SCOTUS will be hearing a J6 case
This is good news – I think:
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about an obstruction law that over 300 January 6 defendants have been charged with by the DOJ.
The case is Fischer v. U.S. The statute is 18 U.S. Code 1512(c)(2):
“Whoever corruptly…otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
The law came into effect due to the 2002 Enron scandal.
It was never meant to apply to anything like J6, and no attempt had previously been made to apply it to a demonstration. But prosecutors took it out, dusted it off, and made it oh-so-useful. The SCOTUS ruling will not only impact many of the J6 defendants, but president Trump himself. The law is, among other things, confusing for vagueness and much too general.
More here [emphasis mine]:
Defense attorneys say the government is using the power of law enforcement to misinterpret, and even weaponize, nebulous language in the legal code.
In three separate motions filed on Oct. 23, Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised objections based on the “vagueness” factor of the four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal indictment against Trump. Those four charges are: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of an official proceeding. …
[Among the J6 defendants] Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon Shaman,” was the first protester charged for obstruction of an official proceeding, on Jan. 11, 2021.
Some of the accused never entered the Capitol or went inside after Congress recessed. Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, was in a Baltimore hotel on Jan. 6 following court orders to stay out of the nation’s capital. Trump himself never set foot on Capitol Hill that day.
The same cannot be said for Thomas Robertson, a Virginia police sergeant at the time. (He was immediately fired from his job.) The government indicted Robertson, a former Army Ranger with no criminal record, on six federal crimes including 1512(c)(2). Despite Robertson’s facing no charge related to assaulting a police officer or vandalizing property – and being inside the building for roughly 20 minutes – U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper revoked Robertson’s bond in July 2021.
Before his April 2022 trial, Robertson filed a motion to dismiss the charge related to 1512(c)(2). Robertson argued, as others have in similar dismissal motions, that Congress’ work on Jan. 6 was outside the fundamental scope of the law. “The electoral count is a ceremonial and administrative event that is not an ‘official proceeding’ contemplated in §1512; it is not an adjudicative proceeding involving witness testimony and evidence,” his lawyer wrote.
These J6 obstruction cases are examples of what one might call the Beria approach to prosecution: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” I’d like to believe that SCOTUS will do the right thing and rule that the law is being misapplied here, and is so vague as to make it possible to charge people for almost any protest. And I tend to think that’s the way it will go, although it’s impossible to tell and we’ve been disappointed by the Court many many times.
SCOTUS may also rule on an issue connected with another Trump case:
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan paused almost all proceedings concerning former President Donald Trump’s election interference case in D.C. as the courts above her decide on his claim that he has presidential immunity.
… Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.
This one only affects Trump’s case, of course, rather than the J6 defendants. And at the very least, it will probably delay the Jack Smith court case.
” I’d like to believe that SCOTUS will do the right thing and rule that the law is being misapplied here, and is so vague as to make it possible to charge people for almost any protest.”
_______
Fear not. Roberts will come up with a way to chicken out.
No doubt a dozen or more of the thousands of charges have merit.
Families have been intentionally destroyed by the government of our United States.
The prosecutors and judges responsible should be ashamed of themselves, rather than proud. I imagine them at cocktail parties with their peer group basking in their filthy glory.
Just another institution that I have not faith in. What a terrible feeling this is.
Fullmoon @ 5:30pm: I have the same visions. Very disturbing.
The fact that DOJ had to stretch to a post-Enron criminal statute (based on shredding of documents) in order to reach a 20-year penalty for whatever these J6 defendants were doing in or around the Capitol tells us all we need to know. This is not the way that criminal law should be invoked and energized by the prosecution. If other criminal statutes more naturally fit with the activities in question, the prosecution should be content with those. But they wanted to coerce guilty pleas using the leverage of rest-of-your-life sentencing. A-holes.
It’s another residual clause. Shouldn’t “otherwise obstructs” be related to doing something to an “object” like everything else in (c)(1)?
(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
I’d like to believe that SCOTUS will do the right thing and rule that the law is being misapplied here, and is so vague as to make it possible to charge people for almost any protest.
–neo
I’m willing to be surprised. Like Roe v. Wade being overturned. Of course that took 50 years.
I believe things are changing, but I don’t know if it’s fast enough for our J6 friends.
Fingers crossed.
No they have no shame take dread pirate smith or judge chutkin even judge lamberth
Lamberth failed to issue a warrant for moussaoui which could have cracked the 9-11 plot
Beryl howell gave hillary more running room than la guardia
The J6 political prisoners really need our support, and prayers. I pity them, and wish they got as much attention as that lesbian women’s basketball player did when she was imprisoned in Russia for violating their drug laws.
We are late-Rome, and Beria’s quote reminds me of Tacitus’ quote, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws”.
And I wonder, did Tacitus mean that corrupt legislators multiplied laws because they were all a bunch of control freaks trying to create utopia?
Or because the population was becoming ever more lawless as they saw how the elites behaved?
And if I had the standing and ability, I’d like to sue the DOJ on behalf of the J6 defendents on the basis of the 6th amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…”
Considering the volume of cases in which highly likely criminals get off on technicalities on other grounds, why shouldn’t ALL the J6 defendents be excused on this ground alone?
Speedy, my ass!
Neo linked to a RCI post by Julie Kelly (“More here”) which is probably the most complete analysis of the legal nuts-and-bolts, mostly because she has been working this beat since the beginning.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/11/01/untested_legal_imagination_is_the_mother_of_prosecution_vs_trump_and_the_january_sixers_989276.html
A salient excerpt:
Also:
It’s been known to happen.
“It’s been known to happen.”
Especially considering that the “astute” and “professional” “analysis” was made by that Master of Moral Turpitude, the incomparable, ethically decrepit Andrew Weissmann….
And if anyone is STILL wondering….
“Capitol Police commander who ordered evacuations of Senate and House: ‘J6 was not an insurrection’ “—
https://thepostmillennial.com/capitol-police-commander-who-ordered-evacuations-of-senate-and-house-j6-was-not-an-insurrection
H/T Instapundit.
Quoting from above: “otherwise…influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
I don’t see how a DC jury with a DC judge doesn’t sentence Trump to 20 years in jail under this clause in a few months. It seems like he is dead to rights. Even if they can’t prove his speech was an attempt to impede the certification of the election, they can certainly “prove” to said DC jury that it was an attempt to influence it.
python – Trump’s best defense is legal. The “otherwise” has to tie back to the previous subsection, which is all about tampering with or destroying evidence. So “otherwise . . . influences, or impedes” would have to relate to another way of tampering with or destroying evidence. If “corruptly . . . influenc[ing]” a government proceeding is a crime, then you could put 75% of Washington in prison – “corruptly” is a very slippery element and most of Washington influences government proceedings in some way.
The problem is that the judge has accepted the prosecutor’s broad reading of the statute so that will be the basis of the trial. Trump’s arguments about the statute will have to wait for appeal, or until the disposition of the J6 cases that the SC just took because the DOJ is using the same statute in the same way against those defendants. By then, however, he will most likely already be convicted and may be in prison.