With respect to the charges brought by using this law against Trump, my understanding is that the fake electors slate scheme relates to directly tampering with evidence rather than only interfering with the proceedings and for that reason, this case before the Supreme Court won’t necessarily affect the case against Trump in DC. Is that correct? It seems thin to me to claim that violently breaking into an official proceeding could be viewed as anything other than interfering with an official proceeding, but it sounds like the fake electors scheme would still keep those charges on the table for at least Trump.
I think the last two paragraphs explain where I fall on that. Depending on the decision, I think both Smith and his team and Trump's lawyers will be looking at things closely and deciding how it affects their case. Importantly, let's remember that, for Trump, much of this is just about delay, and if they see an in to force more delay, I suspect they'll take it — even if they ultimately lose whatever challenge they raise.
Alito's flinch provides a perfect example of the GOP Justices' change of heart based on whose ox is being gored: they completely support the J6 rioters, and their goals. But please don't bring that uncouth behavior into our sanctum!
The Crooked SCOTUS is gaslighting us all, calling a coup attempt a “mere riot.” Anything to shield their most disgusting excuse of a judge, Clarence Thomas and his seditious wife, Ginni.
Thanks for showing some of the back and forth, which reveals “special pleading” better than anything. It would be amusing if it didn’t demonstrate such blatant bias sitting smugly on the highest court in the land. To compare a violent assault on the Capitol (unmistakably intent on obstructing a quadrennial government function related to the peaceful transfer of national power) with a sit-in or heckling is just absurdly weird. Shame!
I was there. I was there, at the Ellipse and the Supreme Court, on the Mall, along Pennsylvania Av and outside the Capitol to watch nazis in action, just as I've witnessed previous nazi-led and nazi-involved/planned incidents in the streets of DC. I live here – it's easy to ride down there and see/hear what they do and say.
Of course there was a mob mostly not accountable – there were 10's of thousands of people on the Mall that day, and a few thousand of them went chanting or praying or plotting to the steps (and the back door) of the Capitol. That the protest 'got out of hand' displays ignorance of what was going on in the portion of the mob that was armed and preparing to fight their way thru hundreds of cops, with the intent to enter the building, track down anyone they perceived as likely to support the facts of the election, and force them to stop. Joseph Fischer was apparently (based on his own statements and actions) one of those prepared to do whatever it took to stop the official proceedings. That he's being held accountable seems to be, to some, an appalling act of injustice.
Sniff.
Sadly, the current Corte Supremo shows by various recent acts that it is willing and prepared to ignore whatever facts do not comport with their intended outcomes.
I mean we all saw it. It was pretty clear to me that they intended to “stop the steal” which I think says they knew what was going on inside the building and intended to violently stop it (did you not see the noose erected?). Five people died and 174 people were injured. So this entire argument around semantics is pointless. J6 was in no way like an actual protest.
Personally. I think it was a protest that got out of hand. Whether there was an underlying conspiracy involved seems too remote to implicate the entire mob. If you have a mob of people and chaos breaks out depending on the location, there will always be looting. The thing with the Woodstock Festival is that there were no retail stores, banks or whatever to loot, so the focus was on music, getting high &c.. Whereas the various riots in the Civil Rights Era was different whether in Los Angeles NYC or the like. So in DC the focal point was/is The Federal Government so there could be all sorts of mixed motives that brought the encroachments into being. But to be perfectly honest, I haven't followed any of this . But there is no doubt that a large mob could be manipulated to rampage and riot but in my view it would require some act that a massive number of people would find thoroughly outrageous. I find it hard to believe that Donald Trump losing a close election fits that bill.
“Prelogar highlighted how charging decisions were made in the Jan. 6 cases.
“She explained that there would need to be evidence that any defendant ‘knew about the proceedings that were happening in the joint session in Congress that day,’ ‘specifically intended to prevent Congress from certifying the vote,’ and then could be shown to have ‘knowledge of wrongfulness or unlawful conduct’ — something that could be proven by pointing to ‘particular preparations’ that an individual made.”
I don’t see how any of your concerns are at issue in these specific prosecutions in light of that.
Well what she's alluding to is a defence for minor infractions - a plea of ignorantia juris. In my view that would appertain to most of the mob; otherwise, people causing physical destruction would be criminal mischief at most. If there was an actual conspiracy regarding interfering with the electoral college that is something altogether different and distinct - like I said a protest that got out of hand. If I was on a jury I doubt I would "find" that that was the actual purpose of the gathering. It's like people protesting outside the Supreme Court or in the past at Abortion Clinics which will probably re-occur except at the state level.
P.S. what does come to mind in Peoples Park in Berkeley when RayGun and Ed "he deserved to die" Meese were in charge, which IMHO was a drastic over use of force. Or Philadelphia with MOVE where the Mayor actually used a helicopter to drop a bomb on the MOVE house headquarters.
As I recall the Mayor of Philadelphia ordered a bomb to be dropped from a helicopter on Move headquarters https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/jmurj/vol7/iss1/3/#:~:text=On%20May%2013%2C%201985%2C%20the,Osage%20Avenue%20in%20West%20Philadelphia. Nothing happened to Goode because he's a Democrat; In re RayGun and Peoples' Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_People%27s_Park_protest#:~:text=The%20Berkeley%20Police%20Department%20and,Guard%20to%20quell%20the%20protests. Congress responded to that, RayGun was a republican but did become President for two terms. My reference to Move and Peoples' Park is the manner in which these protests were dealt with and little to no consequences befalling executive/governmental action. There's the 1968 DNC in Chicago, 4 dead in O-HI-O commensurate to how outsider Donald Trump is being dealt with in the instance at hand while he was President. There were all sorts of protests in DC, Harlem, Watts etc. I personally don't see how you've leaped to the conclusion that any of these protestors in any of the foregoing examples were or are "seditionists". You'd have to explain what facts you'd use of record to support your belief that they would compel a Judge to direct a jury to find that protesters are Seditionists rather than perhaps liable for misdemeanors. Generally the USSCt is concerned with what a decision on this could result in regarding future protests; and I believe that is a responsible position and something they ought to be concerned with ff.., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._City_of_Chicago
With respect to the charges brought by using this law against Trump, my understanding is that the fake electors slate scheme relates to directly tampering with evidence rather than only interfering with the proceedings and for that reason, this case before the Supreme Court won’t necessarily affect the case against Trump in DC. Is that correct? It seems thin to me to claim that violently breaking into an official proceeding could be viewed as anything other than interfering with an official proceeding, but it sounds like the fake electors scheme would still keep those charges on the table for at least Trump.
And as always, thank Chris for a great analysis.
I think the last two paragraphs explain where I fall on that. Depending on the decision, I think both Smith and his team and Trump's lawyers will be looking at things closely and deciding how it affects their case. Importantly, let's remember that, for Trump, much of this is just about delay, and if they see an in to force more delay, I suspect they'll take it — even if they ultimately lose whatever challenge they raise.
Thank you Chris.
I thought Prelogar did a fine job with Alito, in reference to
his hypothetical concerning
people storming the Supreme
Court.
If I remember correctly, haven't people been removed
from the court audience for
being disruptive? J6 was hardly a "protest that got out
of hand." 140 police were injured and 5 died during and
within days after.
Personally, I think a lot of people need to watch those
violent videos taken inside and outside the Capitol again. They were "hunting"
Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi. 13+ million dollars
worth of damage was done to the Capitol of our coubtry.
Congress had to be adjurned
adjournedand hidden for their
safety. I call that obstruction!
People have definitely been arrested for doing a lot less in the halls of Congress.
Alito's flinch provides a perfect example of the GOP Justices' change of heart based on whose ox is being gored: they completely support the J6 rioters, and their goals. But please don't bring that uncouth behavior into our sanctum!
Hypocrites and losers, all of them.
The Crooked SCOTUS is gaslighting us all, calling a coup attempt a “mere riot.” Anything to shield their most disgusting excuse of a judge, Clarence Thomas and his seditious wife, Ginni.
Thanks for showing some of the back and forth, which reveals “special pleading” better than anything. It would be amusing if it didn’t demonstrate such blatant bias sitting smugly on the highest court in the land. To compare a violent assault on the Capitol (unmistakably intent on obstructing a quadrennial government function related to the peaceful transfer of national power) with a sit-in or heckling is just absurdly weird. Shame!
I was there. I was there, at the Ellipse and the Supreme Court, on the Mall, along Pennsylvania Av and outside the Capitol to watch nazis in action, just as I've witnessed previous nazi-led and nazi-involved/planned incidents in the streets of DC. I live here – it's easy to ride down there and see/hear what they do and say.
Of course there was a mob mostly not accountable – there were 10's of thousands of people on the Mall that day, and a few thousand of them went chanting or praying or plotting to the steps (and the back door) of the Capitol. That the protest 'got out of hand' displays ignorance of what was going on in the portion of the mob that was armed and preparing to fight their way thru hundreds of cops, with the intent to enter the building, track down anyone they perceived as likely to support the facts of the election, and force them to stop. Joseph Fischer was apparently (based on his own statements and actions) one of those prepared to do whatever it took to stop the official proceedings. That he's being held accountable seems to be, to some, an appalling act of injustice.
Sniff.
Sadly, the current Corte Supremo shows by various recent acts that it is willing and prepared to ignore whatever facts do not comport with their intended outcomes.
The irony is, despite their preparations, they didn't have to fight through hundreds of cops.
Because that kind of response is reserved for leftists, progressives, and anyone who isn't a straight white male, apparently.
But killing Trumps enemies is right on target.
I mean we all saw it. It was pretty clear to me that they intended to “stop the steal” which I think says they knew what was going on inside the building and intended to violently stop it (did you not see the noose erected?). Five people died and 174 people were injured. So this entire argument around semantics is pointless. J6 was in no way like an actual protest.
The concern about overcriminalization is important but I do not like judicial re-writing of clear text to address it.
Personally. I think it was a protest that got out of hand. Whether there was an underlying conspiracy involved seems too remote to implicate the entire mob. If you have a mob of people and chaos breaks out depending on the location, there will always be looting. The thing with the Woodstock Festival is that there were no retail stores, banks or whatever to loot, so the focus was on music, getting high &c.. Whereas the various riots in the Civil Rights Era was different whether in Los Angeles NYC or the like. So in DC the focal point was/is The Federal Government so there could be all sorts of mixed motives that brought the encroachments into being. But to be perfectly honest, I haven't followed any of this . But there is no doubt that a large mob could be manipulated to rampage and riot but in my view it would require some act that a massive number of people would find thoroughly outrageous. I find it hard to believe that Donald Trump losing a close election fits that bill.
The piece addresses this. As I detail:
“Prelogar highlighted how charging decisions were made in the Jan. 6 cases.
“She explained that there would need to be evidence that any defendant ‘knew about the proceedings that were happening in the joint session in Congress that day,’ ‘specifically intended to prevent Congress from certifying the vote,’ and then could be shown to have ‘knowledge of wrongfulness or unlawful conduct’ — something that could be proven by pointing to ‘particular preparations’ that an individual made.”
I don’t see how any of your concerns are at issue in these specific prosecutions in light of that.
Well what she's alluding to is a defence for minor infractions - a plea of ignorantia juris. In my view that would appertain to most of the mob; otherwise, people causing physical destruction would be criminal mischief at most. If there was an actual conspiracy regarding interfering with the electoral college that is something altogether different and distinct - like I said a protest that got out of hand. If I was on a jury I doubt I would "find" that that was the actual purpose of the gathering. It's like people protesting outside the Supreme Court or in the past at Abortion Clinics which will probably re-occur except at the state level.
P.S. what does come to mind in Peoples Park in Berkeley when RayGun and Ed "he deserved to die" Meese were in charge, which IMHO was a drastic over use of force. Or Philadelphia with MOVE where the Mayor actually used a helicopter to drop a bomb on the MOVE house headquarters.
So you think the Philadelphia police action against Move is the same as the Justice Dept sentencing guidelines against seditionists?
As I recall the Mayor of Philadelphia ordered a bomb to be dropped from a helicopter on Move headquarters https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/jmurj/vol7/iss1/3/#:~:text=On%20May%2013%2C%201985%2C%20the,Osage%20Avenue%20in%20West%20Philadelphia. Nothing happened to Goode because he's a Democrat; In re RayGun and Peoples' Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_People%27s_Park_protest#:~:text=The%20Berkeley%20Police%20Department%20and,Guard%20to%20quell%20the%20protests. Congress responded to that, RayGun was a republican but did become President for two terms. My reference to Move and Peoples' Park is the manner in which these protests were dealt with and little to no consequences befalling executive/governmental action. There's the 1968 DNC in Chicago, 4 dead in O-HI-O commensurate to how outsider Donald Trump is being dealt with in the instance at hand while he was President. There were all sorts of protests in DC, Harlem, Watts etc. I personally don't see how you've leaped to the conclusion that any of these protestors in any of the foregoing examples were or are "seditionists". You'd have to explain what facts you'd use of record to support your belief that they would compel a Judge to direct a jury to find that protesters are Seditionists rather than perhaps liable for misdemeanors. Generally the USSCt is concerned with what a decision on this could result in regarding future protests; and I believe that is a responsible position and something they ought to be concerned with ff.., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._City_of_Chicago