JUSTICE GORSUCH: Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today's audience qualify, or at the state of the union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?
The fire alarm scenario must allude to the Jamaal Bowman incident, but of course, the Solicitor General proceeds smoothly and professionally, and calls it a "hypothetical":
GENERAL PRELOGAR: There are multiple elements of the statute that I think might not be satisfied by those hypotheticals, and it relates to the point I was going to make to the Chief Justice about the breadth of this statute. The -- the kind of built-in limitations or the things that I think would potentially suggest that many of those things wouldn't be something the government could charge or prove as 1512(c)(2) beyond a reasonable doubt would include the fact that the actus reus does require obstruction, which we understand to be a meaningful interference. So that means that if you have some minor disruption or delay or some minimal outburst... we don't think it falls within the actus reus to begin with.
Wasn't pulling the fire alarm to disrupt a vote meaningful? "Meaningful" means full of meaning or serious and important. The prosecutor will decide what is significant and what is trivial. The argument is trust us to draw the line in the right place. But Gorsuch seems almost not to have heard what Prelogar just said, because he's still anguishing about the potential to put someone in prison for 20 years if their protest caused a bit of disruption:
JUSTICE GORSUCH: -- my -- my outbursts require the Court to -- to reconvene after -- after the proceeding has been brought back into line, or the -- the pulling of the fire alarm, the vote has to be rescheduled, or the protest outside of a courthouse makes it inaccessible for a period of time. Are those all federal felonies subject to 20 years in prison?
The Solicitor General does not yield to the invitation to become dismayed over the prospect of 20 years in prison for a disruptive protest. She says:
GENERAL PRELOGAR: So, with some of them, it would be necessary to show nexus. So, with respect to the protest...outside the courthouse... we'd have to show that, yes, they were aiming at the proceeding.
That was exactly Gorsuch's point, and he repeats it:
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Yeah, they were trying to stop the proceeding.GENERAL PRELOGAR: Yes. And then we'd also have to be able to prove that they acted corruptly, and this sets a stringent mens rea. It's not even just the mere intent to obstruct. We have to show that also, but we have to show that they had corrupt intent in acting in that way, and... to the extent that your hypotheticals are pressing on the idea of a peaceful protest, even one that's quite disruptive, it's not clear to me that the government would be able to show that each --
JUSTICE GORSUCH: So a mostly peaceful protest --
GENERAL PRELOGAR: -- of those protestors had corrupt intent.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: -- that actually obstructs and impedes an -- an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered?
GENERAL PRELOGAR: Not necessarily. We would just have to have the evidence of intent, and that's a high bar we argue.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Oh, no, they -- I -- I'm--
GENERAL PRELOGAR: Right.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: They intend to do it, all right.
At this point, Gorsuch has closed the escape routes, and Prelogar acknowledges as much:
GENERAL PRELOGAR: Yes. If they intend to obstruct and we're able to show that they knew that was wrongful conduct with consciousness of wrongdoing, then, yes, that's a 1512(c)(2) offense and then we would charge that.
That's the end of the Gorsuch/Prelogar colloquy, and Gorsuch has made his point strongly. The statute, as the government would interpret it, is a frightening threat to the American tradition of protesting the actions of government.
Later, responding to Justice Alito, the Solicitor General brings up the freedom of speech. There have been protests that have disrupted the Supreme Court, Alito says, and the government hasn't treated them as serious crimes.
GENERAL PRELOGAR: I could imagine defendants in that scenario suggesting that they thought they had some protected free speech right to protest. They might say that they weren't conscious of the fact that they weren't allowed to make that kind of brief protest in the Court. And I think it's in a fundamentally different posture than if they had stormed into this courtroom, overrun the Supreme Court police, required the Justices and other participants to... flee for their safety and done so with clear evidence of intent to obstruct.
JUSTICE ALITO: Yes indeed, absolutely. What happened on January 6th was very, very serious, and I'm not equating this with that. But we need to find out what -- what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation. Let me give you another example. Yesterday protestors blocked the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and disrupted traffic in San Francisco. What if something similar to that happened all around the Capitol so that members -- all the bridges from Virginia were blocked, and members from Virginia who needed to appear at a hearing couldn't get there or were delayed in getting there? Would that be a violation of this provision?
They thought they had some protected free speech right to protest....
पोस्ट्स
१०४ टिप्पण्या:
They thought they had some protected free speech right to protest....
Saying the quiet part out loud.
It depends. Were the protestors who disrupted a proceeding on the Left or the Right?
All of this is obvious. If you blocked a bridge, or delayed a proceeding in support of Donald Trump, or in protest of Democrat voter fraud and corruption...the gov't would lock you up as a political prisoner. This is what is happening to the J6 defendants.
But if it's pro-Palestine, pro-Abortion, pro-transgender, George Floyd...a free pass is given.
If they protest and also destroy subpoenaed evidence in an ongoing investigation then it's covered.
and was aimed at the destruction of documents
It’s funny how the Progressives get enraged when you bring up the slippery slope.
They call it a logical fallacy, but keep running into the practical reality.
There's an important government public interest in shutting down anything they want. It's an umbra.
That federal prosecutor was trying to do the impossible yesterday IMO, when she said the statue is broad enough to charge J6 defendants with "obstruction of an official proceeding" even tough they wandered in through open doors in most cases with no intention of obstructing anything; yet Jamaal Bowman who purposely delayed a vote with the intent of obstructing an official Congressional motion did not somehow violate the very same statute.
Why would the DOJ want a female lawyer to perform such a humiliating pantomime in front of our highest court?
Everyone in that courtroom knows that this was used to target REPUBLICANS. And it WILL be used again in the future to target REPUBKICANS.
The fire alarm scenario must allude to the Jamaal Bowman incident, but of course, the Solicitor General proceeds smoothly and professionally, and calls it a "hypothetical":
Only in the circle of lawyers can lying about, and denying the truthful context behind a statement be considered "smooth and professional". At least we're not going to call it moral.
Anybody with a pulse knows what Gorsuch meant (well expect maybe Chuck). Both Gorsuch and Alito illustrated this bullshit law has been broken many times, even by members of Congress and the DOJ didn't do anything.
Like all the Trump trials this year, this is just more selective prosecution and lawfare. It's part of our new country.
LOL "Corrupt intent"
What does that mean in leftist-speak?
It means if your protest is righteous - and leftist-Democrat approved - like say an Antifa arson, or a BLM loot - the intent is to aid the left's ambitions, and therefore the intent is righteous.
"Corrupt intent" = disobeying the left.
Free speech does not apply to those who seek to disrupt, dispute or protest the righteous left.
Holy crap the left are insane Stalinists.
Gorsuch and Alito are obstructing an official proceeding. They're blocking the railroad tracks...I hope.
I see why he goes back to the fire alarm (because it happened recently), but it's more serious than most other types of disruption and is (unless pulled by a Democrat to interfere with a Republican congress) treated more seriously--not just because it terrorizes people and subjects them to harm from the resulting panic, but also because it ties up rescue personnel and equipment that are then unavailable for real emergencies.
If that doesn't qualify for 20 years (it shouldn't), then no disruption does (none should).
"frightening threat to the American tradition of protesting the actions of government. "
There are any number of ways to protest without obstructing an official proceeding. That might not be within a lot of the American tradition, but even as a crazy libertarian, I'll say maybe some of that tradition could stand to be left in the past. Make a sign, stand off to the side a little, maybe scream and shout. Don't block the door.
When leftists do it, it's like pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding truck.
When Republicans do it, it's like pushing a little old lady into the path of a speeding truck.
The Bill of Rights, Bars the Government from enumerated actions.
"Congress shall make no law . . ." begins the 1st Amendment.
Congress then makes a law, and the DoJ begins to selectively use the law to punish their political rivals. The reality becomes, citizens have no idea if they are treading into an area that might find them charged with some crime. Even a crime statute, written to answer Corporate actions under govt investigation.
Vastly too much time is spent dissecting the charges, as compared to the concern about the abuse of our protected enumerated Rights.
The Bill of Rights was written to tie the hands of the Government. But today the hands have been ubbound, and we spend countless hours debating the thickness of the rope, and what length, exceeds the limits found in the emanations and penumbra of the written statute being used to abuse its citizens.
As already mentioned above, it's who whom? Who is doing what to whom? As good a rule as follow the money.
Quite obvious for people who don't have Progressive blinders on.
The question isn't whether protests like this should be criminalized but whether a statute that isn't clearly applicable and which has a 20 YEAR SENTENCE should be interpreted to apply to this sort of thing.
You can think the behavior is bad and also think it is worse for prosecutors to use this statute. There were other charges to bring.
If wanting to stop a government proceeding is the "corrupt intent" that makes the statute applicable, it would cover an awful lot of the kind of protests we are very used to seeing in this country. I'm thinking of Code Pink and things like that.
Because Prelogar is a very competent SG, she knows this is not going to be a win for her side. Question is why it comes to this - a case before the SC? They’re torturing hundreds of people with these ridiculous indictments and proceedings. One could argue it’s worse than physical torture, because it harms the entire American justice and political systems so deeply. Why don’t they give a damn?
You can think the behavior is bad and also think it is worse for prosecutors to use this statute.
Criminal con law is far from my area of expertise, but seems like a violation of due process for prosecutors to creatively interpret a statute in a way that has never been articulated before. How can anyone possibly be on notice in that circumstance? The selective prosecution only highlights the unfairness of it.
Look what the corrupt left are doing to John Eastman.
Because they wanted to crush their political opponents but not touch the real wreckers who are blocking bridges terrorizing towns and the like
By every account of which I am aware, Rep. Jamaal Bowman absolutely DID NOT intend to delay, interfere with, or obstruct any official government proceeding.
Bowman wasn't even in the Capitol building. He was in the Cannon House Office Building. It was a Saturday. The House was adjourned at the moment. He pulled an alarm, thinking that it would open a locked side door of the office building that is routinely open during the weekdays. Bowman's bad decision resulted in the Cannon Building being evacuated for an hour. It did not obstruct proceedings in the Capitol building.
Bowman was rightly charged with, and pled guilty, to the misdemeanor crime of falsely pulling a fire alarm. The bipartisan Office of Congressional Ethics recommended against any charge of Bowman's having obstructed an official proceeding. DC prosecutors came to the same conclusion.
Now; I appreciate Althouse's summary of the SCOTUS oral argument. I think Althouse did a good job of summarizing what was significant for purposes of argument. I also think that the Solicitor General did a good job of dealing with Justice Gorsuch's hypothetical which, as I have just pointed out, was not really comparable to the issue at hand.
If I had been the Solicitor General, I would like to think that I could have performed as well as she did, and not argue the Bowman details with Gorsuch.
But if I had a chance to question Gorsuch at a law school speech or some similar setting, I would definitely use the occasion to argue the point with him. And to ask him about his colleague Justice Thomas' appearance on the case while Thomas' wife Ginni was an eyewitness to at least some potential January 6 criminality.
Such protest depends on a soap opera news business model, so nothing about it is going to make legal sense as to intent. It's an entertainment choice and so an advertisers' choice. The intent then is to get on TV where thousands of other women will watch it. That begins to lean into the political - namely, control of idiotic votes. But the legal intent is to get on TV, nothing about the official proceeding.
I am pleased at the logic and reasonableness of the discourse this post. A sharp contrast to the ridiculousness of the Prelogar 'arguments'.
thank you for these two:
If wanting to stop a government proceeding is the "corrupt intent" that makes the statute applicable, it would cover an awful lot of the kind of protests we are very used to seeing in this country. I'm thinking of Code Pink and things like that
Holy crap the left are insane Stalinists
...at least we've reached a place where all sides are acknowledging the political asymmetry that is destroying our legal system. Much more please...
Rico statues do not apply to the corrupt Biden family.
All other statues do apply to people who merely walked into Nancy's White Capitol building. It's hers.
I get the feeling the think tanks dumped these legal arguments in the hopper before they knew the court would not be made up of their political allies...
IANAL, so maybe this definition is obvious in law, but I too was surprised that Gorsuch didn't question the "corrupt intent" thing.
"Corrupt" generally means (I'm deliberately going to attempt a working definition without recourse to the dictionary, to explore whether there is a kind of "reasonable person" definition) something like "having strayed from an original condition, in a fashion that seems to cause breakdown or rot in that original condition." Would that work well enough? So, a corrupt politician is in the system but abusing that system in a way that breaks down constituents' trust, both in her and in the system. A corrupt business person is using the trappings of the business world in ways that break down the fundamental mutuality of business dealings.
What's a corrupt protester? I guess a corrupt protester starts out within the well-trodden American system of protests but then - what? How does she deviate from it? American protests have included pounding on doors in such a way that the doors could fail, rushing barricades, obstructing traffic, causing painful noise disturbances, starting fires, apparently shoplifting (in 2020 for instance) for some reason; what does the protester have to do wrong in order to be beyond the pale? I mean, kill somebody, sure, or hurt someone, on purpose, but how does walking through open doors and wandering around in places where there's no posting about "no members of the public allowed" qualify?
And none of the above even begins to address intent. I mean the whole Godfather story could be read as a man doing what he has to do to protect and further the interests of his family - a perfectly defensible intent if intent were the legal standard - even though from the outside we can and do see him as corrupt.
Am I totally off-base, legally? I know that "intent" does figure in law in many places, but isn't it generally employed where the results of a defendant's actions are easily seen and pretty clearly criminal? For instance, there's a bar fight and the bouncer steps in, and in the process of breaking it up hurts one of the combatants, so it has to be determines whether the GBH is criminal or not, or - take something like the rock-movers from yesterday: a rock with prehistoric petroglyphs rolls down a slope onto someone's foot and onlookers help move it to get it off the person's foot, and it has to be determined whether the moving of a human artifact is vandalism. There, intent surely matters.
But when a crowd shows up at the Capitol to protest election irregularities (or even if they firmly believed that Trump had unequivocally won), and at some point the Capitol police start ushering them inside a building, how can you show that their "intent" in passing through the doors was "corrupt" without first judging that the reason for their protest was without merit (or not just without merit in this case but actually unallowable), so they were misusing the protest "system"? And wouldn't that be restraint of their speech?
"Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?"
I will take "questions with obvious answers for $500, Alex" and the answer is "depends on if their name includes a (D) or an (R).
Prelogar reminds me of the insufferable (but smart) Neal Katayl. Both of them will say anything in order to win. Forget about a neutral and fair interpretation of the law.
But as Ann points out, Gorsuch cornered her and got a concession from her.
During my last argument in the NE S. Ct., I made concessions where I had to. They weren't meaningful and material to my argument, but I had to concede because the Justice asking the question was correct. I had to preserve my own credibility.
@Althouse: If wanting to stop a government proceeding is the "corrupt intent" that makes the statute applicable, it would cover an awful lot of the kind of protests we are very used to seeing in this country
This type of protest happens 90% to 99% on the left. The Jan 6 behavior was very, very rare for the right. (Which is likely why the pro-D.C. people freaked out and grasping at straws here.) Recent lefty example: Two of the "Tennessee Three" were expelled for protesting. Twenty years for each?
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/06/tennessee-house-expulsion-vote-lawmakers-00090829
https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-three-election-lawmakers-expelled-1ae19a1bd5f042624568e94b30c8fc1b
They both won reelection and are now back in their old jobs. If the same standards are applied nationally they must lock up thousands of leftists.
This is totally OT. But I thought you would like to know.
Pain causes addiction. People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers.
I discuss the biology in layman's terms:
https://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2024/04/better-proof-government-is-lying-about.html
@Althouse: If wanting to stop a government proceeding is the "corrupt intent" that makes the statute applicable, it would cover an awful lot of the kind of protests we are very used to seeing in this country
This type of protest happens 90% to 99% on the left. The Jan 6 behavior was very, very rare for the right. (Which is likely why the pro-D.C. people freaked out and grasping at straws here.) Recent lefty example: Two of the "Tennessee Three" were expelled for protesting. Twenty years for each?
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/06/tennessee-house-expulsion-vote-lawmakers-00090829
https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-three-election-lawmakers-expelled-1ae19a1bd5f042624568e94b30c8fc1b
They both won reelection and are now back in their old jobs. If the same standards are applied nationally they must lock up thousands of leftists.
Chuck:
Brown absolutely wanted to delay a vote. But MSNBC certainly omitted that fact. Do your own research. Cruel neutrality, baby.
Althouse: "If wanting to stop a government proceeding is the "corrupt intent" that makes the statute applicable, it would cover an awful lot of the kind of protests we are very used to seeing in this country. I'm thinking of Code Pink and things like that."
Remember how many times democrats on committees used staff members to setup codepink and other lefty protestors for seating in key locations in committee rooms to facilitate the protests.
Perfect example: Codepink gal with red hands that she aggressively shoved in very close to Condi Rice's face...to the sheer delight of the leftists/democraticals.
" Holy shit! Our constituents are in the building! Hide!"
Gorsuch's arguments are persuasive. I wonder if he will be able to convince the liberal judges on the Court. The win will be more convincing to the public at large if he can bring some of them over to his side.....Arguments about corrupt intent and state of mind seem far more applicable to the prosecutors than to many of the protesters.
LLR-democratical And Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck: "By every account of which I am aware, Rep. Jamaal Bowman absolutely DID NOT intend to delay, interfere with, or obstruct any official government proceeding."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Perfect. Absolutely perfect.
The "conservative" case for being 100% in lockstep with every leftist, marxist, democratical vision, policy, politician and action, without deviation!
Next up for David French: pulling of the fire alarm was a blessing of liberty and could only have been made better if it had been pulled by a nearly naked drag queen twerking and sliding down a pole in front of kindergarteners while other drag queens handed out pornography to the kiddos.
The game of the Biden/Garland DOJ and perhaps the Democrat prosecution machine is selective abuse of prosecutorial discretion to make examples of their political opponents. The J6 protesters, Donald Trump and supporters, pro-life demonstrators, the Catholic Church, gun sellers, etc., are sometimes held without bail, sometimes subjected to gag orders, sometimes charged with serious felonies for minor offenses, sometime surveiled without cause.
In many instances, their neighborhoods and homes are invaded by heavily armed SWAT teams for minor offenses and they are hauled off in irons. In one case in Little Rock, the manager of the airport was executed for selling too many guns at gun shows to suit the ATF. Democrats and their deep state toadies are corrupt.
Unfortunately, they find judges and juries willing to be their accomplices in places like DC and NY. In Arkansas where that is unlikely they shoot the accused.
laws do NOT Apply to democrats; laws EXIST, to assist democrats
Dave Begley: "Chuck:
Brown absolutely wanted to delay a vote. But MSNBC certainly omitted that fact. Do your own research. Cruel neutrality, baby."
Dave, stop being a typical republican that STILL, at this late stage of the republic, naively gives these knowing leftist liars any slack.
Republicans still pretending leftists can be persuaded by the truth.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Thanks for remembering Code Pink. How about the 1954 USCapital shooting by FALN terrorists who shot five people, all or mostly all congressmen?
You know, the ones whom Jimmy Carter freed and commuted their sentences of attempted mass murder of congresspeople?
How about Bill Ayers bombing the Pentagon? He and his compatriots trying to murder hundreds at a military dance, but luckily killed themselves first. Those who survived were pardoned by Clinton and Obama.
I like how the lawyer claims that a real-life event that actually occurred is a "hypothetical." "Hypothetical" seems to mean "this ruins my argument so we should ignore it." Either that, or it only applies to people the lawyer doesn't like.
You really cannot blame Gorsuch for ignoring his response since it was obviously in bad faith.
"Corrupt intent" is any intent that is inconsistent with the Democrat agenda or the agenda of their consorts. For example, the picketers at SCOTUS justices' homes to influence their decision did not involve corrupt intent. Arson of federal courthouses by BLM/Antifa sorts did not involve corrupt intent. But walking into the capitol on J6 was, no doubt, prima facie evidence of corrupt intent.
It'd be nice if we could count on the SCOTUS with a 6-3 R majority to rein in the totalitarian Left and Biden's corrupt DOJ but of course we cant.
We can only hope a 5-4 will give us a few crumbs. The vast majority of the 1000 J6 protesters did NOT attack the police or attack anyone. Nor did they steal anything. They quietly stayed within the ropes. In fact, several were murdered by the Capital Police others were tear gassed, beaten, and injured.
Another 100,000 that listened to Trump's speech at the Mall committed no crime of any kind. I'll never forgive our Republican DC Clowns for not addressing the crowd. They all wanted Trump to do it. Or they fled. Or they sat in their offices and cried - like Romney and McCarthy. Or wanted every protesteror "Shot down like dogs" ala Miss Lindsey.
Who can have any respect for these Killer-Clowns?
Wouldn't this application of the statute also make all of the Wisconsin democratic senators who fled the state for at least three weeks for the express purpose of delaying/preventing a vote on an anti-union bill?
Could it be used against Democratic U.S. senators who plan to "table" the impeachment charges against Mayorkas to prevent a trial from moving forward? Should it apply to a congressperson who filibusters to prevent a vote from taking place?
Haven't seen or heard whether this was brought up, but should the existence of a different statute, 18 USC 1505, that expressly criminalizes "obstructing Congressional or administrative proceedings" affect whether there was an intent by Congress to have this statute apply to the J6th folks? Section 1505 provides for much lower sentences - no more than 5 years in prison, and no more than 8 if the obstruction involves domestic or international terrorism - impact the analysis of whether Congress intended to apply a 20 year max to people accused of obstructing a congressional proceeding?
If wanting to stop a government proceeding is the "corrupt intent" that makes the statute applicable, it would cover an awful lot of the kind of protests we are very used to seeing in this country. I'm thinking of Code Pink and things like that.
Exactly so. That is their whole intent. But I also note that this applies as well to Comey's decision to not indict Hillary and his famous phrasing that "no reasonable prosecutor" would apply the statutes on obstruction to Hillary who destroyed evidence under subpoena by Congress, a scenario that exactly parallels the actions at issue in the Enron case on which this very statute is based, which was "obstructing a Congressional investigation."
But only exactly so. Has the statute of limitations run out on those illegal acts by Hillary and Huma yet?
Chuck said...
By every account of which I am aware, Rep. Jamaal Bowman absolutely DID NOT intend to delay, interfere with, or obstruct any official government proceeding..
He pulled an alarm, thinking that it would open a locked side door
Serious Question: is Chuck So STUPID, that HE believes the crap coming out of his mouth?
Hey Chuck, put down that damp The Nation you keep under the toilet and get your facts straight. The footnotes may be found on wikipedia.
---On September 30, 2023, while House Democrats were attempting to delay a vote on a continuing resolution to fund the government ahead of a midnight deadline, Bowman pulled a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building, causing the building to be evacuated for an hour and a half.[38] Bowman initially claimed that he had set off the alarm by accident, telling reporters, "I thought the alarm would open the door".[39][40] His office released "suggested talking points" ... which reiterated the claim that the alarm was an accident and called some Republicans "Nazis" ... [41][42][43] ... After a Capitol Police investigation, Bowman accepted a deal in which he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor crime of willfully or knowingly falsely pulling a fire alarm, paid the maximum fine of $1,000, and wrote a letter of apology to police...
The Cannon House Office Building is part of the Congressional Office Complex, and yes, Congress had to be evacuated. Howard.
If wanting to stop a government proceeding is the "corrupt intent" that makes the statute applicable...
But it's not. It's the politics of the person who wants to stop the proceeding that determines "corrupt intent".
It's a thought crime.
"By every account of which I am aware, Rep. Jamaal Bowman absolutely DID NOT intend to delay, interfere with, or obstruct any official government proceeding."
By every account of which I am aware, the convicted January 6th protestors absolutely DID NOT intend to delay, interfere with, or obstruct any official government proceeding.
See, Chuck, how easy it is to play the games you constantly play here in these threads?
Prelogar: “They thought they had some protected free speech right to protest.”
That’s a reference to the disruption of Dean Chemerinsky’s backyard party, don’t you think? In any case, that’s a pretty significant concession as to what would constitute corrupt intent.
Alito: “What happened on January 6th was very, very serious, and I'm not equating this with that. But we need to find out what -- what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.”
That sounds like Alito is okay with the charge as to the J6 protesters but wants to define the outer reaches of the statute. In his bridge example, a few members of Congress or witnesses being stuck in traffic seems a degree or two removed from the protest. But we do want to be able to arrest people who disrupt traffic for extended periods of time, maybe just not under this statute.
It seems to me that the Court is likely to set some limits as to corrupt intent, the extent of the disruption, and causal nexus needed for prosecutors to invoke the statute. Perhaps that will mean the J6 defendants get new trials with revised jury instructions, but I don’t think it follows from the oral argument that application of the statute to J6 will be thrown out.
As to a 20 year sentence being too long, the Republicans in Congress will get right on revising that, I’m sure. Could the Court find that the maximum sentence of 20 years grants too much discretion to federal judges? That would be judicial discretion not prosecutorial discretion. I don’t know if a law has ever been thrown out on that basis.
Dude1394 said...
"Everyone in that courtroom knows that this was used to target REPUBLICANS. And it WILL be used again in the future to target REPUBKICANS."
But do they know that, if the same people remain in power, that eventually it will be used against anyone?
Criminal con law is far from my area of expertise, but seems like a violation of due process for prosecutors to creatively interpret a statute in a way that has never been articulated before. How can anyone possibly be on notice in that circumstance? The selective prosecution only highlights the unfairness of it.
Prosecutors have an ethical duty to act fairly and reasonably when making charging decisions.
"Creative interpretation" of the law to charge people with "crimes" they had no way of knowing they were subject to is plainly unethical. I understand that there is lots of precedent (particularly in the administrative realm and RICO), but that doesn't make it right. Fundamental due process requires that the criminal laws be clear and understandable; if not there must be reasonably clear common-law precedent.
If a business decides to "creatively apply" it's contractual arrangements with its customers to the detriment of those customers, it is universally condemned and recognized as unethical. When prosecutors make charging decisions, they are not "zealous advocates" for one side.
From the post:
"The fire alarm scenario must allude to the Jamaal Bowman incident, but of course, the Solicitor General proceeds smoothly and professionally, and calls it a "hypothetical"..."
It's not professional to dissemble, since the scenario relates to an actual event. And even if it did not, there would be sufficient documentation of a hypothetical event to establish facts relevant to the prosecutor.
And "smoothly?" More like unctuously.
I'm thinking Chuck is AI. Humans have at least a hint of self awareness, and able to experience shame.
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW SHOULD INCLUDE EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.
Allowing DAs to cherry pick who to prosecute invites one political party to prosecute another just to interfere with elections. It invites corrupt cops to arrest those either they desire or their political masters desire.
Ann Althouse said...If wanting to stop a government proceeding is the "corrupt intent" that makes the statute applicable, it would cover an awful lot of the kind of protests we are very used to seeing in this country. I'm thinking of Code Pink and things like that.
How about when Wisconsin Democrats fled the state in protest to avoid voting on Walkers Act 10, and denying a quorum?
Ann Althouse said...
"The question isn't whether protests like this should be criminalized but whether a statute that isn't clearly applicable and which has a 20 YEAR SENTENCE should be interpreted to apply to this sort of thing.
You can think the behavior is bad and also think it is worse for prosecutors to use this statute. There were other charges to bring."
Then isn't the problem with the Sarbanes-Oxley law - the statute - and not so much as the stretch involved in using it for a situation (supposedly) intended by its drafters?
I see a parallel in using Title IX as a cudgel to punish middle schoolers for misgendering a classmate. Fortunately, in that case, the school district in Kiel dropped the charges...that time.
I wish they had thrown in / down =
did Speaker Pelosi obstruct when she tore up the Trump documentation submission?
"Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?"
Seems like a fair stretch for the likes of congress critter Jamaal Bowman (D-Dense).
Stretching and twisting statutes and using the tortured version to selectively prosecute ones political opponents, and only the opponents, seems a perfect example of what the legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham called "dog law". We don't tell the dog plainly and clearly what he cannot do. We wait for him to do it, then beat him for it.
Surely no reasonable prosecutor . . . would abuse her authority to advance political and deep state interests . . . or choose not to charge fellow travelers for obvious violations of the same statute, read broadly. Trust us, she said.
And surely those fair-minded federal judges in DC would not skew justice toward or against favorited people or groups. Like Royce Lamberth, the old geezer, who ran the FISA court and thinks secret courts are just fine, pontificating about normalization of aberrant actions.
Tina Trent: "You know, the ones whom Jimmy Carter freed and commuted their sentences of attempted mass murder of congresspeople?"
Recall the FALN terrorists were utterly unrepentent and proud of their actions and vowed to keep up the fight and Clinton STILL pardoned them.
Obama also pardoned unrepentent terrorist Oscar Lopez.
Isn't this obstruction law being used prosecute J6ers actually part of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 having to do with corporate financial reporting after the ENON scam?
"If I had been the Solicitor General, …"
Well that made me laugh.
It would be easy just to say that the last element of the crime is that the person accused is of the right or a Republican. Of course, Democrats or lefties don't commit these crimes. It's unnecessary to insert this made-up element into the statute when there's a perfectly good mens rea requirement that will due the trick.
Leftism, above all else, is premised on the belief that the left has good intentions and is not wrong. That's why the media always frames conservative complaints about leftists actions as pouncing and seizing, etc. It's never the left's error, it's always the right's reaction which is the story. How dare they notice! That helps frame the coverage, but more to the point, the left is sometimes genuinely surprised that anyone can disagree with them. After all, their politics aren't political. They put people over politics. Only the right's politics are political.
Thus, disrupting the Kavanaugh hearings or pulling the fire alarm or attacking a federal court house in Seattle can't be prosecuted under this statute because there's no corrupt intent. The Right, as we all should know, are by definition evil and act only in bad faith. How do we know this? The left reminds us constantly, and who are we to question people who only intend good things like "being on the right side of history"?
The Left never forgets to remind us that underlying every policy proposal or political belief by the right is some form of bigotry and prejudice and bad intent. Immigration laws are racist. Due process in college Title IX matters is sexist. Protecting women's sports is anti-alphabet people. Belief in Israel's right to defend itself against terrorist attacks means you support genocide and colonialism, etc. Keeping criminals out of prison is equity. Tax cuts and private property are anti-environment and gun control laws are merely common sense. The list goes on.
Again, the left's entire political ethos is premised on the belief that they are simply correct because they have good intentions. It doesn't matter that their programs usually hurt the people they're intended to help because the program is correct due to the intentions. Further, anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but must be wrong on purpose for bad reasons. Why else would they choose to be wrong?
Chuck is a liar as we know. This is from NBC news immediately following the fire alarm incident, and makes it obvious why Gorsuch thought it was relevant:
Rep. Bowman under investigation for pulling fire alarm as McCarthy compares it to Jan. 6
The fire alarm, which Bowman's office suggested was unintentional, came as Democrats were trying to delay a vote after Republicans rushed to pass the stopgap measure.
Key phrase: "delay a vote"
Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jamaal-bowman-pulled-fire-alarm-rcna118230
Fuck off, Chuck.
See letting unethical AI "Chuck" in here has allowed a second AI "M. Simon" to invade the comment section. Shame. Those machines have no soul.
Dave Begley said...
Chuck:
Brown absolutely wanted to delay a vote. But MSNBC certainly omitted that fact. Do your own research. Cruel neutrality, baby.
Dave Begley;
I didn't rely on or even look at any MSNBC reporting. I looked at the House Committee on Ethics report on the Bowman allegations. And you should do the same. I'll help you, with this excerpt (from page 15 Section B, Para. 57, footnote numbers included):
B. The OCE Did Not Find Substantial Reason to Believe Rep. Bowman Obstructed or Attempted to Impede an Official House Proceeding
57. Within hours following the passage of House Bill HR 5860, news articles began to surface detailing the last-minute scramble to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government before the October 1, 2023 shutdown deadline.56 Rep. Bowman, dominated the headlines of the overwhelming majority of these articles.
58. According to media reports, Rep. Bowman was believed to have triggered a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building just shortly before votes were scheduled to begin.57 To some, the timing of the false alarm was suspicious in that it allegedly coincided with efforts by House Democrats to stall the voting process.58
59. During this review, the OCE analyzed whether Rep. Bowman sought to obstruct or otherwise attempt to interfere with the voting effort on House Bill HR 5860. Rep. Bowman cooperated considerably throughout the course of this investigation. In addition to participating in a formal interview with the OCE, Rep. Bowman also produced documents and communications.
60. The OCE analyzed documents and communications pertinent to discussions related to the continuing resolution, as well as those concerning the fire alarm incident.
61. The OCE did not identify any evidence to suggest that Rep. Bowman (1) was aware of any effort on the part of House Democrats to stall the House vote prior to triggering the fire alarm or (2) intended to interfere with the voting process concerning House Bill HR 5860.
62. Of note, the OCE specifically asked Rep. Bowman whether he was aware of any effort on the part of House Democrats to stall the House vote on House Bill HR 5860. Rep. Bowman’s answer was an unequivocal, “no.”59 Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended
63. Likewise, with respect to the issue of obstruction, OCE staff asked Rep. Bowman directly was it his intention to obstruct or otherwise interfere with the House vote, when he triggered the fire alarm. Again, Rep. Bowman firmly stated, “no.”60
64. The OCE also consulted with staff of the Architect of the Capitol concerning the fire alarm systems and security protocols within the various House Office buildings and the U.S. Capitol.61 The OCE was assured that the triggering of the fire alarm and subsequent evacuation of the Cannon House Office Building did not have any perceivable impact on the ongoing operations in the U.S. Capitol Building.
65. In summary, the OCE was unable to identify evidence to support a finding that there was substantial reason to believe Rep. Bowman intended to obstruct or otherwise interfere with an official House proceeding.
Dave I omitted the footnotes text to stay within the character-limitations for this post. You should read it all, in .pdf format... HERE
Dave Begley said...
Chuck:
Brown absolutely wanted to delay a vote. But MSNBC certainly omitted that fact. Do your own research. Cruel neutrality, baby.
Dave Begley;
I didn't rely on or even look at any MSNBC reporting. I looked at the House Committee on Ethics report on the Bowman allegations. And you should do the same. I'll help you, with this excerpt (from page 15 Section B, Para. 57, footnote numbers included):
B. The OCE Did Not Find Substantial Reason to Believe Rep. Bowman Obstructed or Attempted to Impede an Official House Proceeding
57. Within hours following the passage of House Bill HR 5860, news articles began to surface detailing the last-minute scramble to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government before the October 1, 2023 shutdown deadline.56 Rep. Bowman, dominated the headlines of the overwhelming majority of these articles.
58. According to media reports, Rep. Bowman was believed to have triggered a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building just shortly before votes were scheduled to begin.57 To some, the timing of the false alarm was suspicious in that it allegedly coincided with efforts by House Democrats to stall the voting process.58
59. During this review, the OCE analyzed whether Rep. Bowman sought to obstruct or otherwise attempt to interfere with the voting effort on House Bill HR 5860. Rep. Bowman cooperated considerably throughout the course of this investigation. In addition to participating in a formal interview with the OCE, Rep. Bowman also produced documents and communications.
60. The OCE analyzed documents and communications pertinent to discussions related to the continuing resolution, as well as those concerning the fire alarm incident.
61. The OCE did not identify any evidence to suggest that Rep. Bowman (1) was aware of any effort on the part of House Democrats to stall the House vote prior to triggering the fire alarm or (2) intended to interfere with the voting process concerning House Bill HR 5860.
62. Of note, the OCE specifically asked Rep. Bowman whether he was aware of any effort on the part of House Democrats to stall the House vote on House Bill HR 5860. Rep. Bowman’s answer was an unequivocal, “no.”59 Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended
63. Likewise, with respect to the issue of obstruction, OCE staff asked Rep. Bowman directly was it his intention to obstruct or otherwise interfere with the House vote, when he triggered the fire alarm. Again, Rep. Bowman firmly stated, “no.”60
64. The OCE also consulted with staff of the Architect of the Capitol concerning the fire alarm systems and security protocols within the various House Office buildings and the U.S. Capitol.61 The OCE was assured that the triggering of the fire alarm and subsequent evacuation of the Cannon House Office Building did not have any perceivable impact on the ongoing operations in the U.S. Capitol Building.
65. In summary, the OCE was unable to identify evidence to support a finding that there was substantial reason to believe Rep. Bowman intended to obstruct or otherwise interfere with an official House proceeding.
Dave I omitted the footnotes text to stay within the character-limitations for this post. You should read it all, in .pdf format... HERE
Real American this is a very insightful comment.
"Thus, disrupting the Kavanaugh hearings or pulling the fire alarm or attacking a federal court house in Seattle can't be prosecuted under this statute because there's no corrupt intent."
Thank you, Real American, for succinctly getting at how people like Prelogar and some of our lefty commenters see it. Corrupt intent is in the eye of the beholder, and the only beholders that matter are federal prosecutors and judges.
"Real American this is a very insightful comment."
+1
Blogger Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
See letting unethical AI "Chuck" in here has allowed a second AI "M. Simon" to invade the comment section. Shame. Those machines have no soul.
You know the AI liberal bot is plausible. I've often thought we don't see a lot of liberals here because 1) the tell themselves it in beneath then to engage with the likes of us, and 2) number one protects them from having to admit they are stupid as shit.
The realities discussed here in the Althouse comment section would be too much for them to hear. And it is interesting that even though Althouse is a UW-Madison retired professor, and a member of the community for decades, Madison liberal to not participate here. I think it's true cowardice...since this is and Althouse managed free speech zone.
The government lost this case awhile ago.
Not only is it about the concern of squelching protest. It’s about selective prosecution.
And the governments lawyer at argument tried to ignore that the statute covers “obstructs, influences, or impedes” a proceeding.
She just addressed Obstructs.
Alito called her on it.
Joe’s DOJ is going down in flames.
What happened to agree with you people. If that's need to be charging the January 6th insurrectionist with breaking and entering inciting a riot attempted insurrection treason etc etc. the top penalty for some of the perpetrators that should be considered are death and or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Using a bullshit law to get them on a technicality is weak and inappropriate. These traitors need to be tried for real crimes with real penalties.
"The statute, as the government would interpret it, is a frightening threat to the American tradition of protesting the actions of government."
Not at all. It's just a threat to deplorable Americans the left decides to persecute. Which Gorsuch may have figured out. When was the last time "the government" went after lefties disruptively "protesting the actions of government"?
In legal lexicon, is smooth and professional a euphemism for obvious and partisan bad faith?
Original Mike said...
"Real American this is a very insightful comment."
+1
+1 more
Real American said...
...
...
Thus, disrupting the Kavanaugh hearings or pulling the fire alarm or attacking a federal court house in Seattle can't be prosecuted under this statute because there's no corrupt intent...
"Disrupting the Kavanaugh hearings" resulted in more than 200 arrests, most of which got misdemeanor charges. The Kavanaugh hearings were barely disrpupted at all. He was confirmed.
"Pulling a fire alarm" got Rep. Bowman a misdemeanor charge, to which he pled guilty and paid a $1000 fine. Also, a House censure vote. And as I mentioned already -- which many of the TrumpWing cultists here seem to not want to accept -- the House Ethics Committee confirmed in its report that Rep. Bowman caused no votes to be delayed.
"Attacking a federal courthouse" in Seattle (or did you mean Portland?) will damn straight get you charged, just as it should, and dozens of people have been so charged. Now on this point, I am not going to give you any cite-links. Because I want you all to do at least a little work for yourselves. Google "charges" in relation to attacks on the "Hatfield U.S. Courthouse" in "Portland." You can do the same for "Seattle," but bear in mind that most of the Seattle "courthouse attack" stories are in relation to the King County Courthouse, and not the old Nakamura U.S. District Courthouse or the brand new high rise courthouse downtown.
Anyway; I'm a lawyer. Any attack on any federal or state courthouse anywhere is deeply offensive to me and everyone else who makes a living appearing in these places. I favor the most serious charges in those cases and the severest sentencing. Even, uh, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Get it?
"...the Solicitor General proceeds smoothly and professionally..."
Smoothly and professionally could apply to many things... a Mafia hit, a handjob from a masseuse... lots of things less shameful than a solicitor general attempting to obtain judicial endorsement of the sort of prosecutions and punishments we associate with North Korea.
“The question isn't whether protests like this should be criminalized but whether a statute that isn't clearly applicable and which has a 20 YEAR SENTENCE should be interpreted to apply to this sort of thing.”
As others here have pointed out, that very likely violates Due Process. While some of the Justices may point that out. The statute utilized was a part of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill to criminalize Enron type financial misconduct. The statute has never been used like this, because it it was never intended to be used in this sort of situation. It’s LawFare, and at least Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch seem very aware of the games being played by the prosecutors. And Due Process is invariably the Achilles Heel of LawFare statutory misinterpretations.
I think that CJ Roberts gave the game away though. I think that it was he who mentioned a rule of statutory construction, “ejusdem generis”, which limits general terms following specific terms, to similar situations to the preceding specific terms. And that, indeed, was what the prosecutors did with their LawFare charges at issue here - they took the second paragraph out of context with the first, and shoehorned the conduct of the protesters into the general terms of the second paragraph. I expect a fairly narrow decision with most, if not all Justices onboard (very similar to the political prosecution case they decided last month), with some strong concurrences by Thomas, etc, on the evils of LawFare prosecutions, and some liberal opinions trying to soften it. Roberts seems willing to bend over backwards to get as many Dems on board this sort of decision, in order to minimize the political aspects of the case, and his Court not being seen as playing politics. That’s why I expect something between a 7-2 and 9-0 opinion. It will be relatively narrow, because he wants some, if not all, Dems aboard.
"The Kavanaugh hearings were barely disrpupted at all. He was confirmed.
As was Joe Biden.
Q: What does one call 1,000 Chucks at the bottom of the ocean?
A: Pollution
Using a bullshit law to get them on a technicality is weak and inappropriate. These traitors need to be tried for real crimes with real penalties.
I agree that the DOJ should at least attempt to try these cases as insurrection or treason. The DOJ would fail spectacularly, but at least they would be prosecuting the thing they have been screaming about for 4 years. And when those defendants were largely found not guilty, at least there would be some finality to the stupid suggestion that a bunch of bubbas walking between the ropes in the capital building was some actual threat to democracy. It is very telling that they are trying to put DJT in jail for a bunch of bullshit technicalities as well, rather than for treason or insurrection- which would be nigh impossible for them to prove.
Blogger Quaestor said...
"...the Solicitor General proceeds smoothly and professionally..."
Smoothly and professionally could apply to many things...a handjob from a masseuse...
Coincidentally, the Solicitor General is jerking all our chains.
Althouse Blog: what did you do with my much-earlier comment today on this page, in which I quoted at length from, and linked to, the House Committee on Ethics report on Rep. Jamaal Bowman?
Wherein the bipartisan Committee concluded that Bowman had cooperated fully in the investigation, and there was no evidence of any intent on Bowman's part to interfere with House proceedings?
I don't think we can avoid another bloody Revolution in the next thirty years or so, maybe sooner. Free men simply cannot live under the rule of statist scum of this ilk. I'd sooner see our twenty largest cities lying in smoking ruins--and I live in one of them--than see my grandchildren grow up under the thumb of one-party leftist tyranny.
So lemme see if I have this right: If the folks milling around the Capitol on J6 had simply pulled a fire alarm, everything would have been OK?
I don't think we can avoid another bloody Revolution
I hope not. It easy to say something like that, but the reality of it would be terrible. There is a movie out right now called 'Civil War' that deals with this topic. It is worth seeing.
This is a moderated post:
Iman said...
Q: What does one call 1,000 Chucks at the bottom of the ocean?
A: Pollution
Meanwhile, hours ago, I replied to Dave Begley, who went after me by name, with a post in which I linked to the report of the House Committee on Ethics report and quoted it at length, which simply and clearly and directly showed Dave to be incorrect, without any other invective.
The above "Iman" post gets published by Althouse. Mine gets withheld.
"As was Joe Biden."
But *that's* different.
Chuck:
"Disrupting the Kavanaugh hearings" resulted in more than 200 arrests, most of which got misdemeanor charges. The Kavanaugh hearings were barely disrpupted [sic] at all. He was confirmed.
"Pulling a fire alarm" got Rep. Bowman a misdemeanor charge, to which he pled guilty and paid a $1000 fine.
None of them got charged under this statute, none of them faced anywhere near 20 years in prison. What was your point with this?
And, of course, Chuck completely misses the point of his own fucking comment- why were the Kavanaugh protestors not charged under this this law rather than facing just misdemeanors? Equality under the law demands the same treatment of the January 6th protestors.
tommyesq said...
Chuck:
"Disrupting the Kavanaugh hearings" resulted in more than 200 arrests, most of which got misdemeanor charges. The Kavanaugh hearings were barely disrpupted [sic] at all. He was confirmed.
"Pulling a fire alarm" got Rep. Bowman a misdemeanor charge, to which he pled guilty and paid a $1000 fine.
None of them got charged under this statute, none of them faced anywhere near 20 years in prison. What was your point with this?
My point, plainly, was that Kavanaugh protesters were charged with crimes. Rep. Bowman was charged with a crime. Their criminal actions were not ignored. I was replying to a post that complained about their not being charged "under this statue." Right; they were charged under other statutes, befitting the actions, the consequences, and the seriousness.
And one more thing that gripes me about Gorsuch and the Althouse blog post; NO ONE has gotten "20 years" for violating Sec. 1512(c). Paul Hodgkins of Tampa, Florida was among the first to plead guilty under the disputed Section. He got 8 months.
Chuck’s point is they’d received a pat on the poo-poo.
Chuck said...
By every account of which I am aware, Rep. Jamaal Bowman absolutely DID NOT intend to delay, interfere with, or obstruct any official government proceeding.
.... He pulled an alarm, thinking that it would open a locked side door of the office building that is routinely open during the weekdays
Hey, Chuck, I know this Nigerian Prince who needs some help getting his fortune out of the country. Think you could help with this?
For reasons that have not been explained to me, a comment that I submitted many hours ago was not posted to this page.
In any event, way back in the early morning of this page, I gave a perfectly straight answer to a taunt from Dave Begley:
Dave Begley said...
Chuck:
Brown absolutely wanted to delay a vote. But MSNBC certainly omitted that fact. Do your own research. Cruel neutrality, baby.
4/17/24, 8:25 AM
My response then -- and now -- is very simple. Rep. Bowman was referred to the bipartisan Committee on Ethics by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The OCE's report is online. HERE.
Quoting from Section III.B., Page 15, beginning at Paragraph 57 (footnote numbers are included, but not the text of footnotes to comply with character-limitations on posts):
B. The OCE Did Not Find Substantial Reason to Believe Rep. Bowman Obstructed or Attempted to Impede an Official House Proceeding
57. Within hours following the passage of House Bill HR 5860, news articles began to surface detailing the last-minute scramble to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government before the October 1, 2023 shutdown deadline.56 Rep. Bowman, dominated the headlines of the overwhelming majority of these articles.
58. According to media reports, Rep. Bowman was believed to have triggered a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building just shortly before votes were scheduled to begin.57 To some, the timing of the false alarm was suspicious in that it allegedly coincided with efforts by House Democrats to stall the voting process.58
59. During this review, the OCE analyzed whether Rep. Bowman sought to obstruct or otherwise attempt to interfere with the voting effort on House Bill HR 5860. Rep. Bowman cooperated considerably throughout the course of this investigation. In addition to participating in a formal interview with the OCE, Rep. Bowman also produced documents and communications.
60. The OCE analyzed documents and communications pertinent to discussions related to the continuing resolution, as well as those concerning the fire alarm incident.
61. The OCE did not identify any evidence to suggest that Rep. Bowman (1) was aware of any effort on the part of House Democrats to stall the House vote prior to triggering the fire alarm or (2) intended to interfere with the voting process concerning House Bill HR 5860.
62. Of note, the OCE specifically asked Rep. Bowman whether he was aware of any effort on the part of House Democrats to stall the House vote on House Bill HR 5860. Rep. Bowman’s answer was an unequivocal, “no.”59
63. Likewise, with respect to the issue of obstruction, OCE staff asked Rep. Bowman directly was it his intention to obstruct or otherwise interfere with the House vote, when he triggered the fire alarm. Again, Rep. Bowman firmly stated, “no.”60
64. The OCE also consulted with staff of the Architect of the Capitol concerning the fire alarm systems and security protocols within the various House Office buildings and the U.S. Capitol.61 The OCE was assured that the triggering of the fire alarm and subsequent evacuation of the Cannon House Office Building did not have any perceivable impact on the ongoing operations in the U.S. Capitol Building.
65. In summary, the OCE was unable to identify evidence to support a finding that there was substantial reason to believe Rep. Bowman intended to obstruct or otherwise interfere with an official House proceeding.
To sum up:
~ Rep. Bowman cooperated considerably through the investigation.
~ There was a lack of evidence that Rep. Bowman intended to obstruct or otherwise interfere with any official House proceeding.
~ The alarm system that Rep. Bowman triggered in the Cannon House Office Building was not connected to the Capitol Building (where no voting was taking place at that time, in any event).
How much jail time did the Kavanaugh protestors get, Chuck?
Here is the relevant part of the statute:
(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.
The ejusdem generis comes in with (2). The prosecutors are treating (2) as standalone. But ejusdem generis requires that it be limited by (1) to apply to similar situations, which all involve documents (not surprising since it was part of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 )
From the Wikipedia article on the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is a United States federal law that mandates certain practices in financial record keeping and reporting for corporations. The act, (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 107–204 (text) (PDF), 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" (in the Senate) and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act" (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, SOX or Sarbox, contains eleven sections that place requirements on all U.S. public company boards of directors and management and public accounting firms. A number of provisions of the Act also apply to privately held companies, such as the willful destruction of evidence to impede a federal investigation.
The law was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals, including Enron and WorldCom. The sections of the bill cover responsibilities of a public corporation's board of directors, add criminal penalties for certain misconduct, and require the Securities and Exchange Commission to create regulations to define how public corporations are to comply with the law.[1]
The statute, as a part of Sarbanes–Oxley, was enacted to prevent financial crimes. Not to incarcerate J6 protesters who (mostly peacefully) visited the Capital on 1/6/2021. That’s where Legislative History comes in - it revolves around preventing financial crimes, and no mention whatsoever is made of preventing political crimes.
How much jail time did the Kavanaugh protestors get
Funny thing is, the guy who showed up armed at Kavanaugh’s house and admitted he was there to kill him still hasn’t stood trial, even though that was long before J6. DOJ is waiting until after the election to quietly offer the man a plea deal.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
"How much jail time did the Kavanaugh protestors get"
Funny thing is, the guy who showed up armed at Kavanaugh’s house and admitted he was there to kill him still hasn’t stood trial, even though that was long before J6. DOJ is waiting until after the election to quietly offer the man a plea deal.
This is misleading to the point of outright falsehood.
The Kavanaugh case defendant is Nicholas Roske. Who by all accounts has some severe mental issues. I presume that he has been undergoing extensive psychological examination. And, by all accounts including the court's own account, the prosecution and the defense have been involved in plea negotiations. And the court has set a deadline -- the end of this very month of April, 2024 -- to provide the court with a status report on those negotiations.
LINK. (Sorry it is the NYPost. I couldn't find a better source on short notice.)
I don't know where you got the bullshit notion that the Department of Justice is deliberately gaming any trial until after the 2024 general election. You certainly didn't get it from the court, or the Department of Justice. I am going to try to remembver this, so that I can rub your nose in it if and when U.S. v Roske is resolved before the election. I am quite certain that I will get that chance, but we know that I won't have to wait more than about 200 days.
Oh; and Mike (MJBWolf), there was this;
The threatening conduct toward Justice Kavanaugh occurred in June of 2022. About 2.5 years AFTER January 6, 2020. It was absolutely and positively not "long before J6" as you stated.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा