Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Contrary to your fantasy, President Biden has nothing to do with any of the criminal cases against Trump.Either way, Biden IS using "the law" to TARGET POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
Him and Obama and many others need to be HANGED ON LIGHT POSTS for this SOVIET TREACHERY in America!!!!!!
"These are not the droids you are looking for."Contrary to your fantasy, President Biden has nothing to do with any of the criminal cases against Trump.
next
Fact: President Biden has nothing to do with any of the criminal cases against Trump."These are not the droids you are looking for."
* waves hand *
Fuck off with your GASLIGHT THEATRE BULLSHIT
The crackpot fantasy that the President, despite no evidence of it having been concocted, is the senile mastermind behind a vast and diverse sinister conspiracy that has falsified extensive substantive evidence and the sworn testimony of dozens of Republicans, that has resulted in grand juries recommending criminal charges against 2020's sore loser-in-denial, the sexual abuser will be judged by a jury of his peers in at least one venue, his understandable, desperate attempts to defer justice having failed in at least that one instance.Either way, Biden IS using "the law" to TARGET POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
Him and Obama and many others need to be HANGED ON LIGHT POSTS for this SOVIET TREACHERY in America!!!!!!
True, he can't even tie his own shoes at this pointContrary to your fantasy, President Biden has nothing to do with any of the criminal cases against Trump.
next
Bingo!The crackpot fantasy that the President, despite no evidence of it having been concocted, is the senile mastermind behind a vast and diverse sinister conspiracy that has falsified extensive substantive evidence and the sworn testimony of dozens of Republicans, that has resulted in grand juries recommending criminal charges against 2020's sore loser-in-denial, the sexual abuser will be judged by a jury of his peers in at least one venue, his understandable, desperate attempts to defer justice having failed in at least that one instance.
The Cry Baby can blow gas to wee wee up his idolators, but he is not above the law that he reviles.
It is haRD to re sp on d to yoUr sTu pIdi tyOf course the SCOTUS is corrupt, that's what happens when we elect partisan hack Presidents who elect partisan hack judges that were chosen for that purpose by the partisan hack organization called the Heritage Foundation.
It's high time we rectify that.
The simple fact is, still to this day, the left can't stand the bright light of scrutiny.Well, the law may be bullshit, but there is no question that the most enthusiastic of the 1/6 rioters were absolutely trying and hoping to DELAY the certification of the election results pending a closer examination into a totally unprecedented election process.
What they naively failed to consider was that there would never actually be a close examination into what happened because the Justice Department was fine with the result, and wouldn't do ANYTHING that might have cast doubt on the stolen election.
Anyh man who would sell out his country formoney would be obliged to silence political opponents. THis is all the logical outworking of his traitorous selling of his office. No surprise.MSN
www.msn.com
During oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito exposed the Biden administration’s inexcusable practice of selective prosecution of protesters and rioters.
The case, Fischer v. United States, involved the contention by Pennsylvanian Joseph Fischer that the charges of “obstruct[ion of] … any official proceeding,” based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), should not apply to his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Fischer, who also was charged with assaulting police officers, is hardly a sympathetic figure. His claims that he wasn’t trying to obstruct or “impede” official (and important) congressional business, in the ordinary (nonlegal) sense of those words, are specious, but Gorsuch and Alito were interested in a point broader than Fischer’s particular circumstances.
More than 300, of nearly 1,400 total, other Jan. 6 defendants also have been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The two justices were puzzled by inconsistencies with which President Joe Biden’s appointees apply the law and with the wide scope they claim for it against disfavored defendants. Contrarily, when people on the Left, even including members of Congress, disrupt government proceedings, including by use of force, Biden and his officials look the other way.
“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?" Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”
Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) used the fire alarm stunt before a key spending vote last Sept. 30 and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge carrying negligible penalties, but he bragged about not being charged for obstructing House proceedings even though that’s what he had obviously done when the alarm forced an evacuation. That mandatory mass exit interrupted attempts to ward off a government shutdown.
When Prelogar’s attempt to draw distinctions sounded weak and confusing, Gorsuch pressed further. Using the catchphrase favored by liberal news media and others about urban riots, even ones where police were injured, cars were burned, and federal courthouses were significantly damaged, resulting in trial relocations or delays, Gorsuch somewhat mockingly asked why “a mostly peaceful protest … that actually obstructs and impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.”
Prelogar stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.” Yet it is clear that at least a significant subset of the Jan. 6 rioters, while knowing they should not be in the Capitol, and thus being criminally liable for trespassing or disorderly conduct, were clueless about the congressional proceedings rather than intentionally trying to interfere with them. Yet this administration is throwing the book at scores of them.
The point isn’t that the Capitol rioters should avoid all penalties but that the Biden administration is choosing for ideological reasons when and how to apply laws against illicit protests.
Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.
It really disgusts me what the DNC has done to the legal system. It's as almost as if the law was only there to punish opponents of the DNC.
This warms my heart and gives me hope that SCOTUS is not only going to get this right but will also get it right in the question of Presidential immunity to be addressed I think on Thursday?MSN
www.msn.com
During oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito exposed the Biden administration’s inexcusable practice of selective prosecution of protesters and rioters.
The case, Fischer v. United States, involved the contention by Pennsylvanian Joseph Fischer that the charges of “obstruct[ion of] … any official proceeding,” based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), should not apply to his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Fischer, who also was charged with assaulting police officers, is hardly a sympathetic figure. His claims that he wasn’t trying to obstruct or “impede” official (and important) congressional business, in the ordinary (nonlegal) sense of those words, are specious, but Gorsuch and Alito were interested in a point broader than Fischer’s particular circumstances.
More than 300, of nearly 1,400 total, other Jan. 6 defendants also have been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The two justices were puzzled by inconsistencies with which President Joe Biden’s appointees apply the law and with the wide scope they claim for it against disfavored defendants. Contrarily, when people on the Left, even including members of Congress, disrupt government proceedings, including by use of force, Biden and his officials look the other way.
“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?" Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”
Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) used the fire alarm stunt before a key spending vote last Sept. 30 and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge carrying negligible penalties, but he bragged about not being charged for obstructing House proceedings even though that’s what he had obviously done when the alarm forced an evacuation. That mandatory mass exit interrupted attempts to ward off a government shutdown.
When Prelogar’s attempt to draw distinctions sounded weak and confusing, Gorsuch pressed further. Using the catchphrase favored by liberal news media and others about urban riots, even ones where police were injured, cars were burned, and federal courthouses were significantly damaged, resulting in trial relocations or delays, Gorsuch somewhat mockingly asked why “a mostly peaceful protest … that actually obstructs and impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.”
Prelogar stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.” Yet it is clear that at least a significant subset of the Jan. 6 rioters, while knowing they should not be in the Capitol, and thus being criminally liable for trespassing or disorderly conduct, were clueless about the congressional proceedings rather than intentionally trying to interfere with them. Yet this administration is throwing the book at scores of them.
The point isn’t that the Capitol rioters should avoid all penalties but that the Biden administration is choosing for ideological reasons when and how to apply laws against illicit protests.
Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.
It really disgusts me what the DNC has done to the legal system. It's as almost as if the law was only there to punish opponents of the DNC.
Yeah it’s those letters and words thinkers are getting wrong againThey have done no such thing.
but the obstruction charges were abused because the Jan 6 rioters weren't destroying evidence of anything. they did not have any ballots or certified counts. so, it's total bullshit!Well, the law may be bullshit, but there is no question that the most enthusiastic of the 1/6 rioters were absolutely trying and hoping to DELAY the certification of the election results pending a closer examination into a totally unprecedented election process.
What they naively failed to consider was that there would never actually be a close examination into what happened because the Justice Department was fine with the result, and wouldn't do ANYTHING that might have cast doubt on the stolen election.
who owns the DOJ?Contrary to your fantasy, President Biden has nothing to do with any of the criminal cases against Trump.
next
Merrick Garland, who would resign if the president demanded he investigate a political opponent.who owns the DOJ?
Under Trump? He mistakenly thought he did.who owns the DOJ?
thehill.com
Excellent post.It is haRD to re sp on d to yoUr sTu pIdi ty
