14
Supreme Court to weigh if Jan. 6 rioters can be charged with obstruction
(www.washingtonpost.com)
Such an absurd argument that the law only applies to documents.
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
14 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2473 readers
115 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is any Nazi imagery in the linked story, mark your post NSFW.
- Advocating violence is not allowed on Beehaw in general.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, federal prosecutors had to decide what charges to bring against hundreds of participants in the pro-Trump mob that disrupted the certification of a presidential election for the first time in U.S. history.
In more than 350 cases, they included a federal charge that carries a hefty 20-year maximum penalty and is part of a law enacted after the exposure of massive fraud and shredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron.
As of this month, more than 100 rioters have been convicted and sentenced under that statute for obstructing or impeding an official proceeding — in this case the joint session of Congress that convened on Jan. 6 to formally certify Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.
The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defending the Justice Department, told the court in filings that the second clause should be read as a “catchall” that ensures that “unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — like occupying the Capitol building and forcing the suspension of Congress’s joint session certifying the election results — are prohibited, while giving a judge discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime.”
“The government suggests that the Court should twist Congress’s effort into the creation of an omnibus obstruction offense for prosecutors to use in future cases,” Fischer’s legal team of federal public defenders and Jeffrey T. Green of Northwestern Law School wrote in a filing.
Saved 85% of original text.