Supreme Court Rules Against Wild Rule Used To Prosecute J6 Folks

If you’ve noticed, the majority of those who wandered peacefully through the halls of Congress were not charged with insurrection. They were charged with violating record keeping. Then typically held in jail without bond till their trial, sometimes in solitary

Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction law used in Jan. 6 prosecutions

The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of a federal law used to charge hundreds of people with obstructing Congress during the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, jeopardizing many of those criminal cases.

The 6-3 ruling on Friday — in which two justices crossed the court’s usual ideological lines — may force federal prosecutors to reconsider charges in dozens of pending cases, and it could require judges to resentence some defendants already sent to prison for interfering with Congress’ effort to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the last presidential contest. About 350 of the 1,400-plus charged Jan. 6 defendants have faced obstruction charges now thrown into doubt by the court.

The majority concluded that the felony obstruction provision passed in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal applies only in cases where prosecutors can show a defendant attempted to tamper or interfere with documents or other records related to a government proceeding. The court rejected the government’s view that the disputed provision covers other activities that could obstruct an official proceeding — a ruling that hinged on an extensive analysis of the word “otherwise” built into the statute.

“Reading [the provision] to cover all forms of obstructive conduct would override Congress’s careful delineation of which penalties were appropriate for which offenses,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s majority.

What they’re talking about is Sarbanes-Oxley, which is about record keeping. Things like having to keep documents, that you need to keep all business emails, etc. When you delete an email from your work email it may disappear from your inbox but it is kept in a backend server. This is what the government used to go after many who really did next to nothing, because our Department of Justice is a political arm of the Democrats and uses creative methods to go after Republicans. Charging people with crimes should be easy: prosecutors shouldn’t have to go looking for creative charges to jail people. That’s a complete perversion of the legal system.

The ruling may have a limited impact on the obstruction charges former President Donald Trump faces for his effort to thwart the certification of the 2020 election results. Special counsel Jack Smith has argued that even under the narrowest interpretation of the statute, Trump is still culpable for obstruction because he sought to introduce fabricated documents — false electoral vote certificates — as part of his sweeping bid to stay in power.

If the government can get all sorts of creative, finding obscure ways to charge a former president instead of having something straightforward, they can easily do this to you, which should scare every citizen of this nation. Even the Democrat peasants should be concerned, because you never know if these authoritarian government workers will come after you in such a creative manner.

That argument, however, may not be available in many other Jan. 6-related cases. If prosecutors cannot show that rioters intended to impede the tallying of physical electoral vote certificates, the Justice Department likely will have to drop obstruction charges.

These people are threatened with 20 years in jail for wandering around the Capitol Building. Compare this to those involved in attacking federal workers and firebombing the federal building in Portland in 2020. For instance, Edward Carubis, who assaulted a federal officer, ended up pleading guilty to one misdemeanor charge of assaulting a federal officer, and was hit with “time served.” That’s it. Which is the same for most. None have been specifically charged with things like firebombing the building, or attempted murder, since there were people in the building when they tried to set it on fire. This is a total mismatch in treatment to the J6 people, despite the violence and property destruction.

Roberts warned that the Justice Department’s “novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.”

Those who assaulted federal officers get misdemeanors. Those who walked around Congress get major felonies for record keeping. Think one what government could do. That’s what Roberts is saying.

The post Supreme Court Rules Against Wild Rule Used To Prosecute J6 Folks appeared first on Pirate’s Cove.