The “President’s Position” Is To “Encourage” Activity That Violates Criminal Code

OPINION | This article contains political commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

There have been almost continuous protests outside the homes of several of the Supreme Court Justices, in direct response to the leaked Roe v. Wade draft decision. Yesterday, Press Secretary Psaki explained exactly what the “President position” is regarding these protests, and it’s literally to “encourage” criminal activity.

“I know that there is an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes.”

First of all, I take issue with her dismissive “I guess.” As though she’s confused at why there would be outrage about protests taking place directly outside the homes of Supreme Court Judges. Like it’s so insignificant that we are all blessed she was even willing to condescend to address it.

Secondly, I take issue with her “that have been peaceful to date” comment. Guess how much it means when the Biden Admin says a protest is peaceful? It means nothing at all. Those protesters could be burning the Judges’ houses down and they’d still call them “fiery but mostly peaceful protests.” So the fact that she felt the need to clarify that they have “been peaceful to date” is entirely meaningless because their concept of a peaceful protest is literally any kind of protest with any kind of criminal activity, as long as it’s a protest with which they agree.

Speaking of criminal activity, Psaki is saying that it is literally the “President’s position” to “certainly continue to encourage” criminal activity. According to 18 US Code §1507:

“Whoever…with the intent of influencing any judge…in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

It is apparently the “President’s position” to “encourage” activity that clearly violates a criminal code. Are we totally cool with the President of the United States encouraging people to engage in criminal activity? Will the police enforce this criminal code, round up the protesters, fine them, and/or jail them? Or will they be told to stand down since the criminal activity is for a cause championed by the Left like they did through the 2020 summer of riots? Will they address the fact that the President of the United States is encouraging citizens to break a criminal code? Will Twitter ban the President or the White House or Jen Psaki for encouraging criminal activity?

Now, some might say this isn’t breaking the code because the Judges have already voted, therefore the protesters aren’t trying to influence their decision because the decision has already been made. But that’s not actually the case. Even if the Judges have voted, the decision isn’t final until it is officially announced with an officially released decision. The leak was simply a draft, meaning that things could still change. And the protesters are clearly acting in an effort to impress upon the Judges their wishes for a decision different from the one in the draft. That is clearly intent to influence. Their intent is literally to influence the final decision regarding Roe v. Wade by expressing their disgust with the leaked draft decision.

Some might say it doesn’t matter because the houses where the protests are taking place are surely empty, as the Judges and their families surely left for their own safety (because “peaceful protests” these days aren’t always all that peaceful). But that doesn’t matter. The criminal code doesn’t include a stipulation that the Judges must be in their houses at the time of the protest for it to be considered criminal. Whether the Judges are home during the protest, influence can still potentially be exerted as Judges watch from afar what is happening outside their homes.

Some might say that protests are protected under the First Amendment, for which I obviously have the utmost respect. And yes, the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is absolutely protected under the First Amendment. But not the right to intimidate and influence officers of the court through protests directly outside their place of residence. It’s not the protests that are criminal, which are absolutely protected under the First Amendment. It’s the location of their protest. And Psaki says it’s the “President’s position” to encourage the protests in those specific locations which violate criminal code. She literally said, “outside of Judges homes.”

I’m sure the Biden Admin will try to wiggle their way out of this by saying they expect the judges to rise above all this and make a decision in the best interest of the American people. But the fact is that the Judges are supposed to make a d decision based entirely upon the law, and the President encouraging citizens to break the law in order to influence the Judges to make a certain decision is not only careless and irresponsible, it is dangerous and despicable.

Listen to "Mock and Daisy's Common Sense Cast" on Spreaker. A lot of common sense, no bull sense. Get Mock and Daisy’s UNIQUE take on the world, from the dinner table to the swamp on the new Mock and Daisy Common Sense Cast. Listen on Apple Podcasts, iHeart or your favorite podcast app!