{"id":2223010,"date":"2024-04-17T08:21:02","date_gmt":"2024-04-17T12:21:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/oral-argument-in-j6-scotus-case-lays-bare-dojs-partisan-lawfare\/"},"modified":"2024-04-17T08:24:13","modified_gmt":"2024-04-17T12:24:13","slug":"oral-argument-in-j6-scotus-case-lays-bare-dojs-partisan-lawfare","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/oral-argument-in-j6-scotus-case-lays-bare-dojs-partisan-lawfare\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis of Oral Argument in J6 Supreme Court Case Reveals DOJ&#8217;s Partisan Tactics"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">26<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Foral-argument-in-j6-scotus-case-lays-bare-dojs-partisan-lawfare%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2223010&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme Court addressed\u2063 a criminal appeal challenging the Biden administration&#8217;s use of\u200b a federal statute in prosecuting J6 defendants. The argument highlighted the administration&#8217;s application of a specific provision with potential \u2064wide-reaching implications. Justices probed the enforcement&#8217;s consistency with past cases. The \u2062debate shed light on the administration&#8217;s stance on applying the law to various scenarios, reinforcing the ongoing legal scrutiny.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"article-content\">\n<p>The Supreme Court heard <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-admin-asks-supreme-court-to-cancel-asylum-border-wall-arguments\/\" title=\"Biden Admin Asks Supreme Court to Cancel Asylum, Border Wall Arguments\">oral argument<\/a> Tuesday in a criminal appeal challenging the Biden administration\u2019s use of a catch-all provision in a federal statute focused on the destruction of evidence to charge hundreds of J6 defendants with a 20-year felony. Over the course of the hour-long argument, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/facebook-caved-to-turkish-government-demands-blocked-group-to-protect-business-interests\/\" title=\"Facebook Caved To Turkish Government Demands, Blocked Group To Protect Business Interests\">government made clear<\/a> its view that the federal statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), had an expansive reach \u2014 other than when Antifa burns a courthouse, a member of Congress pulls a fire alarm, or mostly peaceful protesters delay court or congressional proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Anyone paying the slightest attention to the Biden administration\u2019s prosecution of J6 protesters and its slap-on-the-wrist coddling of other protesters knows there\u2019s a double standard in play. But the justices\u2019 questioning of the Biden administration during Tuesday\u2019s oral argument in <em>Fischer v. United States<\/em> forced the government to attempt to justify that disparate treatment.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2-long d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-959255961\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-f5008dde62a0018b8a98593ad6ee4437 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-f5008dde62a0018b8a98593ad6ee4437\"><\/div>\n<p>\u201c[T]here have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings,\u201d Justice Thomas opened the questioning of Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. \u201cHas the government applied this provision to other protests in the past?\u201d the justice queried. <\/p>\n<p>After sidestepping the question, Prelogar replied that she couldn\u2019t give an example of Section 1512(c)(2) being enforced \u201cin a situation where people have violently stormed a building in order to prevent an official proceeding,\u201d because nothing like Jan. 6, 2021, had ever happened before.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Gorsuch then posed several more hypotheticals: \u201cWould a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/gorsuch-hammers-biden-doj-on-mostly-peaceful-protests\/\" title=\"Gorsuch criticizes Biden DOJ over labeling protests as 'mostly peaceful\">federal courthouse qualify<\/a>? Would a heckler in today\u2019s 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?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Prelogar responded in the negative, saying none of those events would likely qualify because, in the Biden administration\u2019s view, Section 1512(c)(2) does not reach \u201cconduct that has only a minimal effect on official proceedings.\u201d <\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-4a0425f476bdd053d8b1827f55da097a fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-6\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-4a0425f476bdd053d8b1827f55da097a\"><\/div>\n<p>The text of Section 1512(c), however, does not exempt <em>de minimis <\/em>interference with official proceedings. Rather, subsection (c) provides: <\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p><em>(c) Whoever corruptly \u2014 <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object\u2019s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>So, why would the Biden administration seek to exempt protests or other disturbances that have only a minimal effect on official proceedings from the scope of Section 1512(c)? <\/p>\n<p>Simply put, because the Department of Justice has never used Section 1512(c) in the way it is being used against the J6 protesters. <\/p>\n<p>In charging Fischer, the defendant in the case, as well as hundreds of other individuals involved in the Capitol demonstration on Jan. 6, 2021, the DOJ relies on subsection (2) quoted above, maintaining that subsection, in effect, criminalizes the obstruction, influence, or impeding of an official proceeding, no matter the conduct at issue. <\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-add99b552281e7048f055688e94ca0fc fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-10\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-add99b552281e7048f055688e94ca0fc\"><\/div>\n<p>That reading of Section 1512(c)(2) conflicts with the DOJ\u2019s historical interpretation of subsection (2), which limited prosecutions to situations where the defendant had interfered with evidence that would be used in an official proceeding. To explain away the lack of prior prosecutions of protesters under Section 1512(c)(2), the Biden administration needed to make the statute about only non-minimal interferences.<\/p>\n<p>Prelogar also argued that prosecutions under Section 1512(c)(2) were rare because the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/harvard-prof-charles-lieber-found-guilty-of-lying-about-ties-to-china\/\" title=\"Harvard Prof Charles Lieber Found Guilty of Lying About Ties to China\">government lacked evidence<\/a> in most cases to show the protester intended to impede a specific proceeding. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cMaybe you\u2019re protesting a branch of government, you\u2019re outside this court, but you don\u2019t have this specific argument in mind,\u201d that would not be a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), according to Prelogar. The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-announces-new-legal-team-for-impeachment-defense-after-previous-team-collapsed\/\" title=\"Trump Announces New Legal Team For Impeachment Defense After Previous Team Collapsed\">solicitor general<\/a> also stressed the need for the government to show a \u201cnexus\u201d between the protest and the official proceedings to prosecute under the statute at issue.<\/p>\n<p>Prelogar\u2019s argument to the court seemed to serve a dual purpose: to placate the court\u2019s concerns that the government\u2019s reading of Section 1512(c)(2) is overbroad and to convince the justices that the DOJ applies the statute uniformly. <\/p>\n<p>Judging by the questions and responses from the bench, a majority of the justices remained unconvinced \u2014 as they should be. Far from establishing that the DOJ enforces Section 1512(c)(2) uniformly, the solicitor general\u2019s argument painted a picture of the Biden administration enlarging or contracting the statutory language to serve political purposes.<\/p>\n<p>From Tuesday\u2019s argument, it appears unlikely a majority of the court will acquiesce in the Biden administration\u2019s reading of Section 1512(c)(2) as creating an independent obstruction of official proceedings felony. Rather, the questioning from a majority of the justices suggests the Supreme Court will hold that subsection (2) only criminalizes conduct that impairs <em>evidence <\/em>for use in an official proceeding \u2014 which is the better <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/01\/02\/why-scotus-will-likely-smack-down-two-of-jack-smiths-get-trump-charges-as-non-crimes\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">reading<\/a> of the statute.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-f546cc07b6dcc1f962d896cd5bc4498d fdrlst__b89e9-after-post-content\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-f546cc07b6dcc1f962d896cd5bc4498d\"><\/div>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">    \t\t\t\t\t   \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Tuesday, the Supreme Court tackled a criminal appeal questioning the Biden administration&#8217;s broad application of a statute targeting evidence destruction. This legal debate affects the prosecutions of numerous J6 defendants with serious charges. Throughout the hour-long session, the government staunchly defended its position on the matter<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2223011,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Storming-of-US-Capitol-DSC09327-2.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2223010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Storming-of-US-Capitol-DSC09327-2.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2223010","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2223010"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2223010\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2223011"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2223010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2223010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2223010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}