Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Over Obstruction Law Used in Jan 6 Cases, Including Trump’s case
SCOTUS also agreed to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request that the justices quickly consider the arguments on whether Trump has presidential immunity.
I do not know how people keep anything straight regarding former President Donald Trump’s election interference case in D.C. and the rest of the Capitol Hill riot cases.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about an obstruction law that over 300 January 6 defendants have been charged with by the DOJ.
The case is Fischer v. U.S. The statute is 18 U.S. Code 1512(c)(2):
Whoever corruptly…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.
The law came into effect due to the 2002 Enron scandal.
Former police officer Joseph Fischer asked SCOTUS to scrub the charge against him, which is one of seven counts against him. The cases of two other defendants, Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, joined Fischer’s case.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols threw out Miller’s obstruction charge and dismissed it in Fischer’s and Lang’s case.
The DOJ appealed.
A federal appeals court sided with the DOJ. In a 2-1 decision, the majority found that Nichols was wrong to dismiss the charges.
Trump is charged under that provision as well. Not only could it undo many of the Jan. 6 cases, but it could cripple Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump:
“Since this statute is key to Jack Smith’s prosecution, and the Supreme Court ruling on this case is not likely to come out until the end of June, that could hold up the prosecution or the trial until after the Supreme court rules,” [Senior Legal Fellow at the Claremont Institute Tom] Caso told The Daily Wire. “That’s going to be in the hands of the district court judge.”
Caso added that it’s unclear which way the Supreme Court will go on the issue. The Court doesn’t usually interpret a small provision to “wipe out” the rest of the language of a statute, he said, but, on the other hand, the court could read the provision in isolation and uphold the government’s position.
Special Counsel and SCOTUS
Jim wrote this morning that Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on former President Donald Trump’s claims that he has presidential immunity and shouldn’t face election interference charges.
The Supreme Court wrote:
Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted, and respondent is directed to file a response to the petition on or before 4 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 20, 2023.
The second part told Trump’s lawyers to respond to Smith’s 14-page petition. He questions “whether a former president is immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office, as well as whether an ex-president impeached by the House but acquitted in the Senate can also be charged with crimes.”
See, it’s not just about immunity. Does it qualify as double jeopardy since the Senate already tried him?
Smith also made a filing to the D.C.-based appellate court:
But Smith also did ask for an expedited review by the D.C.-based appellate court that can allow its criminal case to continue moving toward trial in March, all while awaiting word from the Supreme Court on the immunity question.
Late Monday, the clerk for the D.C. Circuit issued an order in response to Smith’s request for an expedited review by ordering Trump’s lawyers to file their briefs by 10 a.m. EST Wednesday, followed by Smith’s reply due by 10 a.m. EST Thursday.
The D.C. Circuit also confirmed the names of the three judges who will consider the expedited appeal: Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush; and Judges J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both appointees of President Joe Biden.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Smith is hoping for a quick “Yeah, go ahead and prosecute him before the election” present from SCOTUS. Hopefully he gets a lump of coal in his stocking instead and a stern reprimand for prosecutorial overreach that applies to *all* of the J6 defendants. I understand he’s stopped handing out 1512(c) indictments like candy recently, so perhaps this a good sign to which way the wind is blowing in the DC cesspool.
ICYMI the DOJ is using an obscure Sarbanes-Oxley regulation to add 10 years to J6th protestors’ sentences.
The Supreme Court justices are only human. They know that the President of the United States, the FBI, the main stream media and the justice department will encourage mobs to threaten their families lives ,,..,and when they ask for protection, Merrick Garland will just smirk and do nothing to protect them..
These threats have affected some rulings already and the pressure will be intense on them to ignore the law for the “insurrectionists” and Trump.
Two+ years late but better than never.
After skimming the ruling I agree with Circuit Judge Katsas’ dissent. The actions listed in 18 U.S. Code 1512(c)(2) are limited to those similar in nature to those in (c)(1).*
I did learn that “corruptly” has a legal meaning different from the common meaning.
Impeachment is carried out by the legislature not the judiciary and is therefore not double jeopardy. The impeachment clause also explicitly refers to criminal charges following impeachment reinforcing this interpretation.
* 18 U.S. Code 1512(c)(1): Whoever corruptly– “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….”
Double jeopardy is being tried for the same crime twice, not being charged by the same entity twice
It’s both, since offenses against separate sovereigns are by definition separate crimes. E.g. state charges are brought under state law, federal charges are brought under federal law; same underlying act, but separate statutes.
then it is being tried for the same crime twice
Two different crimes, two different sovereigns, same facts.
Don”t be an idiot. At least not repeatedly.
He’s right, though. The “two different sovereigns” is so much eyewash. If the state can prosecute a crime under its police power, the feds should not be able to prosecute it under the police power that the founders repeatedly insisted they never gave them in the first place.
Can’t the county and municipalities file charges, too? Maybe the local HOA and Elk’s Lodge? Dogpile with consecutive sentences since it’s totally legit. /s
The feds don’t prosecute anyone under a police power, because they don’t have one. They prosecute under specific statutes that Congress made pursuant to one or another of its enumerated powers.
And the frigging statutory section is entitled “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant” Might lead one to believe that the provisions therein concern tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. Maybe it’s just me.
That sounds like it could apply to the Jan-6 Committee as they seem to have done most of those things.
They have absolute immunity.
I know what to ask Santa this year.
I will ask him to make people stop using verbiage like “crimes committed while in office” to refer to actions that are perfectly legal, constitutionally protected and well within the duties of the President.
When considering a claim of immunity the court must assume that there was a crime. Whether there actually was one is not before the court.
That’s like saying the courts must assume your guilty before hearing what’s going on 🙄
On a motion to dismiss, yes, they must assume the evidence will be all against you.
There are crimes in which you indeed have to admit to the crime before you can present an “affirmative defense.” One example in several states (including Arizona before we fixed it) is that you must admit to the commission of homicide before you are allowed to plead the “affirmative defense” that you killed in self-defense. It’s generally a bad setup, as it forces the defendant to “prove himself innocent.”
Yeah, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the simple proposition that on a motion such as this one the presumptions must all be against the mover. If you’re moving for immunity the court must assume, for the purpose of that motion only, that you’re guilty.
I’m not sure if it has any legal bearing on what the Court will be reviewing. But, it’s hard to rationalize how the same DOJ that’s charged scores of J6 people with obstructing an official proceeding when the idiot who pulled the fire alarm did not, particularly considering there is no other reasonable explanation for his behavior other than to OBSTRUCT AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING.
I see you’re still telling this F***ING LIE. The idea that Bowman pulled the alarm with the idea that this would somehow obstruct the vote going on in the House is not only pure conjecture, without a shred of evidence at all, but it’s STUPID AND DISHONEST conjecture.
You have to deal with the fact that it didn’t have that effect. So you’re left arguing that he thought it would, but you have to explain how he could have mistakenly thought that. What would have made him think it? It’s not at all reasonable.
I don’t know why he did it, but I don’t have to explain it. You’re the one asserting that he had a specific motive, so it’s up to you to prove it, or at least to explain how it’s possible for him to have had that motive. And you can’t do that.
Whether if had an effect is neither here nor there. It was his intent that is the determining factor.
By pulling the fire alarm it was his intent to disrupt proceedings so the vote could not take place.
Same as the J6 political prisoners, they had no intent to disrupt anything that day but ended up where they did by invitation from capital police, many of which were shown around by the police.
That is nothing but your own fantasy, which you pulled out of your rear end. Not only is there not a shred of evidence for it, but it makes absolutely no sense that he could have thought it would have that effect. Please explain how you think he could have thought that, then explain how you know that is indeed what he thought.
Milhouse, you’re being purposely obtuse.
It’s not a stretch to assume that a student pulling a clearly marked fire alarm does so for the purpose of getting everyone to evacuate – interrupting classes if not that test he would have had to take otherwise.
An adult legislator doing the same just before a vote he doesn’t want held is no different. Except that instead of obstructing school he’s obstructing govt – which if the DOJ is to believed deserves 10 years in the slammer.
His defense that he thought a clearly marked fire alarm was not a fire alarm is ridiculous on its face.
No, BobM, you and the others here who are maintaining this fucking lie are being deliberately obtuse.
Interrupting classes where????
Plus there is the deliberate and efficient tearing down of the warning placards immediately before pulling the alarm. I can’t explain what Bowman thought it would achieve, but it was clearly a deliberate issuance of a false fire alarm, with a clear intent to get it done as promptly as possible.
Clearly. There’s no possible question about that. The only question is why he did it. His own explanation is obviously false. But so is the one people here have been pushing, based on nothing but their own wishful thinking. I have no idea what his true motive was, but I don’t have to explain it. These commenters do. They’re the ones attributing a specific motive to him, so they must explain how they think that works.
Yeah, good reasoning. “your honor the prosecution is engaging in pure conjecture that my client intended to kill the victim merely by that fact that video evidence shows my client drawing his gun and shooting the victim. “
Shooting someone is good evidence that you intended to harm him, if not kill him. Which makes it absolutely nothing like this case, where there is no evidence at all for such an intent. Your case is like “Your honor, the defendant clearly intended to kill the alleged victim, as proven by this video that shows him pointing a finger in the direction where the alleged victim was standing.”
You run with that argument Clarence Darrow.
Why else did he tear down the signs and then purposely pull the clearly marked fire alarm?
I have no idea why he did that, AND NEITHER DO YOU. The absence of any obvious motive does not excuse you making up the most fantastic and nefarious motive you can imagine. His explanation is so unlikely that everyone has dismissed it as an obvious lie; yours is even less likely than that.
that’s exactly why he pulled the fire alarm, to delay a vote
“I see you’re still telling this F***ING LIE. The idea that Bowman pulled the alarm with the idea that this would somehow obstruct the vote going on in the House is not only pure conjecture, without a shred of evidence at all, but it’s STUPID AND DISHONEST conjecture.”
So what you’re saying here is that a former school principal is completely unaware of the tactic of pulling the fire alarm or popping an emergency exit to get the school to empty out?
Millhouse, where is your brain?
My brain is right where it belongs. Your brain is evidently out to lunch. The fact is that evacuating the building did not affect the vote; do you understand why it didn’t? If you do, then please explain how he could possibly have expected a different result.
Because Bowman’s a total idiot. For anyone to think he did that For any other reason than to create a ruckus during the vote you are delusional.
He most certainly did.
“Because he’s an idiot” is not an explanation. If you’re admitting idiotic reasons that no reasonable person could have thought would work, then how do you know he didn’t pull the fire alarm thinking that it would cause him to win the lottery, or that he didn’t do it on a dare or to win a bet, or that he didn’t just want to see fire engines, or something equally stupid? There’s no limit to stupid things an idiot might have thought. So why this one?
Tearing the alarm placards down immediately before pulling the alarm shows deliberate intent to do… something clandestine.
It doesn’t show an intent for clandestineness. Is that even a word? It doesn’t really show anything about his motive. All it shows is that he knew exactly what he was doing, and that his claims to the contrary are obviously false.
But the fool who pulled the fire alarm checks at least one box – and is an elected D to boot.
I believe that mischaracterizes Trump’s argument. Nobody claims “a former president is immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office”. It’s obvious that he’s not. Nor does anyone dispute that he is immune for his official acts. The dispute is over the definition of an “official act” for this purpose. Trump wants that interpreted very broadly, so that it covers any act that could conceivably be described as within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility. Smith wants it interpreted narrowly, to cover only acts taken purely in his official capacity.
This claim by Trump is ridiculous and perverse. The constitution explicitly says that impeachment doesn’t affect prosecution. Even if convicted by the senate he can still be tried in court, because these are two completely different kinds of prosecution. The impeachment process is entirely political, not judicial. Now Trump is saying that that applies only if convicted, which is an utterly perverse ruling. If jeopardy doesn’t attach after a conviction by the senate, then a fortiori it doesn’t attach after an acquittal. If he can be “punished” twice for the same offence, then he can surely be punished only once. I get that Trump’s lawyers are trying any theory they can think of, but they deserve to lose on this one.
Once again you are wrong here Justice My Guy 😂
This whole charade is incredibly bad from the perspective that it criminalises every act a President takes and all that is needed is for one branch of EQUAL co-government to decide they are more important and therefore the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong, which is what Democrats are doing here.
It shouldn’t take a brain surgeon to work this out but here we are in 2023 with big brain thinkers like yourself opening your yap and confirming your as dumb as we suspected 😂
There was no content in that “reply”. It’s just pure abuse. Evidently you have nothing of substance to say on the topic.
“Official act” has to be interpreted broadly or immunity is meaningless. Corrupt prosecutors like Smith will simply handwave “Well, if he was doing his job correctly, he would not be violating the law. He violated the law, therefore he was not doing an official act.”
The Constitution gives exclusive authority over legal prosecution of the Executive branch to the Legislature. (otherwise the Executive is investigating the Executive, and we all know how well that works) The maximum penalty they can inflict on the Executive is removal from office and stripping the Executive of their immunity so the next Executive can prosecute them. Trump was not convicted in the Senate either time, so he maintains that Executive immunity. It’s really that simple. The Dems in the Legislature even back up his claim by their attempts to impeach him for the J6 ‘insurrection’ because they obviously thought they had jurisdiction over his conduct as the Executive. Now the DOJ (of the Dems) is sweeping in and claiming “No, that was wrong, *we* have the jurisdiction to conduct this inquisition.”
Hopefully, SCOTUS squashes this overreach like stepping on a sugarplum.
If courts are now allowed to define an official act of the president, the republic is doomed.
WRONG! The Constitution explicitly states how and only how impeachment can affect prosecution and that is only when the president is convicted by the Senate and removed from office Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7
And you keep being a fucking liar. The constitution says no such thing. I bet you’ve never even read it.
The constitution says that impeachment and removal is not a bar to prosecution. More to the point, it says that removal and disqualification are the only penalties the senate can impose, and for anything else you need to prosecute. It says not one word, explicitly or implicitly, barring prosecution in other cases. .
The prosecution of Trump is the only thing here that is corrupt…
As far as official proceedings go: if a member of congress is on his way to a vote on the floor and gets pulled over by the police for violation of a traffic law, is the officer interfering with an official proceeding? First thing is whether or not the absence of one member in itself is an interference with the congress’s duty. Second thing is whether the officer is acting corruptly, and the answer is no because he is enforcing the traffic laws, which is the discharge of HIS official duties.
Likewise, the president enforces federal law. If monkeying with an election is a crime, then the president is charged with enforcement of federal voting laws. To interfere with an election by directing the Vice President to hold off on the count to give the legislatures of the several states to revisit the ballot counting process, that in and of itself does not interfere with an election because only those state legislatures can walk back the vote or convene an alternate set of electors — regardless if the VP asks them or not.
Therefore there is no corrupt intent on Trump’s part. Trump did not tell the VP to destroy or fabricate ballots, he didn’t take action to fraudulently change the vote count, or to illegally disqualify ballots; he didn’t threaten the Electoral College, he didn’t send the military to seize vote counting machines, etc.
What has happened up to this point is the intentional twisting of words in the federal register for political prosecution. The courts have to look beyond the simplistic and stupid argument that a president is immune from the law. No, the president is immune from laws meant to obstruct laws when he enforces the law, just like the cop who stopped the congressman.
No, because that whole charge is BS, as the Supreme Court is now going to hear; but the policeman is certainly in the wrong, and if he knows it then he’s guilty of false arrest.
I can’t follow this argument logically because there are too many assumptions. The constitution specifically protects congressmen from being stopped like this when congress is in session. Is the officer deliberately and knowingly stopping a congressman, or is he stopping a valid violator unknown to him? Does he let the congressman go once the congressman identifies himself and says he’s on his way to vote? I can’t work the analogy without understanding it.
They are charging him with trying to overthrow an election. The problem is the Constitution has a process in it for “overthrowing” an election. As long as he was following that process there should be no crime committed. It is just like some of the states trying to prosecute people for appointing alternate electors. As long as they do not represent themselves as the actual electors then there is no crime. Most states have a deadline for appointing your electors so if there is a recount or court case and you do not appoint alternates then you are stuck with the other guys electors if you win your case after the deadline. So they set it up where you have to do something then point to that as proof you are committing a crime.
Can Smith and Willis then be charged with interfering in or obstructing an official proceeding, in this case the 2024 federal elections, under the same assumptions made in their indictments of Trump? I believe so. This is a dangerous can or worms that is being opened. A very dangerous precedent is being sought and it can work both ways. Trump’s shadow AG, Ken Paxton, would not hesitate to bring the charges, probably in the Eastern District of Texas.