The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome, Welcome, welcome. It’s Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. Great to be together. On this is a second shot. A second shot at an explainer, an explainer. Let me explain to you what I’m doing here. I I got a couple of Emails over the Last couple of days as the news broke about this Supreme Court case and people were not sure that I explained things well enough. So welcome. To the Pro America Report. Welcome to the Pro America Report. Great to be together. And let me tell you what I’m going to do. I’m we’re going to, by the way, if you go to proamericareport.com, you’ll see my writings there. Get signed up for my sub stack. Also visit phyllisschlafly.com and sign up there for our daily e-mail. The daily WYNK what you need to know which is the same name as this segment. So what What you need to know we’re going to stick Very strictly to the topic of what did the Supreme Court do in agreeing to review a certain law that has been used against January 6 defendants as well as is being used against Donald Trump? So we’re going to slow down and talk exactly about this. The law is 18 USC section 1512 C. 18 USC 15, section 1512 C. Now I’m going to refer to it and people have as 1512. 18 USC is the Criminal Code is the United States Code. It’s a section that has to do with witness tampering and criminal conduct. And this is generally called this 1512 an obstruction of justice offense, obstruction of those other ones in that part of the code. And this is particularly named obstruction of official proceeding.
Now. This has been used. It’s a felony, which includes up to 20 years in jail, so it’s a serious felony. It was passed in the years immediately after Enron. I think the year it passed was either 2002 or 2003 by the Congress in response to the Enron debacle, where lots of people lost their money. Lots of investors, small investors. Stock shareholders lost their shares. It was a big debacle. Lots of jobs lost. What has only been catalogued, more specifically in the years after this law passed, was how certain prosecutors Used that Enron debacle and bad conduct to target others, Arthur Andersen, the company was destroyed by the prosecutors’ zealousness there were others, Merrill Lynch executives targeted. And I have referred to the fact that you can read a very good book very, very well. I was reminded I was talking to Charlie Kirk and and he reminded me that Rush Limbaugh spoke about Licensed to Lie. The Sidney Powell book at great length. In fact, every day he seemed to be talking about it. Back, uh Must have been eight or nine years ago, and it and at the center piece of it is a guy named Andrew Weissmann who is a really bad actor. He was in the Mueller investigation. He’s a anti Trump guy, he’s A and he, but he’s very clever. And again as Charlie Kirk pointed out, there’s a handful of these people. Susan Rice, Andrew Weissmann, Lisa Monaco, a few others who are at the heart of Obama, but even predate Obama, a couple of them, and are really at the center Of a lot of what’s happening in terms of weaponization of government against we the people in terms of narratives that lie about what’s going on so.
So, what did the Supreme Court do? Well, 3 different defendants of January 6, people that were charged said to and were convicted of this 1512 felony. They all three of them petitioned the Supreme Court to review it, and at the lower court, one of the judges threw it out. He threw out this charge, he said. You can’t use That, that’s not the way it’s supposed to be. Going up to the Court of Appeals, it was a little split and now it’s up to the Supreme Court. So what the Supreme Court did last week was announce that it would take the case. The case it took was not all three. It just took a case called Fisher and the name then. That’s the name of the planet Fischer of the USA. Could be USA V Fischer. I’m not sure. Anyway, they they at this point the two questions that are presented to the court, the Supreme Court to consider are whether 1512 covers only acts that affect the integrity or availability of evidence or whether they criminalize advocacy, lobbying and protest. In connection with congressional proceedings, now let me be clear what that is. The thought is these charges should be used for the integrity or availability of evidence. If you’re hiding evidence tampering with evidence. If you’re disappearing things. If you’re messing with witness testimony, that’s what the statute was originally written for. In the case that were before us and all these other ones, including Donald Trump. The prosecutors have said Ohh yeah, yeah, no, that also includes advocacy, lobbying, protest and you, if you do that in about criminal congressional proceedings, that counts.
In other words, this is the question: Can you extend the law that appeared to be passed and appears on its face to be about integrity? And evidence of an availability of evidence sort of witnessed. It’s under the witness tampering section of the law, but it’s about evidence. Can you extend that to a protest where someone is saying, Hey I I. Don’t think you should certify the election until there’s a check on the fraud. And does that make it an obstruction of official proceeding?
The second question, the US Supreme Court is taking up. Is a line within it that says corruptly. In other words, you have to corruptly do something. That’s the word. And the corruptly element. It’s called the corruptly piece of this does. It does. This is what the court is saying. Does it prove? Does it require? That the government prove that the defendant acted with the intent to obtain an unlawful benefit. Or is it merely proof that the defendant acted in some improper way? And unlawful way, in other words, if you go and you trespass, that’s an unlawful means. And if that impacts the proceeding, is that enough or did you have to intend to get a benefit? And that’s appears to be what the the requirement should be.
Well, so what’s the benefit of the people we the people that are protesting on January 6, you’re saying? Please don’t don’t move ahead. Don’t move ahead, by the way, you let me into the building. I’m. You can’t say I’m trespassing when you let me in. A lot of them. Some of them did push their way in. But is there is there a corruptly element in this? And is it being applied correctly? And here’s the the part you need to understand what you Need to know.
These are serious questions. These are not slam dunks. Either way, there’s going to be a whole lot of briefing, a whole lot of questions. A whole lot of the oral argument. And here’s another part of that. It hasn’t been set yet as a as of the time of me talking to you right now, it has not been set for oral argument before the US Supreme Court. But the the going sense, the the sense that people have of the schedule is that it will be heard in late March or early May. OK may, late March or early April. And so if that’s true, what it means? Is that you work backwards and you get the the the briefing schedule and you say to yourself, OK, they’re going to brief it for the next 2 1/2 months, three months. Have the argument, and then we’re going to get a result in June. And here’s the thing. I don’t think any of these cases. Donald Trump’s case, these other cases there, I don’t think anyone can go forward. I don’t think any of them can go to trial. I don’t think there can be sentencing and I think if there is, there’s going to be writs immediately filed to the Supreme Court saying, hey, wait a second. The reason I’m here is because they charged me with misdemeanor misdemeanor misdemeanor and this felony. In fact, I know one guy got out of jail in the last couple of days. And he had nonviolent record, nonviolent crime, no allegations of violence, misdemeanor misdemeanor misdemeanor, and this felony. And he’s been in jail for almost 2 1/2 years, a little bit longer. Because of that felony. Misdemeanor misdemeanor misdemeanor and that felony. I don’t think that the I do not think that the that the Courts can go forward with this because you can’t take away people’s liberty and you know, take their freedom. If you don’t know. If you don’t know the answer. And so I think you’re going To have to See that everything right. And once once that happens, the reality is it’s going way back. It’s going way back into past the election. It’s going to be it’s going to be Past the election. That any of these things get taken up in any meaningful way, I believe. We’ll see. We’ll see. The that’s where we are and that’s what you need to know. Those are the questions to take. So this is an important thing. It’s one of the biggest things that’s had one of. The biggest movements. That’s happened in all this stuff and, and
Here’s the real key to this. And that there’s many keys. When it’s done, when it’s done getting to the bottom of who? Who filed? Who ordered the 1512?
Who is it that said this is the thing to do and let’s do it like this. You know? Who was that? We need to know who the participants. The the Maybe it’s Merrick Garland. Maybe it’s Lisa Monaco, maybe it’s somebody else in White House in the White House. They made a decision to punish we the people and to drag this whole thing in the direction of this towards Donald Trump.
Now I don’t know if there’s any liability if there could be liability. I don’t know. I it’s hard to sue a prosecutor. Unless they do something really egregious, this seems to get to it, but we’ll see. But that’s what’s gonna come next. Is who ordered the 1512. like, who ordered the code Red? Who ordered the 1512? We can handle the truth. I think I’m entitled. I think we’re entitled to the truth. Incredible. Alright.
We gotta take a break and come back. And don’t forget about where you can visit proamericareport.com sign up there. I’m going to write about this more extensively there and also get. Signed up on. The PhyllisSchlafly.com. You know the best person, one of the best people to. Follow on this is Julie Kelly on X, @julie_kelly2 , it’s the craziest handle she had for X. She’s one that you want to follow there and and make sure you understand seeing which she writes on it really well. All right, we got to take a break. We’ll be right Back. it’s Ed Martin Pro America Report back in a moment.
