The whole reason we are talking about this is because of faux outrage about a supposed insurrection that even Joe's DOJ could not prove and therefore no charges were brought for that crime. Yet they purported this in the media's propaganda machine non-stop creating an illusion that insurrection had occurred. Since they had nothing legally, instead of dropping the case right there, they decided to dig into the criminal code and look for a crime against one whole branch of government. They did not find any, except by stringing together unrelated Enron laws and obstruction of congress laws, they found a theory. A wild theory that puts the magnifying glass onto the last few words of the Enron law in question and conflate it as being obstruction of justice. There was nothing clear about how this was actually done though. So they just continued to talk about it as if it was an absolute fact, over and over again. Lie often, lie confidently, and maybe the sheeple will believe it. They bought it hook line and sinker and pushed it through the propaganda machine yet again. This caused all the faux outrage to turn into real outrage by the left and even on the right. Lying works wonders when your on team Darth Vader.
There never was a clear cut and dry case against the president, never. It was just a creative way to go after him and drum up hatred against him. Let's look at the Enron law they used.
Section 1512 of the criminal code (Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) otherwise known as the Enron act. At the time, Enron knew they were in trouble and began massively destroying documents because they knew congressional oversight would be coming soon. This law when you actually read it, is focused on destruction of documents, evidence, being obstruction. But at the end, it says "OR OTHERWISE". The DOJ thought in their infinite wisdom that otherwise could mean ANYTHING they want it to mean out of context of the actual law itself. It has nothing to do with J6, but joe's DOJ thought so enough to focus in on the OR OTHERWISE as a tool to make that connection. They couldn't find any other statutes they could use so they went with this one. Jack Smith then used this as two of the four charges against the president (whole branch of government). Now ask yourself, what did trump do to obstruct the proceeding? Go and march peacefully, is now obstruction? He has every right to talk to his VP about what he should do or discuss it with him.
Bottom line, the high court of the land ruled 6-3 NO on obstruction. This should have been 9-0 all day long, but we have activist court members ruled by emotion and not the constitution or law.
Now they will continue to comb through the code looking for anything, just one little slice of something they can get him on. That's why the hammer dropped down on this decision, because that's not something an entire branch of government should ever have to worry about while serving the people, especially the commander in chief. Is he above the law, no but in the capacity of president he cannot be bullied with political hit jobs by the opposing party. The thing about the electors (attempted overthrow of 2020 election), yet has to be hashed out so I will not comment on that. I honestly don't know all the facts surrounding that other than the president absolutely should be able to prepare for possible scenarios that present themselves in the case of unusual circumstances happening. I'll wait for more details to surface on this.
www.breitbart.com
