Wow – talk about legal hanky-panky – the article below outlines a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court that could impact other or now pending January 6 cases. What do I mean?
I mean the slick legal mumbo jumbo of the wording
of the case by slick lawyers for the January 6 defendants and in some cases
those already convicted and in jail as well the case pending against Trump could go bye-bye. The case now in question seen in this NBC News article below (formatted to fit the blog):
“Supreme Court tackles January
6 obstruction charge with Trump case looming”
WASHINGTON — In the weeks before the January 6, 2021, attack on the National Capitol, Joseph Fischer wrote a text message talking about his desire: “To take Democratic members of Congress to the gallows” as he predicted politicians would be dragged out of the Capitol and hung after a mob trial, that according to the government.
Fischer, then a police
officer in PA, wrote in a message on December 16, 2020, authorities report: “Can’t
vote if they can’t breathe, lol.”
Fischer subsequently joined the mob on January 6 in a bid to
block Trump’s 2020 electoral defeat. He now faces seven criminal charges, one
of which is the focus of a Supreme Court case ready for argument. Fischer
is asking the court to throw out one charge he’s facing: “Obstruction of an
official proceeding.”
But, and it’s not just that Fischer charge that hangs in the
balance. Trump has been charged with violating the same law, as well as a
conspiracy provision. The Supreme Court ruling could affect his prosecution
too.
Federal authorities say
on January 6, Fischer joined the crowd breaching the Capitol from the east
side. All this from him on that day as he pushed forward toward the police
yelling as he and other rioters then fell to the ground.
After other rioters lifted Fischer, video disclosed as evidence in other January 6 trial shows that he tried to appeal to officers protecting the Capitol, telling them that he was an officer too, as a video appears to show Fischer saying that day.
After an officer tells Fischer to turn around and leave, he appears to appeal to the officer 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 for
assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, among others.
Those charges will not be affected by how the court rules on the obstruction
count.
Trump has cited the Fischer case, including in his most recent filing at the Supreme Court concerning his bid to obtain presidential absolute immunity for his actions seeking to overturn the election results.
Oral arguments in that case take place on April
25.
In Fischer’s case, the law at issue is from U.S. Code,Title 18, Section 1512 (c) (2), which criminalizes any effort to “corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.”
Conviction can result
in a prison sentence of up to 20 years. The government now says about 330 other January
6 defendants have been charged with violating that same law.
Now, Republicans including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), filed a brief in Fischer’s case saying: “The DOJ is using the law as an all-purpose weapon against perceived political opponents.”
(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 it
was written to address evidence tampering and was never intended to apply to an
incident such as January 6.
My FYI: We've never had an insurrection like this either.
Fischer’s lawyers argue that the provision is limited in
scope to evidence tampering, pointing to language in another part of the
statute referring to records and documents. It therefore should not apply to
Fischer’s actions, such as the alleged assault of a police officer, etc.
Trump’s lawyers have made similar arguments that his alleged
conduct is not covered by the obstruction law, saying in their brief in the immunity case
that the statute: “Is stretched far
beyond its natural meaning when applied to Trump,” who is now facing four charges
in total.
In describing Trump’s
alleged criminal acts, the election interference indictment focuses on his
broad scheme to stay in power by urging Congress to reject election
certifications that confirmed Biden’s victory. Trump and his allies instead
sought to submit substitute certifications crafted by what have been dubbed
“fake electors.”
Prosecutors argue Trump’s actions fit within the statute because he made false statements to members of Congress and others and submitted false documents.
Special Counsel Jack Smith,
who is prosecuting Trump, said in his latest brief in that case that no matter how the
court rules in the Fischer case: “The Section 1512 charges in this case are
valid.”
That is because unlike in Fischer’s case, Trump’s prosecution does involve an alleged conspiracy to tamper with documents, namely the effort as Smith says: “To use fraudulent electoral certifications rather than genuine ones during the congressional proceeding to certify the 2020 election outcome.”
Smith also referenced the brief filed by Fischer’s lawyers in the case
being argued.
They seek a narrow reading of the law that would ensure the
charge against their client would be dismissed, but would appear to leave open
the option of someone being prosecuted for “making false claims,” or for offering
“false testimony.”
Richard Bernstein, a lawyer who filed a friend-of-the-court
brief backing the government said: “If the Supreme Court were to embrace that
approach, Fischer could win, but Trump’s own charges could remain unaffected. All
the parties in the Fischer case agree that the statute applies to submitting
false statements and false documents. If the court agrees with that it doesn’t
matter for Mr. Trump how they rule on Fischer’s particular case.”
Fritz Ulrich, a federal public defender who is one of
Fischer’s lawyers, said the language cited by Smith was merely aimed at
buttressing their argument limiting the scope of the statute, adding: “We have
not been paying attention to the prosecution of the former president.”
The original article continues from here:
My 2 Cents: As I noted above this is slick lawyering by the January 6 rioters. Will it work; will it influence 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 perfectly
clear, at east to me and hopefully for you, too: How could anyone not have
watched the events of that horrible day on January 6 and saw the purpose as
clear as day and that was: To destroy anyone and anything that got in their way to reverse
the outcome of that free, fair, safe, and secure election thus wiping out over
200 years of our democracy?
Fischer should not get a
break via this loophole and neither should Trump. I conclude with this question
for the court: “What if the January 6 insurrectionists had succeeded?”
With that question, please consider this analogy: A person shoots at you but misses and runs out of bullets then later tries to claim while in police custody: “Yeah, I shot at him, I didn’t kill anyone – I’m innocent. Release me.”
Nope, sorry pal, no can do – attempted murder also is a crime.
Thanks for stopping by.
