If you’ve noticed, the majority of those who wandered peacefully through the halls of Congress were not charged with insurrection. They were charged with violating record keeping. Then typically held in jail without bond till their trial, sometimes in solitary
Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction law used in Jan. 6 prosecutions
The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of a federal law used to charge hundreds of people with obstructing Congress during the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, jeopardizing many of those criminal cases.
The 6-3 ruling on Friday — in which two justices crossed the court’s usual ideological lines — may force federal prosecutors to reconsider charges in dozens of pending cases, and it could require judges to resentence some defendants already sent to prison for interfering with Congress’ effort to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the last presidential contest. About 350 of the 1,400-plus charged Jan. 6 defendants have faced obstruction charges now thrown into doubt by the court.
The majority concluded that the felony obstruction provision passed in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal applies only in cases where prosecutors can show a defendant attempted to tamper or interfere with documents or other records related to a government proceeding. The court rejected the government’s view that the disputed provision covers other activities that could obstruct an official proceeding — a ruling that hinged on an extensive analysis of the word “otherwise” built into the statute.
“Reading [the provision] to cover all forms of obstructive conduct would override Congress’s careful delineation of which penalties were appropriate for which offenses,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s majority.
What they’re talking about is Sarbanes-Oxley, which is about record keeping. Things like having to keep documents, that you need to keep all business emails, etc. When you delete an email from your work email it may disappear from your inbox but it is kept in a backend server. This is what the government used to go after many who really did next to nothing, because our Department of Justice is a political arm of the Democrats and uses creative methods to go after Republicans. Charging people with crimes should be easy: prosecutors shouldn’t have to go looking for creative charges to jail people. That’s a complete perversion of the legal system.
The ruling may have a limited impact on the obstruction charges former President Donald Trump faces for his effort to thwart the certification of the 2020 election results. Special counsel Jack Smith has argued that even under the narrowest interpretation of the statute, Trump is still culpable for obstruction because he sought to introduce fabricated documents — false electoral vote certificates — as part of his sweeping bid to stay in power.
If the government can get all sorts of creative, finding obscure ways to charge a former president instead of having something straightforward, they can easily do this to you, which should scare every citizen of this nation. Even the Democrat peasants should be concerned, because you never know if these authoritarian government workers will come after you in such a creative manner.
That argument, however, may not be available in many other Jan. 6-related cases. If prosecutors cannot show that rioters intended to impede the tallying of physical electoral vote certificates, the Justice Department likely will have to drop obstruction charges.
These people are threatened with 20 years in jail for wandering around the Capitol Building. Compare this to those involved in attacking federal workers and firebombing the federal building in Portland in 2020. For instance, Edward Carubis, who assaulted a federal officer, ended up pleading guilty to one misdemeanor charge of assaulting a federal officer, and was hit with “time served.” That’s it. Which is the same for most. None have been specifically charged with things like firebombing the building, or attempted murder, since there were people in the building when they tried to set it on fire. This is a total mismatch in treatment to the J6 people, despite the violence and property destruction.
Roberts warned that the Justice Department’s “novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.”
Those who assaulted federal officers get misdemeanors. Those who walked around Congress get major felonies for record keeping. Think one what government could do. That’s what Roberts is saying.
William Teach: They were charged with violating record keeping. Then typically held in jail without bond till their trial, sometimes in solitary
That is false. Federal law presumes pretrial release unless there is evidence pretrial release would constitute a threat to the public, or that the defendant is likely to flee or to interfere with the judicial process. The vast majority of defendants were released on pretrial bond.
The narrowing of the scope of the obstruction statute may not affect many cases. Very few people were charged under just the obstruction statute, and many were convicted with evidence that they specifically intended to stop the electoral count. While it has yet to be adjudicated, the obstruction charge against Trump may survive dismissal as the allegations include fake electoral certifications (‘record keeping’).
Keep reaching, kiddieZzz, nobody’s buying any of your arguments.
Except maybe Rimjob (aka SMF).
#Trump2024-NotRevengeButRetribution
Bwaha! Lolgf
Justice Barrett dissented saying, “Congress, not this Court, weighs the ‘pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.’”
Note the “or obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,”
As said before, this reactionary Court decides on the outcome it wants and then looks for excuses. Chief Justice Roberts claimed Section (1) modifies Section (2), although to a common man the “or” implies they’re separate.
Reminds one of the reactionary argument that the 2nd Amendment permits a person to keep and bear any Arms they want.
In this case the reactionaries insist that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is meaningless.
Why didn’t the founding fathers just write, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?
America is ruled by five wealthy judges in robes in D.C. Anyway, once they install DJT as President he can pardon every one!
IF President Biden wins he should add 4 new Justices to the Court.
Former federal prosecutor and current law professor at George Washington U law school, Randall D. Eliason wrote:
There is nothing remotely conservative about the Court rewriting laws.
Chicken Little Karen Man
Now let me see. I should ignore the USSC and obey you.
Okie Dokie.
What a bull shitter you are.
Chicken Shit Lewis Man(?),
Did you support the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision?
You may not realize this, but you are NOT obligated to obey me, even when Justice Barrett and I are correct.
Chicken Little Karen Man
I support the decisions made by the USSC.
But not ones made moot by the USSC.
And I am saddened to know that you do not support decisions made by the USSC.
Chicken Little Karen Man
Why didn’t the founding fathers just write, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?
Because they wanted citizens who were able to be part of that militia. They wanted them familiar with and know how to handle weapons. Thus they wanted to insure that they couldn’t be taken from them by future governments.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“…..being necessary to the security of a free State…..” is called an explanatory phrase.
No charge for the education.
And “Well regulated” does not mean, Burdened with mountains of regulations. It means “Regularized”. So the government should be advising citizens what sort of arms to get so that they all use similar ammunition, making logistics easier when they are called to the militia. The second Amendment certainly intended every free adult to be armed with the best they could afford and that included “weapons of war”. It was the whole point. This was not to restrict free trade and personal choices, but to help make collective response to threats more effective.
It amazes me that with the amount of distain Elwood shows toward the United States of America, the Christians who live here and the constitution that rules us designed by Christians that even bothers staying in this country. He seems to admire and support everything un American from murdering babies in the womb to having homos in the military. He just seems so unhappy here that perhaps seeking another place to live might prove a better retirement plan.
I’ve thought of leaving America and moving to Florida as I’ve grown fond of the Tampa area; or even The Republic of Texas!! But my family has lived in Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri for over 100 years.
BTW, why is the incidence of maternal morbidity and mortality increasing in the US? Why is the incidence of infant mortality increasing? Why is the incidence of birth defects increasing?
BTW, BTW… The US of A already had the highest infant mortality, maternal morbidity and mortality of the industrialized nations. We’re 55th! Behind 54 other nations. This is the richest nation on Earth. With the “best” health care. Only 65 nations have a lower maternal mortality rate!! WTF?
I actually love the United States of America, but am honestly concerned about where we’re heading. We are in the throes of a far-right movement that threatens to drastically change, if not end, this nation as we know it. We, The People, are needed to save it.
The enormity of MAGAtism is threatening, but perhaps even less threatening than the politization and polarization of the Supreme Court.
The distinguished Mr Dowd wrote:
And yet you’ve learned so little about the real America!
Back atcha, chief!
James Lewis: Now let me see. I should ignore the USSC and obey you.
Disagreeing with the court is not the same as advocating disobedience.
We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
— Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson
Most J6 cases won’t be exonerated by the decision as most either pleaded or were convicted of other charges. For many, evidence was provided that they were explicitly attempting to obstruct the electoral count. While it hasn’t yet been adjudicated under the new interpretation, Trump’s obstruction charge may well survive challenge.
C’mon kiddieZ, you haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re writing about.
STFU and go away.
You’re annoying the adults and you know it.
L.G.,
YOU’RE the one who wants to change America!! YOU’RE the one wanting to transform (deform?) American into a white, Christian ethno-state! Christo-facism? Christo-Aryanism?
The American far-right, with their malleable felon, Donald Trump, as their Lord and Master is attempting to return the United States to the good ol’ days, when white, conservative, “straight”, christian men ruled! And today, they have a supportive Supreme Court willing to dominate the Executive and Legislative branches, essentially legislating. According to you, granting rights to negroes, women, foreigners and gays has ruined your America.