LOS ANGELES.–Hearing arguments in Jan. 6, 2021 cases involving the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Supreme Court will rule on Fischer v. United States, whether or not the financial crimes bill that resulted from the Enron scandal can be used to convict-and-sentence Jan. 6 rioters. How ironic that Sarbanes-Oxley was used by the government to throw the book at Jan. 6 rioters, related to a specific provision of the act that deals with the destruction of records and documents or “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceed or attempt to do so.” Doesn’t that sound like the government’s case against former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton who deleted, while under Congressional subpoena, 33,000 private emails related to her work as Secretary of State? Yet 56-yar-old former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe dismissed all of Hillary’s charges in Oct. 2016.
Yet when it comes to Jan. 6, 2021 rabble rousers the Department of Justice decided to use Sarbanes-Oxley to get convictions and longer sentences of anyone that vandalized or broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Reviewing the case of Joseph Fischer, the Supreme Court opens up a can of worms for 54-year-old Special Counsel Jack Smith who charged Trump under Sarbanes Oxley even though Trump didn’t participate in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol vandalism or malicious mischief. DOJ prosecutors claim that Jan. 6 vandals attempted, under Sarbanes-Oxley to obstruct and official government proceeding, the certification of the Electoral College vote. When it comes to Trump, the DOJ’s stretch is far greater because Trump never came close to the Capitol, staying during Jan. 6, 2021 at the White House. House Democrats accuses Trump of planning the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection.
When it comes to Fischer v. United States, the DOJ charges Fischer, who entered the Capitol illegally on Jan. 6, 2021, of violating Sarbanes-Oxley, attempting to obstruct official government business. Fischer argues to the Supreme Court that the DOJ used of Sarbanes-Oxley inappropriately, largely because it didn’t involve any financial crimes as specified in the post- Enron government act. Arguing to the Supreme Court that “obstruction of an official proceeding” should apply under Sarbanes Oxley only to financial crimes involving the destruction of evidence, Fischer seeks relief. Sarbanes-Osley applies to the case of Hillary Clinton in 2016, deleting from her private serves some 33,000 emails. So, when it comes to Jan. 6 rioters prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley the government could watch its cases against Trump and hundreds of Jan. rioters tossed out or modified.
Fischer v. United State opens up a can of worms for the hundreds of DOJ cases against the Jan. 6 rabble rousers, who, no question, broke into the Capitol and vandalized government property. DOJ prosecutors, under pressure from House Democrats, charged Jan. 6 rioters as “insurrectionists,” a group that took up arms against the United State. All the hue-and-cry from Jan. 6 was not about vandalism, breaking-and-entering, trespassing or malicious mischief but about trying to overthrow the U.S. government. No one with any rational understanding of U.S. laws could conclude that Jan. 6 rabble rousers tried to overthrow the U.S. government armed with cell phones, not AR-17 assault rifles. House Democrats, during the 18-months Jan. 6 House Select Committee investigation, concluded that Jan. 6 rioters, including former President Donald Trump, committed insurrection.
When the Supreme Court ended March 4 an attempt by the Colorado Supreme Court to keep Trump off the ballot citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it laid to rest the zealotry used by Trump’s detractors to keep him off the ballot, ending using the Constitution to stop Trump’s 2024 campaign. Yet if you followed the unending legal arguments presented in the broadcast and print media, it was an open-and-shut case in the 14th Amendment preventing Trump’s 2024 campaign. So, now the Supreme Court takes up in Fischer v. United States House Democrats and the DOJ’s most dubious arguments in prosecuting Jan. 6 rioters, using Sarbanes-Oxley to throw the book at Jan. 6 rioters. Supreme Court won’t rule on whether the Jan. 6 rabble rousers were actually insurrectionists but it will determine whether the DOJ used Sarbanes-Oxley inappropriately.
Whether admitted or not by Democrats and the press, they didn’t care what U.S. act was used by the DOJ to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters, as long as it netted convictions and maximum sentences. With 14 or 15 judges used Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute, convict and sentence Jan. 6 rioters, the Supreme Court ruling on Fisher v. United States could have widespread impact on anyone sentenced under Sarbanes-Oxley. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Fischer, it could affect numerous cases already convicted under Sarbanes-Oxley. House Democrats, the DOJ and U.S. press went right along with the mob to throw the book at Jan. 6 rioters, calling them all insurrectionists, seeking convictions and maximum sentences. When it comes to former President Donald Trump, ruling in favor of Fischer would undermine the government’s case against the former president.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
