Insurrection Obsession


PREMO Member

Jan. 6 Prisoner Takes His Obstruction Charge to the Supreme Court

On July 7, attorneys for Jan. 6 prisoner Edward Jacob (Jake) Lang filed a document with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) challenging the government's obstruction of Congress charge—one of the most common felony charges used against Jan. 6 defendants—which carries up to a 20-year prison sentence.

"We filed what's called a writ of certiorari, or a request to the Supreme Court to hear an issue," Norm Pattis, lead attorney for Mr. Lang, told The Epoch Times. Mr. Pattis explained that the legal team is asking the high court to review the details behind Mr. Lang's alleged violation of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2), one of the 11 charges against him, according to court documents (pdf).

According to the writ, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times (pdf): "Mr. Lang filed a motion to dismiss the Section 1512 count prior to trial. The District Court granted his motion.

"On a consolidated interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit joined by two similarly situated co-defendants, the Court, in a split decision, reversed the District Court. A motion for rehearing was denied."


Well-Known Member
This is about the same sort of crap they pulled with Hunter Biden and his gun charges.

Charging him with a misdemeanor he will pay the $50 bucks and go home. How many are in prison today because of this C-sucker.?


PREMO Member

National Guard Refused Before Jan. 6 Because 'Pelosi Will Never Go For It': Former Capitol Police Chief

Mr. Sund said that in meetings with Mr. Irving and Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger on Jan. 3, 2021, he had asked them to approve his request for National Guard soldiers to help secure the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Mr. Irving and Mr. Stenger made up two-thirds of the Capitol Police Board, which oversees the U.S. Capitol Police and had to approve any such requests.

Mr. Sund said he met first with Mr. Irving.

“I went into his office, again 9:24 in the morning. ... and immediately went up and said, ‘Hey, I'd like to bring in the National Guard to support me on, to assist me on the perimeter because when we have a joint session of Congress, it takes a lot of our personnel inside,’” Mr. Sund testified.

“But immediately, as soon as I asked him, his first response was: ‘I don't know. I don't like the optics of that,’" Mr. Sund testified. "And his second response was, ‘Besides, the intelligence doesn't support it.’”

He said Mr. Irving told him to speak to Mr. Stenger about the idea, which he said he did in a meeting more than two hours later.


PREMO Member
Dem Rep. Lofgren: Jim Jordan ‘Was Heavily Involved in the Plot to Overturn’ the Constitution

Anchor Jake Tapper said, “Congresswoman Lofgren, you just heard Congressman Kinzinger’s view of what Jim Jordan thinks about the left. That is you? What do you think?”

Lofgren said, “It is not true. Adam can tell that you our Bipartisan January 6 committee worked very professionally and in an apolitical way to get to the truth of what happened on January 6 and leading up to it.”

She continued, “And what we found, I agree with Adam, I mean, Jordan was up to his neck in this plot for all we could see,. He refused to provide us the information that we needed. But it looked from the context that we could identify that he was heavily involved in the plot to overturn the election, overturn Constitution. And so I don’t think that that is what America needs.”

Lofgren added, “Certainly I take offense to the idea that I’m not patriotic. I work hard to defend the Constitution.”


PREMO Member
🔥 As you may already be aware, brand-new Speaker Michael Johnson has accomplished the seemingly impossible, a miraculous feat that previous Speakers were completely unable to accomplish: the government will finally release to the public the (*nearly) complete January 6th Capitol videos:

image 2.png

Reactions varied. On one hand, Representative Clay Higgins predicted that the release of the video will destroy the careers of a number of key democrats, presumably the ones involved in the democrats’ pestilential January 6th Committee:


Unsurprisingly, there are some caveats, but only very few. The 40,000 hours of video will be released in large batches, or ‘tranches,’ since it must all be reviewed first. Reasonably, “sensitive” clips disclosing secret Capitol security features will be withheld. More oddly, some faces of “identifiable individuals” will be redacted or blurred out. At this point, we can only guess who this group of “identifiable individuals” includes, or how common the blurring will actually be.

But the blurring could backfire. Blurring a face could in essence highlight a person, and make a game out of discovering their identity.

It’s not clear to me why, but online attacks were building last week against the House and its new speaker. The release of the video has not satisfied carpers, who have shifted to criticizing the way it is being released.

One of last week’s recurring theme went: “Republicans are useless; give them the House and they accomplish nothing.” That is blackpill nonsense and anyone spouting it is confused or controlled opposition.

First of all, the Republicans barely won the house. They only have a +4 majority. In other words, they can only afford to lose four votes out of 435. It’s not realistic to think that every Republican is going to vote the same way every time. To believe that Republicans are conservative robots who should all vote precisely the same way on every issue is worse than childlike.

Second, the House has some power, but it’s only half of Congress — and the democrats control the Senate. So it’s not clear exactly what complainers think the Republicans in the House are supposed to be doing that they aren’t. Obviously, releasing the J6 video hasn’t satisfied them.

But finally, it’s an offensive slander to claim they’ve accomplished nothing. It’s a lie straight from the pits of Hell. Here are just a few things Republicans in the House have accomplished this year despite having only a razor-thin majority:

— They immediately ended the tyrannical reign of the putrid January 6th Committee and its amply-proportioned chairman Bennie Thompson.

— They created a number of exceptional investigatory committees that are now digging in and creating a permanent Congressional record on key issues that were previously being completely ignored, if not covered up, including: Biden bribery, the Covid coverup, China, and the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

— The new committees have working hard. For example, James Comer (R-Ky.) and his Oversight committee has been releasing critical evidence about Biden bribery, and it is still working diligently to make an airtight case and show the public what has been happening for decades. Here’s a great clip of Representative Comer pushing back on some attempted smears this week in a fiery exchange with a low-information democrat:

image 14.png

CLIP: James Comer scorches delusional liar Democrat Rep. Jared Moskowitz (3:34).

— The House initiated impeachment proceedings against President Robert L. Peters, or whatever alias he’s using these days, which is a pretty big deal.

(Not to speculate about internal political strategy, but remember that Mr. Biden only has a year left to go. Nor do Republicans control the Senate, which must vote to convict. So there’s not much point in starting impeachment now, and anyway the process wouldn’t finish until Biden had a few months left anyway. Might it be a better strategy to hold off on commencing impeachment for now, keeping it as a ‘plan b’ in case Biden somehow cheats his way into the White House again?)

Those are just a few examples. People who claim “the House Republicans haven’t done one single thing” are either confused or are just trying to stir up trouble.



PREMO Member

SCOTUS Takes Up Obstruction Charge Appeal for J6 Defendant - Could Be Huge for Trump and Others

At the heart of the Fischer v. U.S case is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to "corruptly...otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding[...]." If convicted, the penalty is up to 20 years in federal prison. The Department of Justice has charged over 300 people under that section, including former President Donald Trump.

The provision was enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a bill passed in the aftermath of the Enron accounting scandal. As such, defendants say it was never intended to apply to an incident such as Jan. 6.
Trump's lawyers have already made that argument in asking for his indictment to be dismissed.

The case, which will be heard in the coming months, will have major implications for several individuals charged under the statute, but especially in Trump's criminal cases, namely, the election interference case brought forward by Special Counsel Jack Smith. If the Supreme Court agrees with the plaintiff in this case, Mr. Fischer and several other individuals could have their charges dropped, bringing their criminal proceedings to a permanent end.


PREMO Member
🔥 Yesterday, NBC ran an electrifying story headlined, “Supreme Court agrees to hear Jan. 6 case that could affect Trump prosecution.” It’s at once the best January 6th news we’ve had for a long while and it’s also very promising news for the Trump prosecution. Incidentally, the tireless lawyer and unsung hero who convinced the Supreme Court to take this important case is my friend Norm Pattis.

image 2.png

As you may know, the federal government criminalized January 6th protestors and Capitol tourists by re-purposing a rarely-used evidence law, originally passed to stop people from destroying evidence in white-collar crimes. The repurposing wasn’t surprising. Ever since Biden occupied the White House and appointed Grandma Garland to the DOJ, we’ve seen nonstop criminal prosecution of conservatives via ‘creative’ legal theories, which have delighted democrats and the compliant corporate media, who have no imagination or ability to extrapolate whatsoever.

Anyway, hundreds of peaceful Capitol protestors have been convicted by D.C. juries under 18 U.S. § 1512(c)(2), a law passed in 2002 after the infamous document shredding story fell out of the Enron case. The law provides up to 20 years in prison for illegally destroying evidence or — and this is the tricky bit — when someone “corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

Someone at DOJ saw that language, which was supposed to be about illegally (“corruptly”) destroying evidence so it couldn’t be used as evidence at trial (the “official proceeding”). The DOJ saw that and thought “Eureka!” Congress had assembled on January 6th to certify the presidential vote totals, and the meeting could be described as an “official proceeding.” The Trump supporters didn’t want the vote to be certified yet, so they were allegedly trying to “obstruct, influence, or impede” that proceeding.

And there you have it. Voilá! Twenty years.

The DOJ picked Jacob Chansley as its guinea pig to test out its new legal theory. Chansely was the colorful “QAnon Shaman” who’d be certain to inflame a cerulean-blue DC jury. And the DOJ’s strategy worked perfectly: the jury gave Chansley five years, and the DOJ got its precedent.

image 3.png

Since then, hundreds more J6 defendants have been convicted under the same re-tooled evidence statute. Relying on that swelling, Frankensteinian body of legal precedent, Jack Smith indicted President Trump for the very same crime in the DC ‘election interference’ case.

In yesterday’s thrilling development, the Supreme Court granted certiorari — agreed to hear — an appeal from a January 6th defendant named Edward Lang who’d been convicted under the evidence statute. In essence, Lang argues the evidence statute is “unconstitutionally vague,” letting prosecutors twist the law like Chinese bioweapons engineers into any shape they want. Significantly, the appellate court decided 2-1 to uphold the DOJ’s novel interpretation of the statute.

That’s significant because, if the four Supremes who voted to accept the case had agreed with the appellate court, they wouldn’t need to take the case. They could just deny certiorari, and then the DOJ’s interpretation would become the law.

So the bare fact the Supremes took the case is highly suggestive that at least four of them have something they want to say about it. Most observers think it doesn’t look too good for the government.

The decision created a lot of excitement, as it should have. If the Supreme Court throws § 1512(c)(2) out as unconstitutional, all those J6 prisoners will be released, and most of the election interference case against President Trump will dissolve just like a fresh dusting of snow evaporating on a warm morning.

Some folks, like WND News, even went so far as to predict Jack Smith, Trump’s prosecutor, will be forced to drop the charges just because the Supreme Court took the case.

My take is: this is a perfect, politically expedient opportunity for the Court to weigh in on a bunch of politically-difficult issues without taking the hit. Nearly every conservative judge in other courts who’ve looked at this issue found the statute to be too vague, so the Supreme won’t have to stretch at all to reach that conclusion. They can just quote lower-court opinions. And the Court could also easily help out President Trump, in a case that on its face has nothing whatever to do with Trump. Easy peasy.

This is an exciting and encouraging development. If you like the legal stuff, you can read Ed Lang’s Petition for Certiorari here.



PREMO Member

Needs more ratings
Dec 19
View details

Not shown on X

12:53 pm: Capitol Complex was breached.

Capitol Police Chief said Congressional leadership denied his requests for permission to call in back-up support. That’s depravity. 2:35 pm

Sec of Def Miller received request for support. 2:38 pm

Trump's statement.



Well-Known Member
So I believe for the 2nd time Palestinian protesters have entered the Capitol and tried to interrupt Congess in session. Isn't what they did could be called an insurrection .?


PREMO Member

Jan. 6 rioter nabbed in Bumble dating app sting pleads guilty to assaulting officers

The woman referred to as "Witness 1” in Taake's FBI affidavit has previously recalled how "comically minimal ego-stroking" from her led Trump supporters to give her information about their activities on Jan. 6.

“I felt a bit of ‘civic duty,’ I guess, but truthfully, I was mostly just mad and thinking, f--- these guys,” she said, speaking anonymously for fear of online reprisal.

Her strategy, she said, was to say, "Wow, crazy, tell me more,” on repeat until guys gave her enough to send their information to the FBI.

She ended up chatting with about a dozen guys in the days after the Jan. 6 attack, and she said they made comments that were “very on-brand for a MAGA rally” when they parroted the debunked talking points about the 2020 election they were hearing from prominent Republicans. They couldn't see her rolling her eyes on the other side of the phone.

“They just wanted to regurgitate a lot of these ideas to somebody, and it seemed like I was a willing participant,” she said. “It definitely didn’t take a lot of arm-twisting to get them to start talking about it. Basically me being like 'Wow, so cool — then what? What else?' was pretty much all it took.”

“One of my friends was like, ‘You basically got all these confessions just being, like, “Haha! Then what?”’” she said.

In Taake's case, Witness 1 stumbled on his profile and started asking him questions and found he was very willing to brag to a woman he'd just met virtually. NBC News has viewed screenshots of messages Taake and the woman exchanged in the app.

“Were you near all the action?” she asked.

“Yes,” Taake replied. “From the very beginning.” He sent along a selfie he took shortly after he was pepper-sprayed.

In the days after the attack, she continued chatting with Taake, falsely telling him that she couldn't video-chat because she was at a beer garden with friends. She tried to gather more intel, asking him whether he planned to come back for Joe Biden's inauguration.

These people are mental in their obsession


Well-Known Member
when they parroted the debunked talking points about the 2020 election
See, this kind of pisses me off. In my opinion, those points are at best - *disputed*. These guys act like it's established fact because scores of glaringly biased individuals disagree - but haven't "proved" anything. I keep forgetting that "debunked" to Democrats means someone says "na-ahh" and that's the end of it.

Let's not forget that some 51 intelligence types "debunked" that the laptop was Hunter's - until it was shown otherwise, and some papers printed retractions.


PREMO Member

DC Police Officer Byron Evans Who Sued Republicans Under KKK Act for Racist Attacks on Jan. 6 – Now Admits He Was Watching it on TV that Day (Video)

Officer Byron Evans and seven black Capitol Police Officers sued Brandon Straka and several Trump supporters under the KKK Act for “racist” attacks on him and seven other police officers on January 6, 2021.

Officer Evans sued Brandon Straka and Roger Stone who was not even at the US Capitol that day along with leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and others.

Brandon Straka released video on Wednesday of Officer Byron Evans admitting he was watching the January 6 protests on a TV in a room in a secure location.

CNN let the cat out of the bag:

CNN reporter: Did you ever think this might be a life or death situation for you?
Officer Byron Evans: I remember specifically thinking it when I was on the floor. I remember thinking all that stuff. Like, Byron, this is the day. All those times you’ve given thought on what you would do. You’re doing it.
CNN hack: 4 hours. Evans and the senators watched the riot on tv from a secured location.
Officer Byron Evans: I just remember the anger I felt when I saw those images. Busting windows, climbing the walls and stuff like that. It was an audible gasp in the room.

Poor Officer Evans. He must have been p*ssing himself during the BLM riots that summer! Poor guy.

Brandon Straka released a thread on Officer Evans and his lawfare case.

This lawsuit was funded by a Soros-connected firm.



PREMO Member

VIDEO SURFACES – Hidden from Public: Q Shaman Stands Outside Doors of US Capitol and Tells Everyone to Go Home – Reads Trump Tweet to Stay Peaceful and Go Home #Insurrection

In the video, Jacob Chansley, later dubbed the “Q Shaman,” reads a tweet from President Trump to the crowd outside the US Capitol and tells them to go home. Chansley added, “We are peaceful… We are not Antifa.”

Q Shaman Jacob Chansley: “We’re going to throw up the tweet. Donald Trump has asked everybody to go home. Okay? – This is America. You guys want to stay, that’s fine. Donald Trump has asked everybody to go home.”
Fellow Protester: “Wait, read this.”
Jacob Chansley: “Hold on… Donald Trump, quote, I am asking for everyone in the US Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence. Remember, we are the party of law and Order. Respect our law enforcement. … There’s a video.”

This video, among others was omitted from Chansley’s trial. The Arizona man was later sentenced to 41 months in prison for walking inside the US Capitol, asking police if he was allowed to be there, was then escorted through the building by police, led a prayer in the US Senate chamber, and then read Trump’s tweet to be peaceful before leaving the premises.