In June, the Supreme Court handed J6 defendants a long-awaited victory by effectively gutting the 1512 obstruction of justice statute.
Leading up to that decision, the DOJ had been using the statute in a context totally unrelated to its original intent and purpose.
The statute was enacted shortly after the Enron scandal of the early 2000s to provide oversight into fraud and corruption within the accounting industry.
The law’s originators never conceived of its use in a presidential certification process, much less against peaceful demonstrators who simply exercised their First Amendment rights to protest a contested election.
Nevertheless, radical lawyers within the DOJ, abetted by outside lawfare groups, took it upon themselves to completely pervert the statute’s meaning.
Rather than fighting accounting fraud, it was now being weaponized by vindictive, bad-faith actors within the DOJ to deny J6 political prisoners of fundamental rights, and in many cases, imprison them with cruel and unusually long sentences.
The statute’s vague wording that was the focus of much of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer had previously given the DOJ convenient cover to stretch its construction to absurd lengths.
This is how a statute enacted to limit the tampering of evidence to protect whistleblowers in a proceeding for accounting fraud became twisted and applied in a completely foreign area – namely, the context of punishing J6 defendants.
Hellbound and Down 