The Deep State uses the DOJ to destroy the political opponents of Biden and the Democrats. All while the useless Republicans, for the most part, stand still and do nothing. This only encourages the Marxist cabal in charge to do more.
U.S. Representative Victoria Spartz (R-IN) recently raised concerns with Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding the Department of Justice’s application of a little-known statute to impose felony charges on January 6 protesters. These charges are more severe compared to what would typically be misdemeanor trespassing offenses.
This week, Rep. Spartz questioned AG Garland about a very concerning ATF rule redefining “Engaged in the Business” as a firearms dealer & use of Sec.1512 (c)(3) Sarbanes-Oxley, Enron related, legislation by @TheJusticeDept against Jan 6 defenders, currently reviewed by SCOTUS. pic.twitter.com/Yj2w9ZUMeR
— Rep. Victoria Spartz (@RepSpartz) June 5, 2024
The legal dispute at the center of this controversy is Fischer v. United States, which the Supreme Court agreed to review in January. The case challenges the use of 18 USC Section 1512(c)(2) against hundreds of protesters who were present at the Capitol on January 6. This law, which concerns obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, can result in a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Many individuals charged under this statute have received substantial prison sentences, whereas they might have only faced misdemeanor charges under different circumstances.
This particular application of the law was originally designed to address corporate fraud, notably during the Enron scandal, and involves tampering with a witness, victim, or informant. Critics, including Spartz, argue that its use in the context of the January 6 events represents a significant legal stretch. During a session, Spartz questioned Garland about the appropriateness of applying this statute to the protesters, emphasizing its original intent and how its current use impacts lives.
"Um" — get a load of the look on Merrick Garland's face as Rep. Victoria Spartz serves up an inscrutable word salad about owning unlimited guns (?) pic.twitter.com/aoyAkFP3yi
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 4, 2024
Garland responded that the Department of Justice intends to adhere to the Supreme Court’s ruling, regardless of the outcome, though he acknowledged the uncertainty of what that decision might entail. Spartz criticized the department’s approach as ambiguous and harmful.
Further complicating matters, it has been reported that some judges and federal prosecutors in D.C. are prepared to disregard the Supreme Court’s anticipated decision on the matter. They have expressed readiness to continue imposing severe penalties for misdemeanor charges if the felony statute is struck down.
GOP Rep. Spartz: If the January 6 insurrectionists wanted to do an insurrection they would have succeeded.
They were expressing themselves peacefully.
It is un-American to call them insurrectionists, they are good Americans.
pic.twitter.com/C4vaiXt0En— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) May 25, 2024
Beyond legal discussions, the case highlights broader concerns about disparities in how the Department of Justice has treated different groups of protesters. While January 6 protesters have faced aggressive law enforcement tactics, including FBI raids and pre-trial detentions, participants in the 2020 BLM and Antifa protests in Washington D.C., some of which turned violent, have seen markedly different responses. Notably, no charges were brought against those who breached security perimeters at the White House in June 2020, forcing then-President Donald Trump into a secure bunker. The justice system is now tainted in the United States, and the world no longer looks at our nation in the same was as just a few years ago. They see the political justice of Marxism taking root, and it is the Democrats and Deep State doing all of the Republic ending actions. They think they can get away with it, but justice will come.
Major Points
- U.S. Representative Victoria Spartz (R-IN) questioned Attorney General Merrick Garland on the DOJ’s application of a rarely used statute to levy felony charges against January 6 protesters, which would typically warrant only misdemeanor charges.
- The controversy centers on the Supreme Court case Fischer v. United States, which reviews the use of 18 USC Section 1512(c)(2) for charging hundreds of protesters with felonies for obstructing official proceedings, a statute originally intended for financial crimes like those seen in the Enron scandal.
- Garland stated that the DOJ would follow the Supreme Court’s ruling on the statute, though Spartz criticized the current application as ambiguous and damaging.
- Reports indicate some D.C. judges and federal prosecutors might ignore the Supreme Court’s decision, potentially continuing to impose severe penalties under misdemeanor charges.
- The case highlights discrepancies in the DOJ’s treatment of different protest groups, contrasting the aggressive prosecution of January 6 protesters with the more lenient approach towards participants in the 2020 BLM and Antifa protests.
Al Santana – Reprinted with permission of Whatfinger News
