DOJ Quickly OUTMANEUVERS Supreme Court AFTER RULING

Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Meidas Media Network

News, News Commentary

4.9 • 3.8K Ratings

🗓️ 30 June 2024

⏱️ 17 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Michael Popok explains how the DOJ will be able to CONTINUE TO USE OBSTRUCTION criminal charges against Current and FUTURE insurrectionists, and the blueprint for it is in Supreme Court Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion focused on the “integrity” and “impairment” of Congressional proceedings like the electoral vote count. Try Mosh today and use LEGALAF to save 20% plus free shipping at https://moshlife.com/LEGALAF Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	So Michael Popoc, Legal A.F. I'm back to do a deep dive of what's happened since the United States Supreme Court's decision in US versus Fisher, which on paper on the surface looks like a death blow to the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute
0:14.7	these Jan 6 insurrectionists and those in the future, including some named Donald
0:19.4	Trump. I don't agree with that and neither do other analysts including those at just security. Let's first lay it out for you.
0:37.6	There was a count that was used as one of the two highest level counts of charges against the Jan 6th insurrectionists by the Department of Justice. It's called obstruction of an official proceeding. The argument was that under one portion of that criminal statute, what we call 18 USC, 1512, C little 2,
0:50.0	that sounds complicated, but it really isn't. The argument for the Department of Justice, which was accepted by 14 out of 15 federal judges, was that the language there applied to anyone who tried to obstruct or interfere with an official
1:05.9	proceeding. In this case the Jan 6 insurrection is basically trying to set fire to
1:10.5	the building and try to assassinate elected officials and their staffers in order to stop the
1:16.1	electoral count. That sounds like to any common person listening to the language of it in regular language in regular English to be obstruction.
1:27.6	The reason they were there is no doubt. They thought that they were immune from charges.
1:32.3	They thought that they were immune from charges. They thought that their president, a cult leader,
1:35.4	was going to get back into office.
1:36.7	That's why they were filming each other.
1:38.6	That's why they were putting everything in video
1:40.4	up on social media.
1:41.7	That's why they wore GoPro pros. That's why they
1:44.7	communicated with what they thought was a lack of impunity from
1:49.0	prosecution because they thought their guy was going to get back in based on
1:52.0	their actions to stop the count.
1:54.8	So the court, the Supreme Court disagreed and said at least the 6-3 Supreme Court disagreed,
2:01.0	including Kitanji Brown Jackson joining with the majority,
2:04.3	in ruling that the only way you can use 15, 12, C2 is if there is a tampering with or a destruction of actual physical evidence, including the integrity of that evidence.
2:18.2	But they also included, as noted in the concurrence by Katangi Brown Jackson,
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Meidas Media Network, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Meidas Media Network and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.