Staff Reports
The Department of Justice (DOJ), that bastion of so-called justice, has decided to press forward with obstruction charges against an Ohio couple, Don and Shawndale Chilcoat, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent limits on its overreaching powers. This marks a beautifully ironic moment where the DOJ tries to dance around the Supreme Court’s ruling like a half-baked ballerina attempting to pirouette on a tightrope.
Charged under Section 1512(c)(2), which could send folks away for up to 20 years for “corruptly” disrupting an official proceeding, the Chilcoats’ actions are being scrutinized with newfound vigor. The Supreme Court recently clarified that simply being part of a protest does not automatically equate to obstruction—a fact that seemed to elude the DOJ for quite some time. The Court’s ruling, driven by a common-sense approach, has now apparently thrown a wrench into the DOJ’s machine, giving them a moment of pause. However, rather than reexamine their cases like a rational agency, they seem keen to push ahead regardless.
DOJ Will Move Forward With Obstruction Charges Against Two Jan. 6 Defendants After Supreme Court Ruling: by Katelynn Richardson at CDN –
The Department of Justice (DOJ) intends to move forward with bringing obstruction charges against two Jan. 6… https://t.co/G4Fzwv70Q8
— Conservative Daily News (@CDNPosts) August 22, 2024
Prosecutors are trying to argue that the Chilcoats had nefarious intentions to disrupt the certification of the electoral college votes. Shawndale Chilcoat reportedly stated their goal was merely to prevent the certification. Apparently, that’s an indication that they were keenly aware of what was occurring—or at least that’s the current narrative being pushed. This all sounds like the prosecution is stretching reality thin enough to see through the fabric of their own bias.
The jury instructions proposed by the DOJ are set to focus on the necessity of showing that the defendants actually impaired the evidence being presented during this official proceeding. This might be groundbreaking to the DOJ, which has previously assumed that mere presence at a noisy protest sufficed for guilt. The irony isn’t lost here; the very organization that harps on the rule of law seems ready to sidestep its legal standards.
In a twist of legal gymnastics, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that cases could move ahead if they involved an “impairment” related to the January 6 proceedings. This delicate balancing act by the Supreme Court seems to have opened the floodgates for more selective enforcement, showcasing just how politicized the judicial system has become. Rest assured, the Chilcoats have just become the poster children for that political agenda, a perfect example of how the DOJ intends to wield the law like a sword rather than a shield in the highly charged atmosphere surrounding January 6 trials.
