One of the more amusing exchanges on Tuesday was the Solicitor General doing backflips to explain how the ultra-broad plain reading of the (c)(2) subsection should be the sole guiding light (nothing atextual allowed), but then she wanted to READ OUT of the statute the words following "otherwise obstructs" - "influences or impedes" - so that its application to such things as "peacefull protests" would not be too broad. Only a broad could do that, some would say.
Were any of the justices smiling while that was going on? Any laughter in the gallery?
The biggest problem is the January 6th riot actually blocked the objections to the vote counts. The conspiracy theory is why the riot was allowed to happen and why the capital police waved everyone in was to stop the objections to certain states vote counts.
Ship, to a jury in DC, the specifics you mentioned will have the same effect as a lecture on quantum physics. It won't matter what Trump's team brings up if this case gets to court. The jury will find Trump guilty. Everybody with a pulse knows that.
Interestingly, if the odds a selected juror hates Trump is 0.95% the odds that all 12 jurors hate Trump is about 50:50. Trump only needs one juror to be on his side.
The Latin got me excited that you might explain some jurisprudence here. I have a very basic question. Obviously, with Sarbanes-Oxley Congress didn't intend to write a law to punish protesters. So what is at issue here must just be to interpret the words they wrote, and whether the words include protesters even though Congress didn't intend the words to do that.
Thus, do we look at
1. What kind of behavior Congress *did* intend to ban with (c)(2), which is probably something like sneaky behavior so investigations won't notice financial wrongdoing (e.g., bribing the auditors), OR
2. Whether Congress intended (c)(2) for (c)(2) to be a follow-up of (c)(1) vs. a stand-alone that would be the same even if (c)(1) weren't there, OR
3. Forget about intent and just figure out what the words mean.
One of the more amusing exchanges on Tuesday was the Solicitor General doing backflips to explain how the ultra-broad plain reading of the (c)(2) subsection should be the sole guiding light (nothing atextual allowed), but then she wanted to READ OUT of the statute the words following "otherwise obstructs" - "influences or impedes" - so that its application to such things as "peacefull protests" would not be too broad. Only a broad could do that, some would say.
Were any of the justices smiling while that was going on? Any laughter in the gallery?
The biggest problem is the January 6th riot actually blocked the objections to the vote counts. The conspiracy theory is why the riot was allowed to happen and why the capital police waved everyone in was to stop the objections to certain states vote counts.
Another bingo from Ship. I would appoint him AG when Trumper wins. Fair minded and obviously brilliant lawyer
Ship, to a jury in DC, the specifics you mentioned will have the same effect as a lecture on quantum physics. It won't matter what Trump's team brings up if this case gets to court. The jury will find Trump guilty. Everybody with a pulse knows that.
Interestingly, if the odds a selected juror hates Trump is 0.95% the odds that all 12 jurors hate Trump is about 50:50. Trump only needs one juror to be on his side.
The Latin got me excited that you might explain some jurisprudence here. I have a very basic question. Obviously, with Sarbanes-Oxley Congress didn't intend to write a law to punish protesters. So what is at issue here must just be to interpret the words they wrote, and whether the words include protesters even though Congress didn't intend the words to do that.
Thus, do we look at
1. What kind of behavior Congress *did* intend to ban with (c)(2), which is probably something like sneaky behavior so investigations won't notice financial wrongdoing (e.g., bribing the auditors), OR
2. Whether Congress intended (c)(2) for (c)(2) to be a follow-up of (c)(1) vs. a stand-alone that would be the same even if (c)(1) weren't there, OR
3. Forget about intent and just figure out what the words mean.
??
Mr. Crew, what can WE do? Is it in any way effective for us to file formal complaints to the various bar and public corruption units on these people?
Has anyone argued that Sarbane-Oxley is misapplied to J6? How can a financial law be applied to a non-financial "crime"?
Well done, Ship!
Thank you so much!
Excellent. Thank you.
How many of the jurors have to vote guilty? Must it be unanimous?
Thanks, Ship.