Supreme Court Accepts Case Challenging Jan 6 Obstruction Charges

Politics
21

My link

2 of the 4 charges against Trump

conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding

22

You will go far in life.

1 Like
23

Does this mean that there will be rent-a-mobs at the homes of justices with tacit support from the FBI?

24

Well Counselor, at least you admit that it’s an opinion. I do dispute the content.

25

Yes. Not breaking news- this happened a week ago.

26

Of course it’s an opinion. And a possible outcome. Why wouldn’t I?

On what basis?

27

So what? Are there 100 other threads about it?

If you don’t like it, go to a different thread, but for goodness sake stop whining. :santa:

28

It appears, upon exam, to be the case. Mea Culpa. What is interesting to me is that the Defendant is also being charged with attacking Police Officers on Jan 6, which he is not debating. Just whether his actions amounted to obstruction of Congress. Interesting SCOTUS picked this up.

1 Like
29

I’m sorry, I fail to see your point. Perhaps I’m missing something. Do all posting links have to be breaking or disclaimers stating “Not-Breaking”

Why are you hung up on “Not Breaking news”

1 Like
30

A couple of links for the discussion. First it to the SCOTUSBlog description and the second is for the document submissions.

For those that care.

WW

3 Likes
31

Jack Smith.

32

Ignore it. It’s fear.

33

Cool deflection, man.

Shows that you know the particular issue isn’t one you actually want to discuss.

1 Like
34

Wait. Is this about the J6 participants that have been charged with everything BUT “insurrection”?
Or, is this about Smith wanting to bypass the appellate courts to get a Trump conviction before Super Tuesday? And um, doesn’t include “insurrection” :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

1 Like
35

Thanks for posting this. I found it well worth the read.

1 Like
36

Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html

evil how about no

3 Likes
37

Tbh, that wasn’t meant for you. Another poster posted different sources for that story, and I said “not breaking” because this has been all over the news, print, TV and digital, for a full week. Nothing new to see.

1 Like
38

Awesome.

39

Both? :man_shrugging:

From Smith’s viewpoint it is about bypassing appellate courts to try and nauk Trump.

40

NO wonder it was rejected. Smith said the case was of great public importance but never said why expediting it would have been of great public importance. If it is that important, let the appeals court weigh in with their opinion and get it right.
The only reason Smith could have given to rush it was to get a verdict in time to help Biden in the election. Election interference isn’t a very good reason.

2 Likes