Supreme Court to weigh if Jan. 6 rioters can be charged with obstruction

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

April 13, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. EDT


In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, federal prosecutors had to decide what charges to bring against hundreds of participants in the pro-Trump mob that disrupted the certification of a presidential election for the first time in U.S. history.

In more than 350 cases, they included a federal charge that carries a hefty 20-year maximum penalty and is part of a law enacted after the exposure of massive fraud and shredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron. As of this month, more than 100 rioters have been convicted and sentenced under that statute for obstructing or impeding an official proceeding — in this case the joint session of Congress that convened on Jan. 6 to formally certify Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about whether prosecutors improperly stretched the law by charging people with that violation in the first place. The high court’s ruling, likely to land in late June, has the potential to undo the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or pleaded guilty, and upend the charges still pending for many more. Three Jan. 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced ahead of a decision by the Supreme Court.

The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters. The case could also directly impact Trump’s own trial for allegedly trying to remain in power after his 2020 defeat; two of the four charges he faces are based on the obstruction statute, and he could move to have those charges dismissed if the Supreme Court rules for the rioters.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/

---

(no subscription required article)

[wolfie001]

1. Isn't stopping the counting of electoral votes the main reason they trespassed?

This should be a no brainer but with the 3 RW implants, who knows?

[Voltaire2]

4. 6. All six are problematic on any issue.

[Kid Berwyn]

2. Just because they were obstructing Congress from its official duties...

...doesn't mean it's "legally wrong" because, as everyone who matters knows, it's OK when a Republican does it.

Were it up to me, though, they'd be hauled up on charges of treason and insurrection.

[Voltaire2]

3. This is so stunningly stupid. They literally obstructed the formal process of electing the president.

The fuck-knobs are beyond simple corruption.

[Freethinker65]

5. If Congress was in session, you betcha

Congresspeople were barricading themselves in rooms or running for their lives. People who are less disruptive are routinely removed from the viewing gallery.

Even if not in session. The intent was spoken out loud at the rally by Trump who offered to March with crowd to the Capitol. The rally was called "Stop the Steal" and Trump instructed them how he thought it could be stopped, Stop Pence, Stop Pelosi, Stop certification.

And, if successful, this Court would probably have been ok with it. Certainly Thomas, whose wife helped find and plan the entire thing, would have been ok with it.

[LudwigPastorius]

6. The law:

(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.

Looks unassailable, but maybe I don't understand plain English words.

[CrispyQ]

10. Make this an OP!!!

[GB_RN]

11. IIRC...

The judge who tossed the charge to begin with did so by saying that the statute only applied to documents. How he could do so, when subsection 2 specifically says “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” is beyond me. Seems rather obvious that this part deals with meetings, etc., whereas the first part is what the judge was applying to the case in his…ummm…reasoning dumbass opinion.

Now, we have to risk Clarence “Uncle Slappy” Thomas, Scammy Alito, Gorsuck, Beerbong and the Handmaiden deciding that the law doesn’t say what the law says it does (just like in the student loan forgiveness case).

[AnrothElf]

13. Uncle Slappy, Scammy, Gorsuck, Beerbong and the Handmaiden!!! LOL!!

[GB_RN]

17. Uncle Slappy...

I can’t take credit for. I got that one from one of the original liberal bloggers, Bartcop (RIP). He started calling Thomas that and would post a picture of him in clown makeup with a 🚫 containing a ❓, smack in the middle of his forehead. You might ask why the “no questions” sign. Reasonable. Answer is because Slappy went years without asking a single question during arguments. His “reasoning” was the justices should get all the information they need from the briefs. 🙄

Handmaiden is another I can’t take credit for. Although “Amy COVID Barrett” is mine. Came up with that because of her nomination announcement becoming a superspreader event.

Beerbong I’d seen around and started using, too.

Gorsuck and Scammy? Those are mine. 😁

All that being said, spread the infamy!!!

[riversedge]

14. Thanks. I needed that reminder. And no, you understand perfectly

[oasis]

16. That!

[sinkingfeeling]

7. They just can't seem to pass on any case that might help TSF.

[BlueKota]

8. The 6 Trump ass kissers will side with the insurrectionists

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. If they rule in favor of the insurrectionists

Does that mean anyone who attempts to disrupt a SCOTUS hearing also cannot be charged with Obstructing an Official Proceeding?

[GB_RN]

12. That Would Be My Take...

I have to hope that the Solicitor General will toss something like that in as an example of the consequences that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would incur should SCOTUS fuck it up.

[NowsTheTime]

15. It's Not Just Participants, 2 of 4 Charges Against Trump...per npr

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2024, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-counts


Here's a summary of the charges Trump is facing in Washington, D.C., for attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election:

one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.

one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.

one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.

one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

[Elessar Zappa]

18. This should be a 9-0 decision.

“Should” is they key word here.

[Marthe48]

19. Hope they can see past their nose

If they allow traitor's army to get a pass on obstruction and those criminals get reduced fines/time and so on, it will only encourage the criminal elements to gather and try it again. They aren't going to stop at the Capitol Building. And they aren't going to check who's wearing a suit.