America’s Frontline Doctors founder and medical freedom advocate Dr. Simone Gold took the stage at CPAC on Friday and addressed the crowd, hinting that she would “give you the most important J6 news since J6.”
She noted that the Supreme Court will be hearing a January 6 case called USA v Joseph Fischer in the next couple of months, which is expected to offer a June ruling.
Gold noted that it “will either bring down this entire house of cards or will bring down the pretense that we have a rule of law in our nation.”
She scolded past judges for complaining that this case “increased their workload” and blamed their “mediocrity” and political bias for the need to have the Supreme Court step in.
She also explained that this case was important because it may work to determine the legal definition of the word “corruptly.” Gold suggested that it could also decide whether a subsection of a statute can become its own policy.
To further define these two issues, Dr. Gold said that the 2002 Corporate Fraud Accountability Act is being used to try Jan. 6 defendants although she argued that it was originally passed to punish “corporate bad actors.”
She alluded to a double-standard of justice, especially in the case of Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., who pleaded guilty to interrupting a congressional proceeding by pulling a fire alarm, per Reuters.
Gold alleged that Jan. 6 protestors have faced extreme use of the law against them. She noted that under the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act, “The government must show proof that a defendant acted corruptly,” and argued that these cases do not do so.
She claimed that district judges do not seem to understand corrupt actions, but alleged that D.C. judges have attempted to use this act against Jan. 6 protestors by claiming that being present at the peaceful Jan. 6, 2021 protest was the intent for acting “corruptly.” In essence, by protesting, this charge insinuates that these people were intending to break the law.
Gold, for her part, has firsthand experience with Jan. 6-related prosecution. She was previously prosecuted as a Jan. 6 defendant and sentenced to 60 days in prison with a one-year supervised release.
The other aspect of this Supreme Court case is interpreting a small section of the obstruction of justice code. Gold detailed that chapter 73 of the federal criminal code is the obstruction of justice code, 15 12 C2.
She went on to state that it is more than 30 pages and 15,000 words long, based on a “tiny subsection among hundreds of subsections in this one chapter.”
She further asserted that prosecutors are attempting to state that a “subparagraph nestled inside a subsection found in the middle of 19 otherwise narrow prohibitions is a standalone all-encompassing statute.”
Gold concluded that this is “absurd” and the best one-liner she’s ever heard.
Under this interpretation, any form of obstruction will carry a 20-year felony charge, she explained. This means that Bowman would be serving 20 years for pulling the fire alarm to stop a congressional vote if the law were equally applied to everyone across all political affiliations.
8 comments