Is the Supreme Court about to “pardon” all the January 6 seditionist? I mean is that what’s fcking happening in this country?
@dtheavenger As far as I’m concerned, the Supreme Court is complicit in J6. I would consider them a co-conspirator if they go ahead and overturn these convictions.
The bottom line is that the J6 insurrectionists violated the first Amendment since they did not "peacefully assemble," but were violent and caused harm. They had no constitutional right to break into Congress. Interestingly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed amenable to a more middle-of-the-road solution. Barrett questioned whether the statute could be used to charge defendants for trying to “obstruct the arrival of the certificates arriving to the Vice President’s desk for counting,” noting they would still be interfering with evidence in that hypothetical. Law is always about definitions. As much as I liked Clinton, he really did cross a line when he said, "It depends on what the definition of is is." Remember, he wasn't on trial for the sexual act, but for lying about it.
@Road_2_Ft_Worth @dtheavenger That’s a great explanation. And I was also annoyed at Clinton for saying that particular phrase. He lost all credibility for me with that one line.
@EileenM60933733 @dtheavenger Thanks, Eileen. Are you feeling better?
@Road_2_Ft_Worth @dtheavenger I’m feeling better. Thank you, Michael.