(Above – flash grenades are unleashed on Jan 6 protesters outside the Capitol unannounced and unnecessarily)
There will be no justice for those who protested the stolen election of 2020 on Jan 6 – per the recent ruling of the DC appellate court.
Around 1,000 men and women have been charged with “crimes” on Jan 6. One example is Daniel Goodwynn, who entered the Capitol for less than a minute as seen on video, and for that faced 20+ years in prison.
Men and women who want free and fair elections, and who protested the 2020 Election, which was not free or fair, have been rounded up and persecuted by the corrupt Biden DOJ.
These Americans have been overly charged with crimes that they did not commit. One example is the obstruction charge placed on hundreds of individuals who obstructed nothing on Jan 6.
Innocent Americans are being charged with this crime by the corrupt DOJ and yet they obstructed nothing. The DC court, full of Obama and compromised judges, is pushing through this charge to conviction. Yet, many if not all never obstructed a thing on Jan 6.
One Trump judge ruled that this charge did not apply to innocent Americans in his court and the DOJ appealed the ruling. Yesterday, it was reported that the DC Appellate Court ruled that these innocent people did indeed obstruct by being present on Jan 6.
Newsmax reports:
A federal appeals court sided Friday with the Justice Department in a case that could have upended hundreds of charges brought in the Capitol riot investigation.
The decision, however, leaves open the possibility of further challenges to the charge of obstruction of Congress, which has been brought against more than 300 defendants in the massive federal prosecutions following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.
In a 2-1 ruling, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said a lower court judge was wrong in dismissing the charge in three cases in which the judge concluded it didn’t cover the defendants’ conduct. Those defendants may ask the full appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.
The charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, is among the most widely used felony charges in the Jan. 6 cases. It has been brought against people accused of plotting to stop the transfer of presidential power from Republican Donald Trump to Democrat Joe Biden as well as in dozens of less serious cases.
Dozens of people have already pleaded guilty to the charge or been convicted at trial.
The Justice Department has argued that the offense — punishing anyone who “corruptly” obstructs or impedes an “official proceeding” — clearly fits the conduct of the rioters who halted Congress’ certification of Biden’s 2020 election victory.
But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in the these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record, or other object” in order to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.
The Justice Department appealed, arguing that Nichols’ interpretation of the law was too limited.
In her appeals court ruling, Judge Florence Pan noted that Nichols — an appointee of Trump — was the only lower court judge overseeing Jan. 6 cases to rule that way; every other judge who considered it said that it was correctly used.
“Although the opinions of those district judges are not binding on us, the near unanimity of the rulings is striking, as well as the thorough and persuasive reasoning in the decision,” wrote Pan, who was appointed by Biden.
Circuit Appeals Judge Gregory Katsas, however, sided with Nichols, writing that prosecutors’ interpretation of the law was overly broad, especially for a crime that carries such a long potential sentence.
The law has been on the books for two decades and used thousands of times, but until the Jan. 6 prosecutions it had been used only against people accused of damaging or impairing evidence, the Trump appointee wrote.
If the charge covers anything that “obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding,” it could also potentially criminalize other common ways that people try to convince lawmakers of their point of view, including advocacy, lobbying, or protesting, he wrote.
“So while this approach would create an escape hatch for those who influence an official proceeding without committing any other crime, it also would supercharge a range of minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies,” Katsas wrote.
This court is full of Obama and Biden judges. Until we have free and fair elections, we cannot count on having judges who follow the law in their rulings in the courts around the nation.
