GOP Representative Forced to Surrender 1,600 Messages in Trump Election Investigation

( – Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, rejected Rep. Scott Perry’s (R-PA) appeal to withhold communications between his office and Donald Trump’s campaign in their efforts to scrutinize the 2020 election results. Boasberg affirmed a prior decision by notorious Trump-hater and J6 Judge Beryl Howell that the communications were not protected by the “speech or debate” clause of the constitution which privileges legislative work with legal protections.

Howell was also appointed by Obama. Perry stands accused of maintaining his belief that the 2020 election was stolen by Democratic shenanigans.

The judges argue that attempts to alter election outcomes aren’t legislative in nature and thus aren’t protected. The FBI took Perry’s phone while investigating another Trump ally, Jeffrey Clark, who worked at the Justice Department. Clark also doubted the official result of the 2020 election, along with a significant chunk of the American public.

Special Council Jack Smith has been seeking the records in an attempt to keep his prosecution of Trump and his allies afloat amidst Trump’s stunning performance at the polls as we end into 2024.

Smith’s prosecution stalled with the recent announcement that the Supreme Court will hear arguments to overturn the DOJ’s use of 1512(C)(2) or the obstruction of an official proceeding charge against J6 defendants.

SCOTUS will hear arguments next spring and rule by the summer on whether or not the law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal and designed to add penalties for corrupt businessmen destroying records can be applied to J6 defendants, many who did nothing violent or damaging and were granted access to the building by Capitol Police.

Perry is seen as a “crucial go-between” by prosecutors who believe they’ll find more evidence of wrong-doing in his text messages and emails. Trump and his defenders maintain that any efforts they took to challenge the election results are well within their First Amendment rights which theoretically protects all Americans from legal scrutiny for challenging the government.

Copyright 2023,