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.

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.

Especially considering that the “astute” and “professional” “analysis” was made by that Master of Moral Turpitude, the incomparable, ethically decrepit Andrew Weissmann….

A salient excerpt:

Washington Post legal affairs columnist Jason Willick warned in April that the Fischer case “could make American politics even worse.” Willick criticized the DOJ for rejiggering the obstruction law at a time of heightened political tension. The country does not need, Willick wrote, “a new, open-ended grant of power to prosecutors to reach into the political system,” one that could be used in the future against “interest groups and officials who fall out of favor with the president’s Justice Department.”

This is the tangled legal and judicial system in the nation’s capital that now awaits Donald Trump: a quick-trigger jury pool deciding the merits of a dubious charge as federal judges widen the utility and interpretation of a law written to close a loophole related to corporate interference in criminal investigations.

Also:

While touting the Fischer decision as a win for Jack Smith, Andrew Weissmann, lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation, admitted the Supreme Court could find “some part of the decision to be inapplicable.” Nonetheless, Weissmann said it would be a “stretch” for the Supreme Court “to find that all of those judges were wrong, and the D.C. circuit was wrong.”

It’s been known to happen.

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!

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?

Beryl howell gave hillary more running room than la guardia