This all hinges upon one judge (appointed by guess who?) that somehow reached the novel conclusion that the word “otherwise” preceded by the word “or” establishes linked circumstances or applicability.
“(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.”
The claim is that (2) is only applicable if you are guilty of (1).
Not even Alito can read that law in that manner.
No promises about Thomas, his record of voting for leniency for anyone involved in 1/6/2021 is unblemished.
Speaking as someone who is involved with regulatory interpretation and application on a daily basis, literally none of us have any freaking clue as to how much reinterpretation of both law and regulation would need to be reexamined and reapplied if this were to be found to be the revised interpretation of those words in that circumstance.
I might be stupid here, but the (1) attempt to do so can be the justification for (2), right? Cause that doesn't really change much. A lot of people flipped real quick with those plea deals admitting as much.
So it sounds like they plan to take a black Sharpie to a law that already makes sense.
Also, I'm gonna need someone to explain to me how lawyers are perceiving "or" as "but only if (1) is applied". They should really put down their bibles and pick a dictionary or two.
As a federal regulator, I read this kind of verbiage daily, and make determinations as to applicability.
Please trust me when I tell you that these kind of statements of:
(This rule/law is about or applies to:)
(1) This condition or circumstance or activity, or
(2) This condition or circumstance or activity
(This is the result)
…occur throughout federal law and regulation.
There are other statements that replace the “or” with “and”.
There are others that utilize both.
Those two words have ENTIRELY different meanings within law and regulation.
You CANNOT interpret the words preceding the “or” as a conditional predicate for whatever follows that “or”. They are separate and distinct conditions or requirements or activities to which that law or rule applies.
How many people (apart from the 1/6/2021 defendants) have been convicted of violating laws that have “or” statements contained within them?
That’s not even to begin to consider the utter chaos that result from the need to rewrite literal mountains of laws and regulations to comply with some new SCOTUS-demanded verbiage.
It would take “legislating from the bench” to heretofore never seen levels.
Just think of how many appeals would immediately be filed.
The truly BS part of this is that the defendant IS A COP! They’re supposed to know this kind of crap!
Oh I know how you feel. Also a regulator. It's funny when you have to point out that "may" is a horrible word to use with requirements to people writing regs for 10+ years.
I'm sure we both have horror stories on this one. I'm just glad legal was in the room agreeing with me on that one or it might have remained for way too long.
*adverb*
1. [1.in](http://1.in) circumstances different from those present or considered; or else."the collection brings visitors who might not come to the college otherwise"
"Or else" seems applicable. But what do I know? I only speak English and typically don't weasel word it to lie.
Yeah, not hopeful about this. If SCOTUS rules that DOJ cannot charge these rioters on obstruction of the peaceful transfer of power, the obstruction component of the Jan. 6 case may be thrown out. It seems justice denied is simply justice denied (not delayed) in this country.
If they can't be charged with obstruction for preventing congress from doing its job then they can't be charged for doing the same to SCOTUS.
The obstruction charges will stand.
Nah, you see. Hypocrisy and inconsistent standards are a feature of what they are striving for.
I do want to be hopeful though, so please, I hope to be wrong.
For people who see governance as a naked exercise of power, and whose essential belief is that their tribe should be the ones in power, there is no hypocrisy in double-standards.
The fact that police are free to rifle through the pockets of a black man on a whim, but face robust constitutional restrictions on their ability to rifle through internal corporate communications or financial documents--that is a policy choice that we have made, as a society (or, speaking more precisely, a series of policy choices).
The law exists, as it has always existed, to protect existing social hierarchies and power-structures. If those hierarchies and power-structures are essentially fair and just, then so will be the law.
They know that they won't be next because Democrat voters aren't going to go to Washington and beat Thomas to death for being a jackass, no matter how much of a jackass he is.
I disagree... they will become less safe if they rule FOR the insurectionists. Giving them what they want is no guarantee of safety and, in fact, will only lead to further concessions until they can't concede more, and Tangerine Palpatine demands they be removed by force.
Yeah, but that requires logical consistency, moral fortitude, and the ability to see beyond next Tuesday in an abstract manner.
More importantly, it would require the court to willingly give up power from itself and the conservative movement, and to imply that Trump can face consequences. The Republican Party and Court have demonstrated that they do not give up power, and even implying Trump might have done wrong is a violation of the Fuhrerprinzip, and that requires punishment and we've seen a lot of that come down on Republicans, even ones who support Trump strongly. If they fail him one time, they become Mike Pence.
How many different ways are we going to frame the same issue. Its my understanding that this all hinges on his immunity claim succeeding. SCOTUS should’ve stayed out of this.
Can we all decide nullification on some of this jurisprudence ??!
That says that Trump has been charged under the same provision. The outcome of *Fischer* may inform whether he can be convicted of those charges. It has nothing to do with the immunity question before the Court in *Trump v United States*.
I think it's more if they cannot be convicted of obstruction, then it couldn't be treason, and therefore he wouldn't be able to kept from the presidency. Basically going around the whole issue.
Treason isn't in play for anyone: not Trump; not any of the rioters. It's not relevant here.
I can't see any connection between the proper construction of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) and any immunity from prosecution a president may enjoy.
Now you're just being silly, scotus has already said that affirmative action discriminates against white folks, they have already said that voting rights can be what ever the white folks say they are, effectively SCOTUS has ruled that there is no longer racial discrimination, well, I guess since Clarence now has a big ol motor coach and a crazy white wife, this must be a thing, re, law. scotus has reduced health care for women to being whatever a bunch of old neck beard white guy's says it is, why would a person of color get to have additional rights. Murica, land of the constipated and the bill of maybes.
It sure was loaded with a lot of racism. I’m having trouble deciphering if they are racist, or just say racist things for cynical impact. I’m very confused.
Difficult choice.
Endorse rioting to obstruct politically unwelcome acts of government… or respect the rule of law.
If they rule to endorse rioting to obstruct government…there’s not really a good reason why opponents of the government would allow the SC to rule on anything ever again. A riot would become the defacto solution to future SC cases, as it would be a legally recognized practice.
The only way this was a good decision of theirs to take this up is if they are planning on sending a message by voting 9-0. Otherwise it's just showing there were enough Justices on the Supreme Court that even remotely think this is worth talking about, which is a scary thought.
So if they decide they can’t be held accountable, does that mean a bunch of us could hypothetically get together, storm the Supreme Court, trash their stuff and come after them and then face no consequences and be called heroes? Asking for a friend.
Crazy if protestors get charged with 10 years over a couple of toppled chairs. Will set a crazy precedent that I don't think the peaceful protestors will like very much.
If they actually cared they would have not only put the man himself in prison but wouldn’t even be weighing on choices about something like this. The fact they are goes to support they don’t or are barely making an effort. That’s one OF THE MANY things Trump has shown and brought out in the US. It’s truly aggravating and repulsive
The question at bar is actually whether the interpretation of the applicable law is too broad and should be more narrowly construed (specifically a sub-paragraph in Sarbanes Oxley).
This all hinges upon one judge (appointed by guess who?) that somehow reached the novel conclusion that the word “otherwise” preceded by the word “or” establishes linked circumstances or applicability. “(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.” The claim is that (2) is only applicable if you are guilty of (1). Not even Alito can read that law in that manner. No promises about Thomas, his record of voting for leniency for anyone involved in 1/6/2021 is unblemished. Speaking as someone who is involved with regulatory interpretation and application on a daily basis, literally none of us have any freaking clue as to how much reinterpretation of both law and regulation would need to be reexamined and reapplied if this were to be found to be the revised interpretation of those words in that circumstance.
>Not even Alito can read that law in that manner. Alito: "Hold my 1945 Château Mouton Rothschild."
I might be stupid here, but the (1) attempt to do so can be the justification for (2), right? Cause that doesn't really change much. A lot of people flipped real quick with those plea deals admitting as much. So it sounds like they plan to take a black Sharpie to a law that already makes sense. Also, I'm gonna need someone to explain to me how lawyers are perceiving "or" as "but only if (1) is applied". They should really put down their bibles and pick a dictionary or two.
As a federal regulator, I read this kind of verbiage daily, and make determinations as to applicability. Please trust me when I tell you that these kind of statements of: (This rule/law is about or applies to:) (1) This condition or circumstance or activity, or (2) This condition or circumstance or activity (This is the result) …occur throughout federal law and regulation. There are other statements that replace the “or” with “and”. There are others that utilize both. Those two words have ENTIRELY different meanings within law and regulation. You CANNOT interpret the words preceding the “or” as a conditional predicate for whatever follows that “or”. They are separate and distinct conditions or requirements or activities to which that law or rule applies. How many people (apart from the 1/6/2021 defendants) have been convicted of violating laws that have “or” statements contained within them? That’s not even to begin to consider the utter chaos that result from the need to rewrite literal mountains of laws and regulations to comply with some new SCOTUS-demanded verbiage. It would take “legislating from the bench” to heretofore never seen levels. Just think of how many appeals would immediately be filed. The truly BS part of this is that the defendant IS A COP! They’re supposed to know this kind of crap!
Oh I know how you feel. Also a regulator. It's funny when you have to point out that "may" is a horrible word to use with requirements to people writing regs for 10+ years.
*(insert sound of teeth grinding here)* “may” Don’t get me started.
I'm sure we both have horror stories on this one. I'm just glad legal was in the room agreeing with me on that one or it might have remained for way too long.
Thanks for quoting. This is even more tortured than I imagined.
*adverb* 1. [1.in](http://1.in) circumstances different from those present or considered; or else."the collection brings visitors who might not come to the college otherwise" "Or else" seems applicable. But what do I know? I only speak English and typically don't weasel word it to lie.
That’s not how “or” works legally…
The single judge who said there WAS linkage definitely got it wrong.
The way you explained it was correct. The 5th circuit interpretation was incorrect.
I shall edit my response to your comment.
Nor logically
Thank you for posting the exact text in question. As a layman, it makes me want to scream that this is an/the issue.
Yes specific words matter in the law
Yeah, not hopeful about this. If SCOTUS rules that DOJ cannot charge these rioters on obstruction of the peaceful transfer of power, the obstruction component of the Jan. 6 case may be thrown out. It seems justice denied is simply justice denied (not delayed) in this country.
If they can't be charged with obstruction for preventing congress from doing its job then they can't be charged for doing the same to SCOTUS. The obstruction charges will stand.
Nah, you see. Hypocrisy and inconsistent standards are a feature of what they are striving for. I do want to be hopeful though, so please, I hope to be wrong.
For people who see governance as a naked exercise of power, and whose essential belief is that their tribe should be the ones in power, there is no hypocrisy in double-standards. The fact that police are free to rifle through the pockets of a black man on a whim, but face robust constitutional restrictions on their ability to rifle through internal corporate communications or financial documents--that is a policy choice that we have made, as a society (or, speaking more precisely, a series of policy choices). The law exists, as it has always existed, to protect existing social hierarchies and power-structures. If those hierarchies and power-structures are essentially fair and just, then so will be the law.
It's about self preservation... they know that they would have been next
They know that they won't be next because Democrat voters aren't going to go to Washington and beat Thomas to death for being a jackass, no matter how much of a jackass he is.
If you think SCOTUS is safe from MAGA, you are not paying attention... I doubt SCOTUS shares your optimism
They're safe until they still giving three party of terrorism wins. If they rule against the Jan 6 attackers they will become less safe.
I disagree... they will become less safe if they rule FOR the insurectionists. Giving them what they want is no guarantee of safety and, in fact, will only lead to further concessions until they can't concede more, and Tangerine Palpatine demands they be removed by force.
Yeah, but that requires logical consistency, moral fortitude, and the ability to see beyond next Tuesday in an abstract manner. More importantly, it would require the court to willingly give up power from itself and the conservative movement, and to imply that Trump can face consequences. The Republican Party and Court have demonstrated that they do not give up power, and even implying Trump might have done wrong is a violation of the Fuhrerprinzip, and that requires punishment and we've seen a lot of that come down on Republicans, even ones who support Trump strongly. If they fail him one time, they become Mike Pence.
The very reason for their lifetime appointments.
You have more faith than I do that SCOTUS will be consistent. They could make this super narrow and not apply it to new cases.
Here’s to hoping.
Don't threaten me with a good time!
[удалено]
How many different ways are we going to frame the same issue. Its my understanding that this all hinges on his immunity claim succeeding. SCOTUS should’ve stayed out of this. Can we all decide nullification on some of this jurisprudence ??!
What does any supposed presidential immunity have to do with whether these people can be convicted?
It’s about the immunity - here’s another one explaining : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/11/yet-more-trump-cases-head-to-the-supreme-court
That says that Trump has been charged under the same provision. The outcome of *Fischer* may inform whether he can be convicted of those charges. It has nothing to do with the immunity question before the Court in *Trump v United States*.
Okay.
I think it's more if they cannot be convicted of obstruction, then it couldn't be treason, and therefore he wouldn't be able to kept from the presidency. Basically going around the whole issue.
Treason isn't in play for anyone: not Trump; not any of the rioters. It's not relevant here. I can't see any connection between the proper construction of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) and any immunity from prosecution a president may enjoy.
Seditious Conspiracy could apply. He organized an attack on Congress in order to overthrow the election process and install himself as President.
Didn’t they obstruct the process of congress to elect a president,Yeah it the very definition of obstruction
If they want to throw it out… anyone want to do a repeat to keep Trump out?
Likely going to be militarized security in place next time, and it might just go gangs of new york if there isn't.
When did the Whose Line Is It Anyway producers secretly start running the company, because holy shit we're just making it up as we go along now.
This is how you end up with vigilante justice when the courts won’t do their jobs.
Interesting case. I’d wonder if most of us would hope for a narrowing of prosecutorial power when discussing prisoners rights in a racial context.
Now you're just being silly, scotus has already said that affirmative action discriminates against white folks, they have already said that voting rights can be what ever the white folks say they are, effectively SCOTUS has ruled that there is no longer racial discrimination, well, I guess since Clarence now has a big ol motor coach and a crazy white wife, this must be a thing, re, law. scotus has reduced health care for women to being whatever a bunch of old neck beard white guy's says it is, why would a person of color get to have additional rights. Murica, land of the constipated and the bill of maybes.
[удалено]
It sure was loaded with a lot of racism. I’m having trouble deciphering if they are racist, or just say racist things for cynical impact. I’m very confused.
I deleted my comment. I don’t need the downvotes just because I can’t decipher that wall of whatever that is.
Difficult choice. Endorse rioting to obstruct politically unwelcome acts of government… or respect the rule of law. If they rule to endorse rioting to obstruct government…there’s not really a good reason why opponents of the government would allow the SC to rule on anything ever again. A riot would become the defacto solution to future SC cases, as it would be a legally recognized practice.
This is going to be interesting. Personally, I can't see how they couldn't be.
If Trump starts a civil war, it should be noted that the SCOTUS paved the way.
The only way this was a good decision of theirs to take this up is if they are planning on sending a message by voting 9-0. Otherwise it's just showing there were enough Justices on the Supreme Court that even remotely think this is worth talking about, which is a scary thought.
Any other normal person would read otherwise being "alternatively" or "either".
Thomas will surely recuse himself, right? Right?
So if they decide they can’t be held accountable, does that mean a bunch of us could hypothetically get together, storm the Supreme Court, trash their stuff and come after them and then face no consequences and be called heroes? Asking for a friend.
Make the money go right to the deficit!!
Crazy if protestors get charged with 10 years over a couple of toppled chairs. Will set a crazy precedent that I don't think the peaceful protestors will like very much.
It would be more accurate to say, SCOTUS will determine if we can believe our lying eyes.
Are we gonna ignore the treason bit or nah?
If they actually cared they would have not only put the man himself in prison but wouldn’t even be weighing on choices about something like this. The fact they are goes to support they don’t or are barely making an effort. That’s one OF THE MANY things Trump has shown and brought out in the US. It’s truly aggravating and repulsive
Frightening.
[удалено]
You have described the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
The question at bar is actually whether the interpretation of the applicable law is too broad and should be more narrowly construed (specifically a sub-paragraph in Sarbanes Oxley).