Essays Contents
Guilty of What
May 11, 2024
"Fischer v United States"
argued April 16, 2024
audio
"Fischer v United States"
argued April 16, 2024
transcript
If I could find the complete video record of the official actions of Congress on January 6...
which a lengthy search I did at one time... was totally unsuccessful due to editing...
perhaps it would refresh my memory better...
you see... I vaguely remember a few things
that are inconsistent with reports we've heard and are still hearing... ever after.
I remember President Trump's speech being delayed one hour.
I remember Pelosi in full control of the seating... the Covid arrangements...
that meant... only a few Senators were allowed on the floor of Congress.
I remember objections about those seating arrangements.
I remember Pelosi hovering... then nudging Pence with her elbow.
I remember Vice President Pence reading a state's ballot count...
and hearing objections from a Congressman and a Senator...
then sending the State's ballot issue to be debated.
It was the last thing he did before an emergency was declared...
and that's when Pelosi stopped the proceedings.
I remember Pence sending it to conference.
This is what supporters of President Trump were hoping for...
they were hoping Pence would send it to conference.
One Congressman questioned the ballot count...
one Senator also questioned the ballot count...
and so... Pence sent it into "Inquiry" or conference.
I can't find an intact video of what went on exactly as it happened.
What was Pelosi doing to control the events... and the timing of it...?
The people did not come to storm the Bastille so to speak...
but just to say... "CHECK THE BALLOTS!!" and "RECOUNT"
The argument of the prosecutors... would end all protests... of any kind.
Hmmm... heck of a deal. This is bigger than January 6.
From what I heard... the crowd was pinned in by the fences erected.
One blogger said that the fences were placed so that you could NOT leave...
and that their group had to go all the way to the Washington Monument
to find an exit point... nearly a mile...?
When they witnessed people being attacked by police... they had gotten out of there.
The intrigue on that day was as thick as the fog in Scarlett O'Hara's dream.
Law-abiding people... made to look violent... from the actions of a few activists.
Activists breaking windows to get into Congress on one side...
police opening doors for people to freely enter... on the other side.
If police had done their job... everyone at the speech had been cleared for weapons...
and possibly couldn't even bring in backpacks through security.
Did anyone blame Pelosi for the lack of security that day?
Did anyone get charged for stealing Pelosi's laptop?
I haven't heard this as a defense argument yet...
but... what if someone just had to go to the bathroom...
what would that person be guilty of...?
And now... Justices in the Supreme Court... saying "insurrection."
with much discussion on the decisions about who to charge with what crime.
page 62:
"The dividing line has hinged usually on the evidence we have of intent.
So, we're looking for clear evidence that the defendant knew about the proceedings
that were happening in the joint session in Congress that day, clear knowledge of the
official proceeding.
We've looked for evidence that the defendant specifically intended to -- prevent Congress
from certifying the vote and so used his actions to obstruct that proceeding."
Page 74
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: "Just so I
understand, the prosecutions are limited in what
way?"
GENERAL PRELOGAR: "They're limited to
a requirement that the specific people had in
mind an official proceeding. So that would take
out the category of hypotheticals --"
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: "I see. Right."
GENERAL PRELOGAR: "-- where, you know,
maybe you're protesting a branch of government,
you're outside this Court, but you don't have
this specific argument in mind.
And then we would also need to show an
intent to obstruct the proceeding and the nexus
to the proceeding, and that can take care of,
you know, situations where maybe someone's --"
page 67 and @58:00 of audio
"Yes, I think that
if the Court articulated the standard that way,
these would likely be viable charges. And as we
note in the last footnote of our brief, we --
we've preserved an argument that we could
satisfy even an evidence-related understanding
of (c)(2), in part because the very point of the
conduct, when we have the intent evidence, was
to prevent Congress from being able to count the
votes, from being able to actually certify the
results of the election. "
page 72 and @1:04:00
Justice Barret asks if the prosecutions were based on a violence component...
GENERAL PRELOGAR:
"No, we don't think
that's a requirement under the statute. I think
it will clearly be easier for us to satisfy
things like the corruptly mens rea when we can
point to action here, like assaulting a police
officer, that is obviously wrongful, unlawful
conduct, and everyone knows that that's a crime
and you cannot do that.
What I was trying to say to Justice
Alito is, in situations where hypotheticals
press on the idea that people are engaging in
conduct that maybe they think is
constitutionally protected, they might be wrong
about that, there might not be a First Amendment
right that they think they have, but that can
demonstrate that they don't have the requisite
consciousness of wrongdoing. That would mean we
couldn't prove an obstruction charge."
page 73 and @ 1:05:00
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: "Thank you,
counsel.
I'm not quite sure I understood an
answer you gave earlier about whether or not
you've previously used (c)(2) in -- in this type
of case. Have you done that before or not?
GENERAL PRELOGAR:
"We have charged
(c)(2) in situations that don't involve evidence
impairment, and the litigating position of the
Department has long been that, as its plain
language suggests, it covers myriad ways of
obstructing. I'm not aware of any other factual
circumstance or event out in the world where we
could have proved all of the elements of Section
1512(c)(2) beyond the cases where we've brought
those prosecutions. So --"
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:
"Just so I understand, the prosecutions are limited in what way?"
GENERAL PRELOGAR:
"They're limited to
a requirement that the specific people had in
mind an official proceeding. So that would take
out the category of hypotheticals --"
argued April 16, 2024
audio
"Fischer v United States"
argued April 16, 2024
transcript
