Supreme Court Sides With Jan. 6 Rioter in Obstruction Case

[Always in His Presence]

Supreme Court Sides With Jan. 6 Rioter in Obstruction Case​

The case could have implications for former President Donald Trump, who is on trial for allegedly trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

For former President Donald Trump, the ruling wipes out two of the four criminal counts brought against him by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith in a federal indictment that accuses him of scheming to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.​

​

“Although the Government’s all-encompassing interpretation may be literally permissible,” he wrote, “it defies the most plausible understanding” and “it renders an unnerving amount of statutory text” superfluous.​

“We therefore decline to adopt the Government’s interpretation, which is inconsistent with ‘the context from which the statute arose.’”​

 

[DaisyDay]

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Fischer v. United States

The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States:

www.justice.gov

​

The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States:​

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences.​

​

The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.​

​

We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”​

​

 

[essentialsaltes]

Supreme Court Sides With Jan. 6 Rioter in Obstruction Case​

For former President Donald Trump, the ruling wipes out two of the four criminal counts​

It does not wipe them out; SCOTUS has simply set forth a more limited set of circumstances where this crime applies -- if I recall correctly it must involve some sort of documentary evidence. It seems like they still apply in Trump's case.

The Supreme Court’s opinion did not address the fake electors scheme specifically. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, nodded to the possibility that the obstruction statute would be violated “by creating false evidence – rather than altering incriminating evidence.”

 

[Always in His Presence]

It does not wipe them out; SCOTUS has simply set forth a more limited set of circumstances where this crime applies -- if I recall correctly it must involve some sort of documentary evidence. It seems like they still apply in Trump's case.

Key words - it seems like .

 

[essentialsaltes]

I guess we'll just see if the charges are withdrawn in Trump's case.

 

[Vambram]

BREAKING: SCOTUS Hands Down Huge Decision Affecting J6 Defendants

townhall.com

 

[Valletta]

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Fischer v. United States

The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States:

www.justice.gov

​

The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States:​

​

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences. ​

​

​

The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.​

​

We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”​

​

Indeed, Jack Smith made a statement that even with such a Supreme Court ruling it would not affect charges against Trump--essentially defying the ruling of the Supreme Court. We saw this with Joe Biden on the student loans. As to Trump, they have twisted the law far beyond what the law says in order to get him, knowing that a number of charges are ridiculous and will be tossed. Bragg and Smith and Garland need to be held accountable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Indeed, Jack Smith made a statement that even with such a Supreme Court ruling it would not affect charges against Trump--essentially defying the ruling of the Supreme Court. We saw this with Joe Biden on the student loans. As to Trump, they have twisted the law far beyond what the law says in order to get him, knowing that a number of charges are ridiculous and will be tossed. Bragg and Smith and Garland need to be held accountable.

Even with USC 1512(c)(2) reduced to just "documents crime", Donald Trump *is* charged with interfering with the documents involved in the proceedings, unlike the Q-Shaman.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It will be interesting to see how it works out