“The obstruction statute’s plain text clearly applies to January 6 defendants, but it’s unlikely that’s going to matter
Before we dig into any of the individual justices’ views on this case, it’s helpful to be familiar with the full text of the statute at issue in Fischer. It provides that:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Green’s primary argument is that subsection (1)’s language referring to records or documents carries through to subsection (2). So even though subsection (2) is written broadly to bar any effort to obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding, it should be limited to only apply to obstructions involving documents or other forms of “evidence tampering.””
https://www.vox.com/scotus/24132088/supreme-court-january-6-insurrection-riot-fischer-united-states
——
This lawyer cannot have his cake and eat it too!
It seems pretty clear to me that the insurrection on January 6th clearly qualifies and why the
(🥴Supreme😳Court🙄) has a problem deciphering that which even a first grade child could, is a worrisome thought. This group of judges is so biased a first grader could see that too!
We are in big trouble, people.
The Bag Lady 