Supreme Court rules in favor of defendant on January 6

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that appears to have the single purpose of limiting the number of people charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot who can be charged by federal prosecutors with obstruction of Congress– which was the main goal of the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

From NPR:

In an opinion issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said the government must show “that the defendant compromised the availability or integrity of records, documents, items, or other things used in an official proceeding.”

Prosecutors brought more than 350 of the most violent rioters to justice under the key criminal code.

The act consisted of two parts. The first part states that it is a crime to corruptly alter or destroy documents and records related to official proceedings. The second part states that it is a crime to otherwise obstruct or obstruct an official proceeding — in this case, the congressional count of the Electoral College votes.

Roberts stated that the provision is limited to the destruction of documents and evidence and that the word “otherwise” is not intended to broaden the meaning of the statute to make it a general provision.

So I’m not an expert on federal law, but it really seems to me that Roberts thinks the second part of the statute doesn’t count, which means it can’t be used to charge most of the people who took part in the scheme in the riot, obstructing Congress because most of the rioters did not “destroy documents and records related to official proceedings” but were merely allegedly attempting to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election, which again that was the whole point of the riots.

Since some people seem to need a refresher on recent history, the act of domestic terrorism at the United States Capitol only happened because former President Donald Trump and the MAGA-fied GOP spent the months after Trump’s legal and fair election loss to President Joe Biden spreading the word voter fraud propaganda based on zero evidence, and this spread of misinformation prompted a mob of gullible MAGA supporters to storm the Capitol building in an attempt to stop lawmakers from officially announcing the election results. Some might call it an act—what word am I looking for?—obstruction. (Remember, 147 Republican lawmakers voted to overturn the election based on Trump’s “big lie,” for which he and his legal team have provided no evidence.)

In fact, the case was brought to court by Joseph Fischer, a former police officer from a town near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, who not only joined the mob that breached the Capitol building but also recorded himself literally shouting “attack” as he and other rioters carried out riot. He was also videotaped fighting with Capitol Police officers.

More from NPR:

Prosecutors say Fischer also threatened violence in text messages before Jan. 6, including sending a message in which he said, “bring the Democratic Congress to the gallows… they can’t vote if they can’t breathe lol.” And when the FBI later came to arrest him, he shouted obscenities at agents and his police chief and tried to hide the phone he was using to record the events at the Capitol.

So, according to prosecutors, Fischer sent text messages indicating he planned to prevent Congress from voting by force, participated in a riot intended to prevent Congress from voting by force, and recorded himself instructing other rioters to “poke” when they tried to to stop Congress from voting by force-Bbut none of this constitutes obstruction because he did not destroy any official records related to the congressional vote during the violence intended to obstruct the congressional vote. Makes sense.

It’s worth mentioning that the roughly 350 defendants charged with obstruction are a fraction of the more than 1,400 defendants on Jan. 6 who were charged with crimes related to the attack, and legal experts told NPR that the impact of the decision would be “minimal.” It still seems odd for a court to rule that obstruction is not obstruction unless it involves the destruction of documents. It’s almost like some terrorists have complexion for protection and some don’t. But, again, I’m no expert here.