HISTORIC: Supreme Court Rules Many J6 Prosecutions Were ILLEGAL!

From 100PercentFedUp - READ ORIGINAL

Some media, including videos, may only be available to view at the original.  

Share this:

This is the big one folks…

This is the one we’ve been waiting for.

As we’ve covered many times before, the reason so many good Americans have been convicted of crimes relating to J6 is due to a twisted, tortured and now confirmed incorrect reading of the law.

Nick Sortor reports:


This is a HUGE WIN for the January 6th prisoners! 🔥

Many will be set free, and hundreds of charges will be dropped.

In its 5-4 decision, the court decided the DOJ abused its power and overused “obstruction” charges on peaceful protestors of J6.


It was always illegal what they did…..the prosecutions… was wrong from Day 1!


The very strange thing though is Jackson siding with the Majority and Amy Coney Barrett writing the dissent:

No one saw that coming.

You can read the Syllabus of the opinion here:

CNN explains the case also benefits President Trump:

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Justice Department overstepped by charging hundreds of people who rioted at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, with obstruction in a decision that could force prosecutors to reopen some of those cases.

At the same time, the high court ruled that the charge could be filed against the rioters if prosecutors are able to demonstrate they were attempting not just to push their way into the building but rather to stop the arrival of certificates used to count electoral votes and certify the results of the election.

The high court’s decision means that special counsel Jack Smith is likely to continue to pursue the same charge against former President Donald Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority that included mostly conservatives and one liberal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Roberts barely mentioned the attack on the US Capitol that precipitated the charges, focusing heavily on a detailed discussion of the text of the law. Roberts noted that the breach “of the Capitol caused members of Congress to evacuate the chambers and delayed the certification process.”

Roberts argued that if Congress intended for prosecutors to be able to tack 20-year prison sentences onto the kind of conduct witnessed on January 6, 2021, lawmakers would have said so.

“Nothing in the text or statutory history suggests that (the law) is designed to impose up to 20 years’ imprisonment on essentially all defendants who commit obstruction of justice in any way and who might be subject to lesser penalties under more specific obstruction statutes,” Roberts wrote.

Special counsel Jack Smith has alleged Trump’s obstruction of the congressional proceeding is much more sweeping than the rioters’ actions, dating back to a scheme that began on Election Day and involved the use of bogus electoral certificates sent in from states around the country.

Still, Trump’s legal team is likely to attempt to use Friday’s Supreme Court opinion to challenge parts of the case, if and when it returns to the trial-level judge.

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments