The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome. Welcome, welcome! It’s Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. Today’s WYNK. What you need to know you’re going to want this one. You’re going to want to bookmark this one. If you’re listening on a recording, you’re going to want to pass this on to other people. This is, and I haven’t. I have to admit, I haven’t seen this phrase used. This is a. I’m gonna do what Margot Cleveland, the former Professor, I think she teaches at Notre Dame Law School some of the Time. I’m not sure I’ll clarify that. She called it a lawsplainer. You know, you heard the mansplaining. You’re explaining lawsplainer and where she goes into an explanation on what’s happening with the 1512 charge. And this is important because for a guy like me, I end up talking past an issue because I’m so familiar with it. And so Margot Cleveland, on the first or second day of the New Year, she went out and she wrote a piece in thefederalist.com. And it explains the law. It’s a lawsplainer about the Fischer case, which is going up to the US Supreme Court, will be argued this spring. And it’s very important. So I want you to check that out, we will talk about that in a moment.
But first let me remind you. If you want to get every day there is. Only. OK, Margo Cleveland, investigative journalist and legal analyst. She’s been published all over the place. Regular guest on Fox News. You’ll see it. She’s a graduate of Notre Dame Law School where she got the highest prizes there. Oh, that’s what it was. She was a Court of Appeals. Clerk, there are. There’s a a set of lawyers who work on the Court of Appeals, federal Court of Appeals. They’re always the most talented clerks. So you get clerks like, I was one years ago that come through. And spend a year or two working for a judge and then you get these permanent law clerks that are basically assistants to the judge and and the judges. And they’re extraordinary. She did that for, I think, almost 25 years. And so @ProfMJCleveland is her Twitter handle X handle and she does teach over at the Law school some of the time I, as I understand it, so we’ll come Back to that, but let me go back to my reminder. Couple things.
One, go to proamericareport.com proamericareport.com get clued in on the Pro America Report there, the substack which is where I write more extensively. @EagleEdMartin on Twitter and X. we have we had a spaces the other night. We’re gonna have another spaces on Thursday evening we get some key people. Rachel Powell, who’s been sentenced to jail, will be on. We’re gonna talk about the Ray Epps situation where somehow, Ray Epps, who was it, looks like an organizer or. Somebody who promoted. Jan, he’s he’s getting a recommendation from the judge of just six months in jail. Everybody else got whacked. Got you know, maximum. Pre sentencing arguments by the prosecutors, you know, this is bad. We gotta get him, hit. Hit him hard, judge. In this case, this and no. No, no, no. Ray Epps, a Good guy. A good guy helped us. Not one of us, not one of us. The feds say so. ProAmericaReport dot. Com and also go over to PhyllisSchlafly.com sign up for the daily E-mail there the daily WYNK goes out to almost 50,000 people at 8:00 AM each morning. East Coast Time, 5:00 AM Pacific Time, and it gives you a couple of links, a couple of key details, and it gives you what you need to know WYNK the WYNK and that’s in that e-mail, the daily WYNK we call it. And this is what the segments about.
So today, all right, Margot Cleveland. Her piece is called. Why SCOTUS will likely smack down two of Jack Smith’s get-Trump charges as non-crimes and she goes through what we’re calling the Fischer case. There were actually 3 cases that went up To the Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court, they said. Please, please, please, Supreme Court, take up this matter of the so-called 1512 section of the Criminal Code. It’s actually the full title is 18 USC section 1512, subsection C. Subsection C and it it is it criminalizes. So there were three there were three cases that went up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court always takes one in this case they took Joseph Fischer’s case and that’s what they’re hearing. And they’ll probably hear the argument in late March, early April. Then they will make a decision in June of this year. And the question as Margot Cleveland says, and she does a wonderful job of summarizing this. If you want to understand what’s going on, just read this piece. You know, I don’t know 2000 words or less, and understand that the question the Supreme Court’s been asked to look at in the Fischer case is what’s called statutory interpretation. In other words, specifically, 1512 C is a law that was passed, and it’s in the section of the legal code that’s titled Witness, victim and informant tampering and it goes into when someone that, someone corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the objec’t, integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. OK, that’s number one. So section C is. Whoever corruptly and then two examples one and two.
Alters, but number one is alters, destroys, or mutilates as, as Margo Cleveland points out, this is about evidence. It’s about, picture in the time it was passed was Enron. At the time it was passed 2002, three years, 2002, and three in the early years of the century. People were massive, massive document cases. Where there’s lots of evidence. And so this was passed to say alters destroys, mutilates, or conceals A record, document or other object.
OK, the second part of this Is otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, and that goes on. Says it’s a 20 year maximum in prison now.
What Margo Cleveland then walks through is the construction otherwise, the use of the word otherwise and how it’s set up. It does not mean that it’s a separate crime, you know. That if you. Yell and scream and Mike Pence stops an official proceeding that you should be charged under this. If you yell and scream at Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings, you should be charged with this. But that didn’t happen. If you yell and scream at a school board meeting and say don’t mistreat us, I’m protesting. Maybe you’re even too loud. Maybe you don’t wait to be called upon. Should you be charged? Should you have criminalized any conduct? This is what she’s saying. Any conduct that obstructed or impeded any official proceeding. That’s what’s at question. And so she then goes into very important there’s a case BEGAY. It’s the name of a person versus United States, which looked at the 1512 C matter before. And the court looked at this and basically says. No, no, no. No, you can’t. You can’t broaden this out. Beyond what it’s it’s. It’s what the words say and what it’s meant to do. You can’t suddenly charge it as this wild wide open charge against people you don’t like.
Because that’s really what’s at stake here. What’s really at stake in with the 1512 is if if you’re going to allow it to be charged so broadly. You’re basically admitting that the prosecutors can take a law, broadly stated language of a law, broadly stated. And apply it however they want.
Now. Let me pause and say we do have. A problem we have a problem in the last 30 to 40 years where the Congress has too often done just what I described. In other words, they’ve said to the other branch, usually the executive branch almost exclusively the executive branch, sometimes extra, sometimes. Seemingly outside of the branches, some of these independent agencies, and they give the Congress gives broad authority. You go and do that and they don’t say how to do that and the agency or even executive branch goes and does it in the ways that they see fit, and a lot of people say, wait a second. You know, the system is supposed to, due process is supposed to mean that I know what the crimes I could be charged with are not that there’s and what the laws passed under the Constitution are. That if a law is passed by the legislature, signed by the executive, signed by the President, I know what it is, not that it’s some overly broad and therefore able to be targeted without, you know, without penalty, against individuals or against groups or against anyone. And in the last 30 or 40 years, we’ve had this, especially in the regulatory area in the, in the growth in these quasi independent states, excuse me, quasi independent agencies of the government that are are given granted authority and it’s overly broad. Well that’s happened a lot. And and we have to resist it and Congress. Has to do a better job. Actually passing laws.
But Margot Cleveland brings us through this and I just want to encourage you if you wanna understand 1512 C on a, wanna understand, She she does make a prediction by the way, she’s she thinks the Supreme Court will strike down Fish, strike down this statute the way it’s applied and Fischer Will be a Sweeping success is what she says we’ll see. I mean, I’m not Quite as confident because I think sometimes the Supreme Court will find narrower ways to get to a decision than what would be, you know, best for justice. But we’ll see what happens.
But my point here is if you want to understand 1512. And it’s the most important part of what’s happening. It is, as she says, the get Trump. It’s the get Trump provision of the four charges against him. Two of them have to do with the 1512 either committing 1512 or conspiracy to commit. So those are the same. I mean, those are related to the same thing. If if there’s a limitation on this under the Supreme Court. It’s gonna impact both, so check that out. Check that out. That’s what you need to know. Margo Cleveland, excellent understanding, 1512 hugely important, it’s going to play out in the next four to six months. It’s going to change the course of the nation and how it’s handled. It’s a. Big deal, so I hope. You’ll get clued in on that.
We’ll take a break and be right back. It’s Ed Martin here on The Pro America Report back in a moment.
