Law enforcement should be keeping an eye on the Project 2025 crowd, because I guarantee that they don’t just have plans for a ■■■■■ win.
John Eastman Comes Clean: Hell Yes We Were Trying to Overthrow the Government
If you fail; you’re just traitors. And should face those consequences.
The US supreme court expressed concern on Tuesday with prosecutors using an obstruction statute to charge hundreds of January 6 Capitol riot defendants, with the justices leaning towards a position that could jeopardize those prosecutions and the criminal case against Donald Trump.
The Trump case was not mentioned at the argument. But a decision curtailing the use of the obstruction statute in connection with the Capitol attack could eliminate two of the four charges against the former president.
The case, which on its face involves a January 6 riot defendant named Joseph Fischer, became of sudden importance last year after Trump was also charged with obstruction of an official proceeding over his efforts to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.
At issue is whether the obstruction statute passed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal could be used to prosecute general instances of obstruction, or whether it was intended to be used more narrowly for evidence tampering or document destruction.
If the supreme court decides that section 1512(c) of title 18 of the US criminal code was being used too broadly, it could cripple part of the case against Trump as the special counsel Jack Smith looks to draw a line at trial from the former president’s January 6 speech to the violence.
And if the court moved to strike down the use of the obstruction statute, it could undercut the remaining conspiracy statutes used in the indictment against Trump. …
(an update to my post in another thread)
ETA: linked to the other thread
Livestream of this issue @SCOTUS.
It’s going about like I’d expected.
They work at night? I’d think most of them would be asleep by now.
Well, I am listening at night, yes.
And yeah I bet they don’t work or argue cases at night.
I guess it is a recorded livestream.
I just went back to the beginning of the video and it gets introduced with “this morning.”
What’s odd to me was hearing Dina Doll, J.D. say in her post-hearing analysis that Justices Barrett and Jackson “seeming to be in sync” on a few things and whether the law does or does not apply (sorry for being vague here, it’s been a long day for me).
Will be listening to tomorrow’s arguments if I can find the link.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be nitpicky, I was just surprised/confused timewise.
So much going on these days with Tromp and the courts (so many courts), and this one does seem especially significant.
A plain text reading of the second part of the law, “…or by other means obstructs” etc seems to say it’s not only about document destruction, but lawyer-speak is different, so 
(Like, seeking to murder folks to stop a government proceeding, maybe?)
@anon15383236
I’m morbidly fascinated as to what is going to happen next, because some of what is going to get decided by SCOTUS results in a very real “get outta jail free” card for the coup plotters, insurrectionists, et al. Some apparently have already been released (see below: yikes).
@anon29537550
There word “otherwise” was discussed at length in the video–which is just audio, btw.
Also “super-fluidity” (yes really). Some verbal pingpong re the meanings of “obstruct,” “impede,” and apparently the word “corruptly” was covered at length yesterday. I missed that.
A good roundup here:
… If the court rules in favor of defendant Fischer, a number of the 350 people charged under the obstruction statute will likely have to be resentenced or released from prison. Indeed, some have already been conditionally released, pending the outcome of the case.
The obstruction section of the law is also the basis for at at least one, and arguably two of the charges against Donald Trump in the election obstruction case currently pending against him in Washington, D.C. So, if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that both parts of the obstruction law are aimed at document and evidence manipulation, Trump’s lawyers would almost certainly seek to have those counts dismissed.
Special counsel Jack Smith has indicated that regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Tuesday’s case, the charges against Trump would survive; because the former president is charged with creating slates of fake electors, Smith has said, that ties his conduct more firmly to both parts of the the obstruction statute.
Trump, allies were part of Michigan fake elector scheme, investigator testifies
A Michigan prosecutor testified Thursday that former President Trump and senior campaign allies contributed to a scheme to overturn the state’s 2020 electoral results.
Michigan attorney general’s office special agent Howard Shock said Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in an investigation into the plan, which has resulted in charges against 16 Michigan GOP officials.
In the scheme, prosecutors allege the Trump campaign and allies worked with local Republicans to override the state’s 2020 election results by putting forward a fraudulent list of Electoral College voters.
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro are also considered unindicted co-conspirators, Shock testified.
—
A grand jury in Arizona has handed up an indictment against former President Donald Trump’s allies over their efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, including the fake electors from that state and several individuals connected to his campaign.
Boris Epshteyn, a former White House aide who remains one of Trump’s closest advisers, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani are among those who have been indicted, according to a source familiar with the investigation.
My teevee says Trump was named an unindicted conspirator. And several other Trump staffers were indicted.
I wonder if anyone has been keeping a running tally comparing how many hours Giuliani has spent in court during his career as a prosecutor vs. how many hours he has spent in court as a defendant.
