January 6 jurisprudence
January 6 jurisprudence is the unique, one-sided set of rulings by Democrat-appointed federal judges in Washington, D.C. that rule against Trump, his supporters and advisors, virtually every time no matter what the issue is.[1]
Two forces drive January 6 jurisprudence:
- a reaction by the Deep State to being humiliated
- an attempt by the Deep State to expand its power as much as possible
Characterizing the J6 Capitol protests as some kind violent resurrection is a central part of narrative of January 6 jurisprudence, resulting in nearly 1000 prosecutions of people who exercised First Amendment rights.
A precursor of January 6 jurisprudence was the unprecedented convening en banc by the D.C. Circuit to interfere with the dropping of the prosecution by DOJ of Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Trump subsequently pardoned him.
Another example of January 6 jurisprudence occurred in 2023 when a federal district judge ordered the unprecedented depositions of FBI director Christopher Wray and former President Donald Trump over the mere firing of the disgraced Peter Strzok, despite evidence that another FBI official had terminated his employment there.
