Yesterday, NBC ran an electrifying story headlined, “
Supreme Court agrees to hear Jan. 6 case that could affect Trump prosecution.” It’s at once the best January 6th news we’ve had for a long while and it’s also very promising news for the Trump prosecution. Incidentally, the tireless lawyer and unsung hero who convinced the Supreme Court to take this important case is my friend Norm Pattis.
As you may know, the federal government criminalized January 6th protestors and Capitol tourists by
re-purposing a rarely-used evidence law, originally passed to stop people from destroying evidence in white-collar crimes. The repurposing wasn’t surprising. Ever since Biden occupied the White House and appointed Grandma Garland to the DOJ, we’ve seen nonstop criminal prosecution of conservatives via ‘creative’ legal theories, which have delighted democrats and the compliant corporate media, who have no imagination or ability to extrapolate whatsoever.
Anyway, hundreds of peaceful Capitol protestors have been convicted by D.C. juries under 18 U.S. § 1512(c)(2), a law passed in 2002 after the infamous document shredding story fell out of the Enron case. The law provides up to 20 years in prison for illegally destroying evidence or — and this is the tricky bit — when someone “corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”
Someone at DOJ saw that language, which was supposed to be about illegally (“corruptly”) destroying evidence so it couldn’t be used as evidence at trial (the “official proceeding”). The DOJ saw that and thought “Eureka!” Congress had assembled on January 6th to certify the presidential vote totals, and the meeting could be described as an “official proceeding.” The Trump supporters didn’t want the vote to be certified yet, so they were allegedly trying to “obstruct, influence, or impede” that proceeding.
And there you have it. Voilá! Twenty years.
The DOJ picked Jacob Chansley as its guinea pig to test out its new legal theory. Chansely was the colorful “QAnon Shaman” who’d be certain to inflame a cerulean-blue DC jury. And the DOJ’s strategy worked perfectly: the jury gave Chansley five years, and the DOJ got its precedent.
Since then, hundreds more J6 defendants have been convicted under the same re-tooled evidence statute. Relying on that swelling, Frankensteinian body of legal precedent, Jack Smith indicted President Trump for the very same crime in the DC ‘election interference’ case.
In yesterday’s thrilling development, the Supreme Court granted certiorari — agreed to hear — an appeal from a January 6th defendant named Edward Lang who’d been convicted under the evidence statute. In essence, Lang argues the evidence statute is “unconstitutionally vague,” letting prosecutors twist the law like Chinese bioweapons engineers into any shape they want. Significantly, the appellate court decided 2-1 to
uphold the DOJ’s novel interpretation of the statute.
That’s significant because, if the four Supremes who voted to accept the case had agreed with the appellate court, they wouldn’t
need to take the case. They could just deny certiorari, and then the DOJ’s interpretation would become the law.
So the bare fact the Supremes took the case is highly suggestive that at least four of them have something they want to say about it. Most observers think it doesn’t look too good for the government.
The decision created a lot of excitement, as it should have. If the Supreme Court throws § 1512(c)(2) out as unconstitutional, all those J6 prisoners will be released, and most of the election interference case against President Trump will dissolve just like a fresh dusting of snow evaporating on a warm morning.
Some folks, like
WND News, even went so far as to predict Jack Smith, Trump’s prosecutor, will be forced to drop the charges just because the Supreme Court took the case.
My take is: this is a perfect, politically expedient opportunity for the Court to weigh in on a bunch of politically-difficult issues without taking the hit. Nearly every conservative judge in other courts who’ve looked at this issue found the statute to be too vague, so the Supreme won’t have to stretch at all to reach that conclusion. They can just quote lower-court opinions. And the Court could also easily help out President Trump, in a case that on its face has nothing whatever to do with Trump. Easy peasy.
This is an exciting and encouraging development.
If you like the legal stuff, you can read Ed Lang’s Petition for Certiorari here.
Supreme Ct. takes January 6th case; Hunter defies Congressional subpoena; SADS pro-jab journalist; scientists caught behaving badly; Pentagon loses war of numbers; Vivek spars with CNN over J6; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
