"... as 18 Oath Keepers accused in a conspiracy case urged the court on Wednesday to toss out a count carrying one of the heaviest penalties against them.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as 'obstructing an official proceeding' of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing.
'Essentially, what you said is, "Trust us,"' Mehta said.
'. . . And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, "We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion."'... Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence.... Prosecutors have sought to distinguish such acts from protest-related civil disobedience that rarely results in prison time and more politically charged offenses such as sedition.... 'The million-dollar question is: What’s the limiting principle?' Mehta said, suggesting the statute 'clearly brings in innocent conduct,' encompassing anyone seeking to influence Congress."
पोस्ट्स
२८ टिप्पण्या:
Mehta better watch his back. He is making entirely too much sense, and that's damned inconvenient for the gummint now bent on making an example of some bozos who wandered over the line in The People's House.
"What’s the limiting principle?'"
It's nice of him to ask. But also a little naive: for progressives, there is no limiting principle, except political calculation. Law is strictly a tool.
One of the things I find interesting about this was 6 months of blather about sedition. There must have been hundreds, if not thousands of stories I read about how they should be charged with "sedition".
But AFIK nobody has been charged with it.
I wonder if the fact that there is no law against sedition is just another one of those technicalities that evildoers use to usurp the rule of law.
Shameful! Just like the way PEDJT avoids trial, conviction and imprisonment by not having committed any actual crime.
How can we let this stand?
John Henry
These are not proper cases. They are political theater. The DOJ lawyers are not prosecutors. They are political hacks.
It is encouraging to see that some federal judges in DC are still concerned with the Constitution. Now, about the matter of bail ....
I like this judicial pushback on these contortions of the judicial system to implement the leftie agenda.
That's twice in as many weeks...
What? No 'lawsuits I hope will lose' tag?
There are far too many laws on the books.
“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
― Hillary Rodham Clinton
My mother was born on Bastille Day.
"That same day, another crowd stormed the Bastille, a fortress-prison in Paris that had historically held people jailed on the basis of lettres de cachet (literally "signet letters"), arbitrary royal indictments that could not be appealed and did not indicate the reason for the imprisonment ..."
"how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as 'obstructing an official proceeding' of Congress —— from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing.
Seems Obvious, doesn't it? IF the deep state Approves of your interruption; it's No Crime
IF the deep state DisApproves of your interruption; it's Your ASS
... Prosecutors have sought to distinguish such acts from protest-related civil disobedience that rarely results in prison time and more politically charged offenses such as sedition...
time for some one here to get on their high horse about Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
Here is an easy limiting principle: 6A. At least one 1/6 defendant was (still is?) held in jail for longer than any potential sentence. Many other defendants across the country face the same problem today, in 2 AC (Annus Covidus).
I have a friend in journalism academia who has done programs with the federal judiciary. The judges' bete noire is being linked in news articles to the presidents who appointed them.
Don't try to make legal comparisons
Rule of Law and prosecutorial discretion are mutually exclusive. Unless, and I don't know if this is already the case, all discretion in enforcement and prosecution is bounded by the letter of the law.
I, for one, suggest that protesters firing incendiary devices and explosives at law enforcement who are trying to prevent protesters' arson against a federal courthouse might qualify for the more serious charge. But I'm not a federal prosecutor in Portland, Oregon.
Everything benefits from a Mehta-analysis
There was a time when the left in this country didn't believe in "the man" and actively protested against him because he could use the armaments of the state to suppress dissent. Quaint.
As of now, the Obama Judges are just "questioning" things. I don't see anyone of them striking down the charges. Maybe they're worried about being overturned on appeal.
Good. This whole thing is a farce. There was absolutely not an insurrection, there was absolutely riot - including in the Capitol and including disrupting Capitol proceedings - by citizens who didn't trust the government to conduct a fair and transparent election due to huge irregularities in voting in critical states which conducted massive vote-process changes with mail-in voting, extended voting, and rule changes by secretaries of state that were not in line with statutes and that were done in key swing states.
The energy that has gone into silencing those concerns by focusing on the riot, and not on also putting equal energy into ADDRESSING THOSE CONCERNS even if the election outcome would have been identical, is blatantly incriminating of those who don't actually care about electoral stability.
I want Judges and others to have to call out how overplayed this is....the idea that an insurrection is a group of unarmed citizens storming the nation's citadel with no coordinated plan or intent is absurd. Particularly in light of the fact that the only death was a single protestor shot under questionable circumstances.
A small sign that the rule of law isn't completely dead in America. But it's just a small sign and I'm not fooled. Rule of Law is on life support and what follows its collapse will not be pretty.
This whole insurrection kabuki is starting to smell like a really hamhanded attempt to cover up (1) how the FBI organized and encouraged groups to “show up” for the purpose of (2) creating chaos by the Capitol Celebrity Policia by overreacting to normal American protests of the type Congress sees at every hearing of interest to the Left (3) thereby ginning up the rough appearance of some kind of vague threat they could milk up to the midterms.
It is falling apart in a most delightful way and I hope those overcharged protesters sue the Feds and are compensated for their scapegoating.
In the end, this Obama judge will fold to the DoJ. We all know it, don't we? I don't doubt that his conscience is bothered by what is going on, but he will bend the knee one way or another.
Yet another example why there should be no qualified immunity for cops and prosecutors. Over the last five years the FBI and the DOJ have demonstrated that they have no credibility and indeed are acting criminally. One doesn't uphold the law by breaking it.
Let's see. If the FBI were up to its neck in this event, why would the government prosecute? The FBI is going to show up many times in trials where the government has to abide by its obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence--if there were such trials. Maybe this is just prosecution theater to teach those hicks from nowhere who is boss. Many of the accused have been in the clink far longer than five -time gun offenders in Chicago when they are picked up for a sixth violation. And, as Judge Mehta notes, there was a lot of interference with legislative process in the Kavanaugh hearings.
This whole thing is a study in bad faith criminal legal process pursued for political ends.
"'The million-dollar question is: What’s the limiting principle?' Mehta said, suggesting the statute 'clearly brings in innocent conduct,' encompassing anyone seeking to influence Congress."
The "limiting principle" is Left wing riots good, Right wing protests bad
I thought they didn't use the word 'riot' any longer to characterize protests. Maybe that was just a 2020 rule.
chirho said...
I thought they didn't use the word 'riot' any longer to characterize protests. Maybe that was just a 2020 rule.
In the Immortal Words, of SE Hinton.... That Was Then; This Is Now
The limiting principle is that, if there is a delta such that the absolute value of (Xo-X) is less than or equal delta then there is an epsilon greater than zero where the absolute value of (f(Xo)-f(x)) is less than or equal epsilon.
"We know it when we see it,
and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion."
Kind of like pornography I guess.
"Why this law could drag in innocent conduct like throwing an IED into a Federal courthouse or attempting to burn down a jail full of prisoners or using blinding lasers banned as weapons in treaties to which the United States is a signatory!"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा