On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the obstruction of the law charges against hundreds of J6 patriots.
If the justices decide that the law was stretched too far, this might also affect the legal battles of former President Donald Trump.
The prosecutors accused the former president of similar charges and conspiracy, which were under another section of the same law.
Hundreds of demonstrators were charged and convicted of obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, a federal charge that penalizes the accused with 20 years of the maximum penalty. Enacted in 2022, this law was created amid the downfall of the energy giant Enron and the massive fraud scandal it confronted.
According to the White House, the electoral college was ongoing while violence outside the capitol ensued.
One of those convicted was Joseph Fisher. He countered the charges against him, saying that this law is to catch and prosecute people who destroy evidence related to corporate fraud and, therefore, is inapplicable to the J6 patriots.
Fischer’s lawyers argue that the events in the Capitol that day were beyond the limitations of the law.
Special Counsel Jack Smith also slapped President Trump with similar charges and another conspiracy charge under the same law for allegedly inciting protesters to insurrection and subvert the certification of elections.
According to Theodore M. Cooperstein, one of the lawyers for the J6 defendants, Mr. Smit will not be able to prove his conspiracy claims against Trump if the court decides that the law does not apply to the demonstrators.
“Conspiracy is dependent on the substance of what you are conspiring to do,” he said.
“It really does take a weapon out of their arsenal.”
Fischer’s lawyers called the prosecutors’ move to charge J6 patriots with obstructing an official proceeding “unprecedented reading.”
Therefore, if the law were broadened, it would affect and allow all sorts of prosecutions for anyone who “disturbs” a congressional session or a member of Congress who delays his floor vote.
“The government suggests that the Court should twist Congress’s effort into the creation of an omnibus obstruction offense for prosecutors to use in future cases.”
“If there ever were a textual case in which judicial restraint is called for because Congress can broaden a statute to fit the government’s desired scope, this is that case.”
“Until the January 6 prosecutions, no one had extended subsection (c)(2) beyond instances involving evidence impairment,” they said in their brief.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: The Raging Patriot
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://theragingpatriot.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.