Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Associated Press, via Yahoo! News

Associated Press

Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump

MARK SHERMAN
Wed, December 13, 2023 at 9:34 AM EST · 2 min read

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against former President Donald Trump. ... The justices will review an appellate ruling that revived a charge against three defendants accused of obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge refers to the disruption of Congress' certification of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

That's among four counts brought against Trump in special counsel Jack Smith's case that accuses the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner of conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss. Trump is also charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

The court's decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump's trial, currently scheduled for March 4. The justices separately are considering whether to rule quickly on Trump's claim that he can't be prosecuted for actions taken within his role as president. A federal judge already has rejected that argument. ... The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March or April, with a decision expected by early summer.

The obstruction charge has been brought against more than 300 defendants in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a bid to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House.

{snip}



Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hear-case-could-143456759.html

---

Hat tip, Joe.My.God.

SCOTUS To Review Obstruction Charges For Rioters
December 13, 2023

https://www.joemygod.com/2023/12/scotus-to-review-obstruction-charges-for-rioters/

[Autumn]

1. That damn court will be the death of our Democracy.

[Rebl2]

4. Got that right

[Timewas]

16. It already is

The citizens united decision started it on the slide and will continue to be the main catalyst in ending it.

[hydrolastic]

23. Said best here

Bullseye

[LakeArenal]

2. I hope the trump justices realize they are there for life. They don't need trump's baggage anymore.

Time to lighten their load. Show some obvious ethics. Well, should be obvious.
They can still carry out the GOP plans without trump.
Time will tell.

[PSPS]

8. They're "true believers" who don't view trump as "baggage" at all. He's orange jebus!

[LakeArenal]

11. I'm not sure of that. Thomas and Alito have shown their egos match trumps and today justices have more power than trump.

Eat their own to control.

Like I said time, will tell.

[czarjak]

26. Time has told.

When Roberts said "Racism is dead.", he be joshing. He's racist AF. Everybody knows that. Almost.

[zanana1]

3. Another delaying tactic.

[MadLinguist]

5. The timing on that decision, taken today 12/13/2023

According to the article

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in the coming months and issue a ruling by the end of June.

Looks like a sabotage attempt on the timeline of hearings. What floors me is that SCOTUS accepted hearing this case based on this load of codswallop:

The case arose after defendant Joseph Fischer was indicted on seven charges following the Jan. 6 riot including one count under a provision of federal criminal law for anyone who "corruptly ... obstructs, influences and impedes any official proceeding."

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, granted Fischer's pretrial motion to dismiss his obstruction charges, ruling that the statute applied only in cases in which a defendant had taken "some action with respect to a document, record or other object."

Federal prosecutors appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A divided three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit in April 2023 reversed Nichols' ruling, saying that the statute was not limited to documents and records, but instead "applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding."

[Novara]

14. End of June

Kind of makes me wonder if P01135809 has been in touch with these people and put them up to this to delay his trial.

[Marthe48]

6. rwnj on the formerly supreme court better pay attention

The traitorous criminals posing as patriotic Americans will obey commands to attack the court building the same as they obeyed commands to attack the capital. Better put some limits on that shadow army before they can't

[DFW]

7. Not sure if I read this right

Three hundred Republican rioters are claiming presidential immunity because their guy was in office during their attempted coup, and Alito and Thomas agreed to hear the case?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. I think four justices are required for that. And good morning. For you, good evening. NT

[DFW]

18. Good evening it is indeed

Though „good“ is relative. The trains here are still a catastrophe. I had a lot to do in Paris today, and both the 6:06 train down there AND the 17:55 train back were not running today. So, I had to leave 2 hours later and return 2 hours earlier. Seven hours of work had to get compressed into three, and of course I didn‘t get everything done, so I have to go back down there again next week, which I was hoping not to have to do. There is no rest for the weary.

[Novara]

15. It has nothing to do with immunity

It's about the definition of "obstructing an official proceeding."

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. They (some January 6th defendants) are claiming 18 USC 1512 only applies to documents.

Since trump is also charged with the same offense he could be affected.

There is an “or” in the statute that very clearly includes actions other than mutilating documents. Every federal Judge has rejected the theory in the District Court. One lone trump judge agreed but was overruled on appeal.

Also, I think they are trying to claim “corruptly” requires the offender stood to personally gain benefit from the crime.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

(c) Whoever 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,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

[iluvtennis]

9. What a crock of BS. n/t

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect Trump prosecution

Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect Trump prosecution

By Robert Barnes and Rachel Weiner
Updated December 13, 2023 at 11:08 a.m. EST | Published December 13, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. EST

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a challenge to a law used to charge hundreds of people in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, which also has been levied against former President Donald Trump in his federal election-obstruction case.

An appeals court said the government could proceed with prosecuting defendants charged under a federal law that makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding — in this case, disruption of Congress’s formal certification of President Biden’s 2020 election.

Obstruction is also one of the four counts brought against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith in connection with the former president’s attempts to block Biden’s victory.

It is unclear how the court’s acceptance of the Jan. 6 case, which involves other defendants, might complicate plans for Trump’s trial, currently scheduled for March 4.

{snip}

The case accepted by the Supreme Court concerns Joseph Fischer of Massachusetts. It is Fischer v. U.S.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

By Robert Barnes
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Twitter https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

By Rachel Weiner
Rachel Weiner covers federal courts in Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Va. Twitter https://twitter.com/rachelweinerwp

[Novara]

13. This isn't rocket surgery

I mean, if a violent mob disrupting the certification of an election by storming the capitol to prevent the actual certification isn't obstructing an official proceeding, I don't know what the fuck is.

[Attilatheblond]

29. And if the Roberts Mob goes along with this obscenity, one hope D.C. LEOs give them an earfull

One might predict a a sudden outbreak of Blue Flu if the court overturns all those VALID convictions. Make them hire their own security if they let the dogs back out.

[Tomconroy]

17. Major, Major news. This affects two of the charges

In the Trump DC case. Unless there is an expedited hearing, trumps March trial may not go forward

[pnwmom]

19. There is, hopefully, a significant difference in Trump's obstruction case.

The appeal of the rioters was based on the flimsy excuse that the law required their obstruction to involve some kind of document.

In Trump's case, he was encouraging fake electors to file false documents. So regardless of what is decided with the rioters, his situation is different.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

20. Why have laws at all if that's the case

Just have everyone arm themselves and you'll have an NRA wet dream.

[TeamProg]

21. "Stop The Steal" means "Obstruct The Official Proceedings of certifying Biden's win". It's as obvious as the swastika

Hannity's forehead.

[Rocknation]

22. It COULD -- but the odds are that it WON'T

because a ruling in Trump's favor would hand the keys of complete presidential immunity to -- well, Biden!

Rocknation

[Farmer-Rick]

25. I agree what's good for Trump

Will be good for Biden down the road

But there are 2 issues here. One where some activist judge decided to reinterpret obstruction of an official proceeding and claim it has to involve a document.

Over 300 people have been charged with this and only in one case did a judge decide against the prosecution's use of the law. That's only one charge and it will very mildly help Trump if the Dancing Supremes rule in his favor.

And two is where Trump thinks he's king and should have total presidential immunity forever. That has been fast tracked by Smith. And if the dancing Supremes give total immunity forever to presidents, maybe we can convince Biden to shoot a couple of Supreme Court Justices.

We probably couldn't convince Biden he's too ethical but W maybe get him drunk and give him a pretzel?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. According to Harry Littman and the J6 Committe lead investigator, this case will not affect Jack Smith's J6 case

Here is some good analysis by Harry Littman who thinks that this appeal may only affect one of the charges in the Mar-a-Lago case and will not affect the J5 case

Here is a good analysis on this appeal that was on Deadline White House today

Please watch the Deadline White House segment posted above. I am now not worried about the SCOTUS review of the J6 case against TFG.

The appellant in this case is claiming that the relevant statue only applies if you destroyed or mutilated a document and there were no documents involved by this rioter merely attacked Congress. According to Tim Healy (the J6 Committee lead investigator) there are a number of documents involved in TFG's case including the fake elector certifications and the attempted letters to states to hold special sessions. In addition, there are two separate indictments that are not based on the federal law in question and so TFG's case will go forward. This review by the SCOTUS should not affect the charges against TFG

[Farmer-Rick]

28. This article is a bit confusing

It's about the obstruction charge against rioting traitors. It really is not a major issue for Trump .....he has much worse legal issues to worry about.

But the article adds in this: "The justices separately are considering whether to rule quickly on Trump's claim that he can't be prosecuted for actions taken within his role as president. A federal judge already has rejected that argument. ... The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March or April, with a decision expected by early summer."

That's the presidential immunity issue that will affect Trump greatly. Both are discussed in the article.

I got to wonder if the journalists were intentionally trying to conflate the 2 issues. Maybe I'm just paranoid.