Wow – talk about legal hanky-panky – the article belowoutlines a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court that could impact other or now pending January6 cases. What do I mean?
I mean the slick legal mumbo jumbo of the wordingof the case by slick lawyers for the January 6 defendants and in some casesthose already convicted and in jail as well the case pending against Trump could go bye-bye. The case now in question seen in thisNBC Newsarticle below (formatted to fit the blog):
“Supreme Court tackles January6 obstruction charge with Trump case looming”
WASHINGTON — In the weeksbefore the January 6, 2021, attack on the National Capitol, Joseph Fischerwrote a text message talking about his desire: “To take Democratic members ofCongress to the gallows” as he predicted politicians would be dragged out ofthe Capitol and hung after a mob trial, thataccording tothe government.
Fischer, then a policeofficer in PA, wrote in a message on December 16, 2020, authorities report: “Can’tvote if they can’t breathe, lol.”
Fischer subsequently joined the mob on January 6 in a bid toblock Trump’s 2020 electoral defeat. He now faces seven criminal charges, oneof which is the focus of a Supreme Court case ready for argument. Fischeris asking the court to throw out one charge he’s facing: “Obstruction of anofficial proceeding.”
But, and it’s not just that Fischer charge that hangs in thebalance. Trump has been charged with violating the same law, as well as aconspiracy provision. The Supreme Court ruling could affect his prosecutiontoo.
Federal authoritiessayon January 6, Fischer joined the crowd breaching the Capitol from the eastside. All this from him on that day as he pushed forward toward the policeyelling as he and other rioters then fell to the ground.
After other rioters liftedFischer, video disclosed as evidence in other January 6 trial shows that hetried to appeal to officers protecting the Capitol, telling them that he was anofficer too, as a video appears to show Fischer saying that day.
After anofficer tells Fischer to turn around and leave, he appears to appeal to theofficer to stand with them “as a patriot.”
Fischer then yells that included: “Charge!Motherf-----s! It’s our f------ house, brother! Take a knee! Take a knee!”
Fischer, who is yet to go to trial, also faces charges forassaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, among others.Those charges will not be affected by how the court rules on the obstructioncount.
Trump has cited theFischer case, including in his most recent filing at the Supreme Courtconcerning his bid to obtain presidential absolute immunity for his actions seeking tooverturn the election results.
Oral arguments in that case take place on April25.
In Fischer’s case, the law at issue is fromU.S. Code,Title 18, Section 1512 (c) (2), which criminalizes any effort to “corruptlyobstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.”
Conviction can resultin a prison sentence of up to 20 years. The government now says about 330 other January6 defendants have been charged with violating that same law.
Now, Republicans including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) andRep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), filed abriefin Fischer’s case saying:“The DOJis using the law as an all-purpose weapon against perceived politicalopponents.”
(My insert: From those two utter BS).
That law, enacted in 2002,was part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,a bill passed in the aftermath of the Enron accounting scandal.
As such, defendants say itwas written to address evidence tampering and was never intended to apply to anincident such as January 6.
My FYI: We've never had an insurrection like this either.
Fischer’s lawyers argue that the provision is limited inscope to evidence tampering, pointing to language in another part of thestatute referring to records and documents. It therefore should not apply toFischer’s actions, such as the alleged assault of a police officer, etc.
Trump’s lawyers have made similar arguments that his allegedconduct is not covered by the obstruction law, saying intheir briefin the immunity casethat the statute: “Is stretched farbeyond its natural meaning when applied to Trump,” who is now facing four chargesin total.
In describing Trump’salleged criminal acts, the election interference indictment focuses on hisbroad scheme to stay in power by urging Congress to reject electioncertifications that confirmed Biden’s victory. Trump and his allies insteadsought to submit substitute certifications crafted by what have been dubbed“fake electors.”
Prosecutors argue Trump’sactions fit within the statute because he made false statements to members ofCongress and others and submitted false documents.
Special Counsel Jack Smith,who is prosecuting Trump, said inhis latest briefin that case that no matter how thecourt rules in the Fischer case: “The Section 1512 charges in this case arevalid.”
That is because unlike inFischer’s case, Trump’s prosecution does involve an alleged conspiracy totamper with documents, namely the effort as Smith says: “To use fraudulentelectoral certifications rather than genuine onesduring the congressionalproceeding to certify the 2020 election outcome.”
Smith also referenced thebrieffiled by Fischer’s lawyers in the casebeing argued.
They seek a narrow reading of the law that would ensure thecharge against their client would be dismissed, but would appear to leave openthe option of someone being prosecuted for “making false claims,” or for offering“false testimony.”
Richard Bernstein, a lawyer who filed a friend-of-the-courtbrief backing the government said: “If the Supreme Court were to embrace thatapproach, Fischer could win, but Trump’s own charges could remain unaffected. Allthe parties in the Fischer case agree that the statute applies to submittingfalse statements and false documents. If the court agrees with that it doesn’tmatter for Mr. Trump how they rule on Fischer’s particular case.”
Fritz Ulrich, a federal public defender who is one ofFischer’s lawyers, said the language cited by Smith was merely aimed atbuttressing their argument limiting the scope of the statute, adding: “We havenot been paying attention to the prosecution of the former president.”
The original article continues from here:
My 2 Cents: As I notedabove this is slick lawyering by the January 6 rioters. Will it work; will itinfluence SCOTUS to give them a pass; and then will it apply to Trump as well?
Serious questions for the court for sure – but one thing remains perfectlyclear, at east to me and hopefully for you, too: How could anyone not havewatched the events of that horrible day on January 6 and saw the purpose asclear as day and that was: To destroy anyone and anything that got in their way to reversethe outcome of that free, fair, safe, and secure election thus wiping out over200 years of our democracy?
Fischer should not get abreak via this loophole and neither should Trump. I conclude with this questionfor the court: “What if the January 6 insurrectionists had succeeded?”
With that question, pleaseconsider this analogy: A person shoots at you but misses and runs out ofbullets then later tries to claim while in police custody: “Yeah, I shot athim, I didn’t kill anyone – I’m innocent. Release me.”
Nope, sorry pal, no cando – attempted murder also is a crime.
Thanks for stopping by.
