Ok?
I’m NO Lawyer….
But?
People jump over the walls and STOPPING Congress FROM ratifying the 2020 Presidential vote IS STRAIGHT UP a Obstruction of impending an Offical proceeding …..
To me?
The High Court’s justices who are justb lawyers SHOULD be able to get this right and NOT let the people get a pass on their actions…Thus saying people CAN just show up at Congressional Offices and tear the place up to stop and action and NOT be arrested?
Oh, ?
Maybe Alito and Thomas would?
Much of the discussion on Tuesday is expected to center on how to properly interpret the text of a statute Congress amended in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed the Enron scandal. As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.
The law includes a penalty of up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “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.”
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defending the Justice Department, told the court in filings that the second clause should be read as a “catchall” that ensures that “unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — like occupying the Capitol building and forcing the suspension of Congress’s joint session certifying the election results — are prohibited, while giving a judge discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime.”
The word “otherwise” means “in a different manner,” Prelogar wrote, and makes clear that Congress intended to prohibit obstruction broadly, beyond the destruction of records or documents listed in the first section of the law….
…
All but one of the 15 judges overseeing Jan. 6-related cases in theD.C. federal courthouse have sided with the government on this question, ruling that the rioters who sought to keep Congress from certifying Biden’s victory were “otherwise” obstructing that proceeding. The outlier was U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump nominee, who said the word “otherwise” refers only to other efforts to tamper with or destroy records or documents….
…
In the past 10 years, the court has narrowed the use of several other criminal statutes while expressing concern about prosecutorial overreach….
…
But some analysts say Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Trump, could tailor his case against the former president to fit within the contours of a ruling in favor of Fischer.
Unlike the Jan. 6 defendants, Trump is not accused of obstruction because he went to or entered the Capitol. He is accused of participating in a plan to submit a slate of fake presidential electors — false evidence — to discard legitimate ballots and obstruct the certification proceeding, of pushing lies that the election was stolen and attempting to use false claims of massive fraud to pressure state officials, the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to change the results.
Even if the Supreme Court decides the obstruction charge does not apply to the actions of the rioters, the special counsel has told the high court, the charges are still valid against Trump.
Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, also faces two other charges in the D.C. indictment: conspiracy to defraud the United States and depriving Americans of their right to have their votes counted….