LIVE: Supreme Court hears arguments on DOJ's use of a law charging Jan. 6 riot cases
2024 ж. 15 Сәу.
65 840 Рет қаралды
AP is live with oral arguments from the Supreme Court in a case challenging the DOJ's use of a law charging Jan. 6 rioters with obstructing an official proceeding, a case that could impact prosecutions against hundreds of defendants, including Donald Trump.
#supremecourt #trump #jan6 #news #live
Turns out the Supreme Court is saving democracy.
Audio starts at 8:45
Thanks, for the start time stamp! Grateful for your thoughtfulness :)
You need a raise!!
wish I saw this 8:45 seconds ago
You are a real American hero. Thank you for your service.
Best post
These liberal lady judges are so biased it’s mind blowing.
If a law is going to be used as a catch-all. Then the users of the law should use it to catch all. Or else it's just selective prosecution.
The people who selected their behavior chose to attack our capitol to interfere with a legitimate government function. if SCOTUS lets that be a legitimate thing, get ready for protestors to overrun every right-wing government in the country. They don't seem to understand that the left vastly outnumbers the right but we can teach y'all that, again.
Could the government's attorney have talked any faster??
.75x speed really helps😂
@@fearsomefan1 🤣🤣🤣
We are seeing the Government the Founders earned us about
Yes-Peter naverrep-
The female DOJ attorney’s voice sounds like a chipmunk on speed
Sounds like AOC’s sister. A 12 year old
As if these ppl were going to find and alter the ….what? Impede the counting for an hour or two?
It doesn't matter if it was for 2 minutes. Obstruction is obstruction
They could’ve destroyed the electoral votes that were in the box that they carried out of the room when they had to go into lockdown
@@HOHLfmly sure buddy. Give em 20 years!!
I like how they refer to the Solictor General's counsel as 'General'.
Pulling a fire alarm applies! Lock him up!
It would apply, but your reference was in a different building. The media didn't cover that.
Jamaal Bowman?...yep!
Maga is desperate @@4greendeep6
@@chrisharrison7953 As Alito pointed out.. the law should apply to that DEM Rep too.
@@chrisharrison7953It wouldn't matter if Bowman was in a different state, Bowman took a deliberate action to stop official proceedings. The location argument is moot.
According to the 3 Lib Justices a long, loud, wet belch would be a 20 year sentence?
How many Jan6 defendants had this charge? How many FBI and CI people had paramilitary equipment?
Let them camp but zero tolerance for drug use. Drugs=jail. Then we can see what the real issue is. It's not camping. No drugs, no campers.
6-3 petitioner.
Does this require a lawyer or rather an English language expert to deconstruct the meaning of words and their usage as pertains to the statute in question? Just curious coz the entire argument seems to hinge on the meaning of the word “otherwise” as represented in the statute. Am slightly confused
Whenever I don’t understand a word I look at the context it’s used in and a synonym to fill its place; to infer what that unheard of word might mean. It’s a practice I use for all languages, it just requires a basic understanding of the language being used. Hopes this helped.
I think he meant the word "otherwise" was the law they were trying to use to convict. Not that he was saying he was confused about the term it was being used in. Theirs a slight pun in his statement if you look close enough.
Judges finding loopholes with its legal jargon, horrible!
Prosecutor attempts to find loosely worded laws to increase charges against political opponents.
That’s the entire point for the existence of the SC
Looks like you are legal expert, please tell us more.
the statute only applies to someone who “corruptly” obstructs a proceeding, applies to defendants who acted “with an intent to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person”
Sounds like it’s talking about trump.
We all know what happened and what didn’t.
This is all nice and all but unfortunately they left out the part where the individuals who were intentionally planted in the crowd helped facilitate the actions that occurred. How convenient
They’re not gonna being silly conspiracy theories into this.
So they did what ever they did because some one told them ? They are still breaking the law.
seek help.... you've been misinformed and manipulated
@@koridredd about what?
A clear misuse of the purpose of this law.
How did you feel about vandalism to a federal building during the summer of 2020. I remember Republicans thought any participant should serve at least 10 years in prison. Right, isn't that what Trump said during the pandemic after losing 720,000 jobs?
@@hokekeller14 you’re right, James bowman should should get 20 years in prison for pulling the fire alarm. And Newsom should have opened back up after two weeks.
Vandalism is vandalism. I think you missed the point that the previous commentor made regarding the use of a law tailored to prosecute corporate fraud, in light of the Enron scandal.@hokekeller14
U mean it's a misuse on people that only look like you
@@fredisaacs9350 exactly like that if it were true.
This law would be appropriately charged if they were trying to swap the documents during the chaos used by the Vice President, not physically obstructing. Violent acts should fall under a different premise and if there isn't one, then one should be created. No law should be a catch all.
The charges are dogshite using a flawed prosecution. Charge actual violence in line with crime, otherwise. Nada
A jury of his peers found enough evidence to charge him. That is how things work.
@@Scott-McClaren not when the jury, judges, and DA are all democrats and the plaintiff is a republican. Look at Ray Epps as an example.
Using "peers" without irony, I'm sure.
@@Scott-McClarenthe judge shouldn’t have allowed the charges to proceed. And DC is not a jury of peers. It’s a jury of the far left activist class.
@@Scott-McClaren A jury, in a Democrat ran strong hold that voted over 95% democrat.. is not "a jury of your peers".
Im so fed up with these "supreme" court "justices"
Why?
You hate justice when it doesn't follow your one-sided political agenda.
Remember that next time you’re looking @ 20 yrs for attending a protest
@@Shineon83It wasn’t a protest - it was an insurrection. The protest happened BEFORE the violent insurrection. Or didn’t you see the videos.
@user-be6kc4jt4t how many arrested for insurrection. Number is the same today as 3 years ago. Zero dipstick. Zero.
20 year sentencing should not be overly broad. Evidence object of evidence all pertain to elements that courts or proceedings use to further a proceeding not merely delay such.
It is a maximum. There is NO suggestion from the Government that it is a mandatory sentence of 20 years.
You think the feds are going to listen to you? Not a chance after this
SC. South Carolina? Or SCOTUS?
13:rosenstein free, holder- free, Ben Rhodes- free, podesta brothers -free
For example an individual using the phrase " release the Kraken" would be guilty of obstruction
Complexion for the PROTECTION? … NO ONE IS ABOVE THE ⚖️ LAW!
In what fantasy world?
Hillary is so is Biden
Only in your bubble.
Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden say hi.
Unless you enter America illegally.
6-3
Who's the lawyer here and who is he fighting for? Is it defendants that are locked up or Trump?
A Jan 6th protestor.
I just don't buy into theory that those who entered unopposed into Capitol had the INTENT to stop the proceeding. Or knew they were breaking the specific law now accused of
Who entered unopposed? That makes zero sense here. Are you saying those who just walked right on in without pushing doors open and have anyone there to stop them visited that day without the intent of stopping the proceedings? Were they there to walk around with some not able to find the bathrooms so they just went where they stood or on the walls and statues? Why were they there when it was closed that day to all unauthorized personnel?
@@kitcarsoncarson615 LOL 😆 WOW! That response is so........ well, I'll be polite: interesting!
@@UKtoUSABrit The fact that you believe people entered unopposed that day is a real shocker. If anyone entered unopposed they did it with a uniform on and the police were so overwhelmed they didn't notice. If you don't know that it's wrong to push your way or even just walk right in a building that has no unauthorized personnel written on the door by the time you're 9 yrs old then I guess your beliefs above are about what I'd expect. I guess you didn't read or hear about those going into the Capitol that day who did use the floors and walls as a bathroom. I also don't know why people like you always say I'll be polite, when you aren't. That's not polite, it's demeaning, but I don't expect much from people anymore. Why else do you think they were there? Be realistic!
@@kitcarsoncarson615 police let them in the doors. Nancy Pelosi told them to stand down. You are missing so many relevant facts.
And funny…. I don’t remember trump being there but I do remember him specifically telling people to go home and if they go to the capital to be peaceful. Funny how this never ever come up…hmmmmm….amazing…..but trump must have supernatural powers the govt doesn’t even have…lol
He was forced to say that and had multiple outtakes
What an out of touch and corrupt MAGA majority on that bench. Half the time the progressive judges are just as out of touch. WHat Chief Justice Roberts doesn't seem to appreciate is how much dmage he is allowing to occur to the brand and reputation fo the SCOTUS. If things don't change then eventually public pressure will influence Congress at the ballot box and changes will subsequently be made to rules and (possibly) the constitution) to bring to the SCOTUS, possibly including term limits or an increased sized bench amongst other things.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This SCOTUS is savings democracy. They follow the law not people's feelings.
Plainly, it was set up. Who opened the 9ft 9 in thick doors? This is disgusting.
that solicitor woman has such a terrible voice its like broken glass on a chalkboard as a cat dies
I dont like the cat reference. Not funny.
?
Leave it to Republicans to attack someone for something they can’t control.
You must be talking about Amy Coney Barrett.
Supreme Court: "Is it lawful if a Republican obstructs a lawful proceeding?....yes, of course."
Prosecutors" "it's only illegal if they are Republicans" Cuts both ways.
Where is the obstruction of a lawful proceeding?
You think they're going to listen to you which is the cutest part
peter navarro is in prison for a misdemeanor
This had better change and fast. If the higher courts are not going to be fair there will be at some point a rebellion because this is a one-sided party government. That means only one thing . All of you officials are being bribed and accepting the bribes and it had better stop.
What about C-3PO? He could figure this out in five minutes bro😂
So her example of 5 protestors would be minimal. How can she say that 5 is minimal but 1 is not, unless they charge with conspiracy, every individual act is minimal.
I think any new statues created should have a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court before being implemented. That way we don’t have all this bullmarlarky.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should just throw out ambiguous language created by Congress if it’s that hard to come to a consensus. Let’s try to eliminate these laws that nobody can understand without a battery of lawyers being dumbfounded by the English language.
Sotomayor sounds like she either is losing it or she never had it to start with....
Happy Thomas is back - he can provide his insightful billionaire positions
🤣 Yet 🤬😭😤
Cry more
Oh please, dems have given money to other Liberal justices too.
@@jon1rene why do you think I'm sad about it? Billionaires are people too.
He is my favorite.
Justice Thomas should have no say in these proceedings. There is an obvious conflict with regard to his wife's proximity to the event.
ur logic is flawed .
@@dunwundering835I second that
The summer of 2020 all Republicans believed , if someone vandalized federal property. That person and any involved should serve at least 10 years in prison. So I asked what happened, what changed? Why now no time. Why?
Perhaps because they weren't and don't like rules for thee but not for me
@@dickjivas5996 No one likes that but that has nothing to do with this. Why were they for it then but not now? I think you really know the answer to that.
@@kitcarsoncarson615 because they don't like rules for thee but not for me? How are you not getting it? I think you know....
@@dickjivas5996 how would the phrase you keep repeating relate to this situation at all?
@darthbahnsen3832 justice that isn't blind isn't justice
chills protected activities - charge is over broad. sounds covers everything. free j6! charge is unconstitutional and no basis.
Free j6 tells me everything I need to know about you on this topic.
@@derekhauser6780 and your ignorance tells me everything I need to know as well !
@@derekhauser6780and it’s still going to come down 6/3 unconstitutional.
@Spazilton1 I don't think so. Maybe 5 to 4. I don't think it's unconstitutional. But I would not expect someone who thinks January 6th was fine to understand legality or constitutionality. Trump supporters need to quit throwing a tantrum cause mommy and daddy never told them no.
@@edg5218 said the cultist.
If they’re not to lose their credibility, they will find it illegal
They will only lose their “credibility” with ideologues …..Using old laws in “new & novel ways” against political opponents 1:27:58 ( as this DOJ has been doing ), carries the rancid smell of Banana Republic politics
Trump 2024! We need our country back.
traitor. they have rentals in moscow
At least I am not a brainwashed fool
@@danrichards2554 Hillary probably made that up too along with the russia hoax and the steele dossier.
@@RescueMom-yl9ff that is exacty what you are and a traitor too... love your country woman
@@RescueMom-yl9ff Yes you are
Lock him up. He’s a crook
I agree. Lock Biden up.
@@bldrtom Then you don't agree. Why say you do agree? You think just the opposite. This is the kind of thinking Trump uses.
@@kitcarsoncarson615 I’m not going to try to explain. It is obviously too deep for you.
@@bldrtom That's a cop out.
Seems like Justices believe C(2) paragraph added to "Enron Statute" is imprecise & can be read both ways, which benefits govt argument
Cope. This is getting overturned.
Wrong!! Worst case scenario is the sentencing would be slightly reduce or defendants would be recharged with a lesser offense than obstruction of justice. Most defendants were also charged with multiple charges in addition to obstruction of justice that they have already plead guilty to.
@@tjalfred48 the people yesterday who basically shut down freeways did more harm than 98% of the jan 6 defendants. That's okay because that fits half of how the democratic party feels about Israel if not more. How many times were these pro hamas inside the capitol in the last 1year? One time it was during a vote.
@@tjalfred48 90% were only charged with this crime.
@@jacobew2000 If you don't believe in accountability, then say that. Stop making excuses for those who broke federal laws because your candidate lost the election.
@@tjalfred48 This was at most, for most people there, a simple trespassing. Not a 20 year sentence for simply walking in. Most people that went in, were waved in by police. There is video evidence of that, so that is beyond dispute. They could had charged for other crimes... if there was any.
Today's code cussword : OTHERWISE. OTHERWISE YO MAMA!!
I'll take the loud-mouthed billionaire over the collectivist oligarchy. Trump 2024.
If you want real change vote 3rd party
You arent real bright, or a trust fund baby one or the other, perhaps both
move to russia
yawn@@danrichards2554
@@danrichards2554 Biden will move to China with all the money his family got from them.
Trump never thinks he does anyhing wrong. He thinks of himself of always being above the law, no matter what. And he doesn't get treated like everyone else. Wake-up!!
No one else has been charged more than he has. You should wake up.
Trans rights are human rights. Vote Trump 2024❤
Every right has a corresponding obligation. In this case, what is the obligation of trans people?
Of course. The only issue that I have ever voted on for the last 40 years is trans rights. It affects all of our lives daily and is obviously the most important issue facing Americans today.
@@marcemrich3573 Correct 👍
@@marcemrich3573 I agree. Homelessness, poverty and hunger pale by comparison.
@@ryleighloughty3307 I actually thought they were kidding for a minute 😂
FJB
A precious gem on KZhead