hillary

        1. Bannon relied on advice of his lawyer.
          Hunter Biden was a no show. He staged a press conference in the parking lot instead.
          Has he been prosecuted for contempt of Congress?
          How about Merrick Garland?
          How about all those who lied under oath? Any prosecutions? Cassidy Hutchinson? Harry Dunn?

    2. A misdemeanor. The Biden DOJ is sending Steve Bannon to prison for a MISDEMEANOR.

      Then on July 11, the corrupt Marxist commie POS “judge” Merchan will try to put Trump in prison for a trumped up bookkeeping error.

      Wake up GOP.

      1. A bookkeeping “error” my ass.

        JOE BIDEN IS THE F’N CRIMINAL. WAKE UP AMERICA.

  15. The Tresspassing charges should go to. The US Capitol is the pre-eminent place in the world for public protest, petitioning government and free speech.

    If congressmen and staff were allowed in on Jan. 6 then the public should have been.

    The government can not abuse a fading pandemic as an excuse to isolate itself from protests

    Micheal Sherwin’s rearks about his actions are a clear statement of intent to abuse power.

    Using government power to send a message telling protestors never to dare show their face in Washington again is a massive abuse of power.

    Those involved in J6 should be treated EXACTLY like all other political protestors at the capitol EVER.

    Those who ACTUALLY engaged in violence should be convicted and sentenced with ATTENUATED sentences as violence at political protest is NEVER treated as seriously as other violence.

    The Kavanaugh protests were MORE violent and resulted in far less prosecutions and far less sentences for those convicted – that is appropriate and should have been the model for J6

    The obstruction of an official proceeding nonsense should have been dismissed 9-0.

    WE do not ever want what Sherwin was doing – We do not want government abusing the law to send a political message and to silence opposition.

    ALL Political protest is an effort to obstruct government. That is the purpose of political protests – to get government to act differently than it is intending.

    That is the most protected right in the first amendment.

    While many of us RIGHTLY understand the 2020 election to have been stolen and the governments absolute refusal to scrutinize the allegations of misconduct as itself an abuse of power and a violation of our rights, the legitimacy of the beliefs of protesters is NOT sufficient to deny them their first amendment rights. The Claims against Kavanagh were absurd – yet those protestors stormed the capital, and ACTUALLY harrassed senators with little to no consequences.

    The crime was NOT the protests at the Capitol on J6 – but the conduct of the government – those like Sherwin AFTER.

    The Supreme court did not come CLOSE to sending a strong enough message here.

    And Justice Barrett should be ashamed for upholding this 18us1512c nonsense.

    While 18 US 1512(c) is constitutionally overbroad and vague on its face and that allone should result in the 1512(c) provision of the law being declared unconstitutional,
    As applied it violates the first amendment rights of protestors. And ultimately of all of us.

  16. Hold your horses. SCOTUS decided the obstruction clause only applies with the corruption of evidence, but that is what Trump is accused of doing – causing false elector certifications to be presented to Congress. The capitol trespassers may get some charges dismissed, but that doesn’t apply to Trump.

      1. Jack Smith is just his stage name. He’s actually Jack Inhoff.

        Democrats can lawyer up and challenge an election, but Republicans can’t. Democrats can even riot and burn down public buildings and get cheered on–and funded–by Democrat leaders. That’s how Jack likes it. Jack will murder people in prison to make that the new normal.

        Donald Trump is a fighter, and that’s why people support him more than ever. He doesn’t cow under Democrat double standards.

    2. I agree. And to eliminate any doubt Roberts’ opinion confirms that the “creation” of a false document is covered. Jackson’s concurrence also suggests that the charges against Trump are not necessarily being invalidated. To the extent the two charges relate to allegations limited to the “corrupt” submission of false documents to influence the vote count, as in the “alternative electors” plan, they are not wiped out by the decision. That does not mean they will be proven, but it does mean they can be charged.

      1. Again, stretching the meaning of the law.

        Jack Smith

        Lets see, i can make that fit. I just have to frame it properly.

        What “official proceeding” did The Enron case obstruct?

        “We dont need to use the legal definition of “evidence”. We have a dictionary full of definitions to work from”——Jack Smith/Daniel

        Riiiiight

      2. All you just said is that Trumps motion based on this ruling will also have to go all the way to Scotus.

      3. Daniel – So everyone who creates a “false document” is subject to imprisonment? If you send someone a letter asserting that they owe you $350.00, and it is later determined by a court that you are owed only $349.00, you are subject to imprisonment? Almost everything we say or write can be interpreted as “false” in some way by someone. The world you are trying to create would be tentamount to a lunatic asylum.

    3. Andrew the “fake elector” claim in NONSENSE. Preparing alternate slates of electors is LITERALLY the constitutionally accepted method of challenging an election before Congress.

      Please learn something about actual US history and constitution.

      Also learn a bit of logic.

      Trump is not the first person to reject the results of an election. He is not the first to challenge an election. Had he succeeded in getting congress to overturn the results of the election he would NOT be the first person to have done so. Nor would it have been the first time that Congress selected an alternate slate of electors over the set Certified by the Secretary of state.

      Regardless, the worst part of the 2020 election is the undermining of all the protections against election fraud.

      You can bury your head in the sand and beleive there was no fraud in 2020, but are you stupid enough to beleive there has NEVER been election fraud in the US ?

      Election fraud is not prevented by magic. It is prevented by rigorously following election laws, by extensive scrutiny of the election before and after the fact, and by transparency.

      All of which are deeply lacking in 2020.

      I expect much of the same fraud in 2024 – the differences is that Trump is winning the popular vote and Fraud on the scale needed to flip the outcome of the election with current polling would be an order of magnitude larger than in 2020 and not possible without brazenly coming to the attention of the public.

      Regardless, if you want free and fair elections you MUST

      Follow the election law – whatever it is rigorously. Change the law (carefully) if you do not like it.
      Reject all unlawfully cast ballots – even when they favor your desired outcome.
      Subject the election to end to end total transparency.
      Hold substantive hearings on all challenges and be prepared to throw out results entirely where the law was not rigourously followed.

      In Germany in 2020 the Mayors election was thrown out entirely by a Pro administration judge because several precincts had problems that prevented all people waiting to vote from voting before the close of the election. No one argued fraud. A close election was redone and the results changed.

      If as few as 10% of people beleive that there was enough election fraud to flip the results – you have a problem.

      People can be unhappy with the results, thy can beleive that voters were lied to and deceived.

      But if they beleive that one side ACTUALLY Cheated to win – then the resulting govenrment is not legitimate – it does not have the trust of the voters.

      We wasted more than two years looking into obviously bogus claims of russian collusion in 2016 – because those of you on the left were stupid enough to beleive that Putin wanted Trump rather than Clinton and that Russians used magic to compell people to vote differently than they would have.

      While the that investigation was conducted improperly and unlawfully – SOME investiation had to b done.
      Not because the claims were credibly – but because so many falsely beleived them.
      The legitimacy of govenrment rests on the trust of the people.

      There are many reasons that Biden is losing to Trump. There are many reasons he has a complete failure as a president.
      High among those is that he did NOT earn the trust and legitimacy that winning a trusted election bring.

      Those of us not on the left can jeer at the lunacy of those who beleived – many still beleiving that Putin magically elected Trump in 2016.
      But you were entitled to the scrutiny that your claims received. Not because the claims were credibly – but because trust in elections is the cornerstone of legitimacy in government.

      Those disbeliving the results of 2020 were entitled to the same if not MORE scrutiny of the election. It is not sufficient that YOU do not believe the claims of fraud.

      What Trump supporters saw in late 2020 and beyond was a concerted effort by the media, the left, democrats and the courts to go out of their way to PREVENT scrutiny of the election.

      In the very very few instances in which there was real scrutiny – nearly all in 2021 or even later – we are STILL learning of evidence of problems ever now in 2024.
      Lots of problems were unearthed. The AZ audit was unable to prove fraud – and it did alot to dispell claims that DVS equipment miscounted the ballots, at the same time it found that nearly 50% of the ballots did not meet the AZ laws standards. They either had chain of custody or other problems. That is not a failure of voters – that is a failure of those conducting the election.

      Elections are NOT ll that hard to conduct such that people will have high degrees of trust in the results.

      The secret ballot requirements that 38 states have in their constitutions are a start.
      These were established after the massive fraud of the late 19th century in the US.
      And they were violated willy nilly in 2020. State supreme courts ignored multiple provisions of their own state constitutions to conduct elections that were with certainty not going to be trusted

      You do not seem to grasp that the purpose of an election is to create legitimacy in those that are given power by the election.

      You must not merely win, but you must do so scrupulously honestly. If you can not win an election honestly – you can not govern legitimately.

      A recent Rassmussen poll as really damning.

      about 7% of americans beleive that it is acceptable to cheat to win an election.

      BUT of those people who have advanced degrees from ivy league schools and incomes over 150,000 a year – the elite in this country
      63% beleive it is OK to cheat to win an election.

      And that is why
      most americans do not trust the elites.

      1. John Say, the corrupt creation of a false document to influence an official proceeding is clearly covered under the Court’s ruling. So the questions are whether the creation was “corrupt,” whether the document was false and whether it was intended to influence an “official proceeding.” These largely relate to factual not legal matters, though there are legal questions relating to the meaning of “corruptly” and “official proceeding.” It is virtually certain, however, that the charge cannot be simply dismissed because of Fischer. I also doubt that any appeal can be heard before trial.

  17. Arrest Merrick Garland.
    This is a hostile government politically targeting citizens who hold unacceptable views.
    Biden’s politicized, lawless, gangster government, working hand in glove with the corrupt DC Courts, is maliciously prosecuting and unjustly imprisoning its political enemies while giving free pass to its political allies (left wing violent protestors).
    The House must vote to send the Sgt. at Arms to arrest Merrick Garland.
    Garland is in contempt of Congress. Do not let him get away with it. No one is above the law.
    Now is the time for the GOP House to take bold, decisive action.
    These selective political persecutions are meant to chill protests that WILL come with an uprising from more than half the country if Democrats try to steal another election to install their preferred puppet.
    J6 was a setup, an inside job.
    Pelosi, you lying, evil thug. You and your malicious, lawless J6 committee will be investigated & prosecuted — we the people are coming for you. The citizens of this country will not go silently into the night.

  19. After ruining the lives of hundreds of people. I hope they sue the pants off the government. I would rather have my tax dollars go to their restitutions than half of the worthless and draconian government agencies my dollars go to now.

    1. scpatriot1956 said: “I would rather have my tax dollars go to their restitutions than half of the worthless and draconian government agencies my dollars go to now.”

      Agree wth this, with slight exception to your apparent vast overestimate of the number of government agencies that return any value.

  20. What took so long??!! So many people have been in PRISON for YEARS on totally bogus charges. Good people, fed up with government overreach, peacefully protesting, were arrested while Antifa and BLM actual rioters, looters and arsonists are totally ignored. This double-standard of justice is what we are protesting. It has to stop.

    2. PETER R CRAW said: “Good people, fed up with government overreach, peacefully protesting, were arrested while Antifa and BLM actual rioters, looters and arsonists are totally ignored.”

      You neglected to mention the person who was deliberately murdered while climbing through a transom window already broken by someone else. The cowardly cop perpetrator of that act has gone scot-free. We need for justice to be visited on his head, as well as on the heads of his many, many government accomplices in that act.

Comments are closed.