• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Gets Jan 6th Defendant Out of Jail.

Uriah said:
I try to answer every post addressed to me. Looks like a lot of people want to spar with a MAGGAT.
Click to expand...
Dunno, I haven't read any of your posts until stumbled across that one. Probably won't read any more.
 
So I read the briefs, and Petitioner's case isn't half bad, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Court rules for Fisher. It's pretty much the fish case all over again.

That being said, the split in Yates was one of the weirder ones, when it comes to the normal left/right dynamic, and there's four new members of the Court, so who knows?
 
Mycroft said:
If the Supremes rule in his favor, this will affect hundreds of similar cases...and will be a BIG black eye for the corrupt DOJ.
Click to expand...

It'll affect a bunch of similar cases - but it won't be a "black eye" for anyone.

It's a question of statutory construction.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
De facto, did anyone who entered the Capitol building obstruct an official proceeding? Absolutely. Here's where it gets tricky with de jure: Did he actually physically obstruct the proceeding?
Click to expand...
THAT'S the argument? I don't think so. According to this earlier article,, the trial court judge (Nichols) grossly misinterpreted 18 USC 1512(c)(2) regarding obstructing an official proceeding, and was later reversed by the DC Circuit.

"Nichols, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2018 by former President Donald Trump, determined the second section of the statute should be read narrowly as a catch-all provision subordinate to the first section and, as such, that any defendants charged under 1512(c)(2) must take some action with respect to a “document, record or other object.”​

That interpretation is nonsense. (By the way, Trump is also charged under that Section.) Why the Supreme Court deigned to review that ruling is, once again, a real head-scratcher. It's just another example why the Supreme Court appears to want to make sure that no case against Trump can be completed before the election. In other words, they are punting the ball, saying "Let the people decide," but without actually saying that. Assholes!
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
So I read the briefs, and Petitioner's case isn't half bad, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Court rules for Fisher. It's pretty much the fish case all over again.

That being said, the split in Yates was one of the weirder ones, when it comes to the normal left/right dynamic, and there's four new members of the Court, so who knows?
Click to expand...
How do you possibly "construct" the following like Nichols did?

(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.​

"Or" means "or."
 
DCCougar said:
How do you possibly "construct" the following like Nichols did?

(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.​

"Or" means "or."
Click to expand...

Because plain meaning isn't the only factor in statutory construction.

§ 1512 is part of Sabanes-Oxley. It was written to penalize corporate officers who destroy documents. It's unlikely that the people who wrote and passed the bill intended it to apply to a riot at the Capitol - any more than they meant "tangible object" to include fish in Yates.

As I said, I'm not sure how the Court will rule. But to discount the argument entirely is a mistake.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
§ 1512 is part of Sabanes-Oxley. It was written to penalize corporate officers who destroy documents.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was written to improve auditing and public disclosure in response to several accounting scandals in the early-2000s, including, as you say, to penalize corporate officers who destroy documents.

But 18 USC §§1501-1515 does not state that it is specifically in response to Sarbanes-Oxley, nor does it ever limit its offenders to "corporate officers." It is always, as in this Section "Whoever obstructs... or impedes any official proceeding." And §1515 specifically includes "a proceeding before the Congress" as "any official proceeding."

As I understand it, statutory construction means that courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other related sources only if after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear.

The Justices would have to bend over backwards in order to look at the language of 18 USC §1512 and claim the meaning of that statute remains unclear.
 
Zyphlin said:
Insightful, fact based, fair, well typed…Ive not ran across you but please post more!

Poli Sci major?
Click to expand...
Yes, Poli Sci/History Major! Graduated in 2008. Thank you for the compliments. I try to keep level-headed and out of the usual partisanship. You'd be surprised at how many things you can get the other side to agree with if you just stay level-headed :) Probably some of the best dialogue I have on here is with people who would be the polar opposite of me -- simply showing an interest in what they have to say (even if you don't agree) can get you very far :)
 
DCCougar said:
THAT'S the argument? I don't think so. According to this earlier article,, the trial court judge (Nichols) grossly misinterpreted 18 USC 1512(c)(2) regarding obstructing an official proceeding, and was later reversed by the DC Circuit.

"Nichols, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2018 by former President Donald Trump, determined the second section of the statute should be read narrowly as a catch-all provision subordinate to the first section and, as such, that any defendants charged under 1512(c)(2) must take some action with respect to a “document, record or other object.”​

That interpretation is nonsense. (By the way, Trump is also charged under that Section.) Why the Supreme Court deigned to review that ruling is, once again, a real head-scratcher. It's just another example why the Supreme Court appears to want to make sure that no case against Trump can be completed before the election. In other words, they are punting the ball, saying "Let the people decide," but without actually saying that. Assholes!
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that's -the- argument. I'm saying a smart lawyer would argue that on top of whatever else s/he wants to argue. I'd have to see the court document to see what argument he's using, obviously.
 
DCCougar said:
How do you possibly "construct" the following like Nichols did?

(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.​

"Or" means "or."
Click to expand...

But even if you wish to hang your hat on "or," this runs into 1st amendment problems.
People have the right to stop or try to stop Congress from doing things, and the right to influence Congress to do, or not to do things.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
Yes, Poli Sci/History Major! Graduated in 2008. Thank you for the compliments. I try to keep level-headed and out of the usual partisanship. You'd be surprised at how many things you can get the other side to agree with if you just stay level-headed :) Probably some of the best dialogue I have on here is with people who would be the polar opposite of me -- simply showing an interest in what they have to say (even if you don't agree) can get you very far :)
Click to expand...

Nice, had a feeling from your name and general language usage. Poli Sci / Philosophy here, 2006 (fun note, my senior seminar paper is still up on the forum). Agree with entirely, good conversations with those you don't agree with are often the most rewarding. Two of my favorite people to discuss things with on here in the past (Redress and CaptainCourtesy) were on the opposite side of me politically hit were able to express their views in a reasonable and understandable way, and were open to listening to mine. Definitely makes for a more rewarding experience.

Will keep an eye out for future posts and hopefully have some good back and forth!
 
DCCougar said:
The Justices would have to bend over backwards in order to look at the language of 18 USC §1512 and claim the meaning of that statute remains unclear.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is the Court already did hold as I describe, in a strikingly analogous fact pattern less than 10 years ago - the Fish Case.


Yates v. United States (2015) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
🤣

What?
Click to expand...

What what?
The note is trying to isolate and separate that clause from any other meaning within the statute.

Ok-- but people are allowed to try to, and actually succeed in, influencing or stopping Congress from doing something.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Ok-- but people are allowed to try to, and actually succeed in, influencing or stopping Congress from doing something.
Click to expand...
But people are not allowed to use violence to stop Congress from doing something.
 
DCCougar said:
But people are not allowed to use violence to stop Congress from doing something.
Click to expand...

This is true.

But what does violence at the Capitol have to do with Trump? He is being charged with 'conspiracy' to obstruct Congress.

He was not at the Capitol that day, and no connection between the rioters that day and Trump has been established.
 
Athanasius68 said:
This is true.

But what does violence at the Capitol have to do with Trump? He is being charged with 'conspiracy' to obstruct Congress.

He was not at the Capitol that day, and no connection between the rioters that day and Trump has been established.
Click to expand...

Can you honestly say that all those people (many obviously prepared for a battle as they came with helmets, tasers, bats among other weapons) would have all made a trip to the Capitol that day without Trump initiating the whole stop the steal event?
 
Uriah said:
Just the beginning. More to come when Trump is re-elected, if not sooner.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
Thread title is inaccurate and misleading.

Seefried and his fellow MAGAts still have a ways to go on the obstruction of an official proceeding charge, and even if that charge is overturned, the other charges stand.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Can you honestly say that all those people (many obviously prepared for a battle as they came with helmets, tasers, bats among other weapons) would have all made a trip to the Capitol that day without Trump initiating the whole stop the steal event?
Click to expand...
Certainly not honestly, but yeah, he will.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Can you honestly say that all those people (many obviously prepared for a battle as they came with helmets, tasers, bats among other weapons) would have all made a trip to the Capitol that day without Trump initiating the whole stop the steal event?
Click to expand...

But that can't be the standard for criminal investigation and prosecution.

Can anyone imagine that the guy who shot up the the GOP House leadership a few years ago would NOT have done so absent comments from Sen Sanders?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Thread title is inaccurate and misleading.

Seefried and his fellow MAGAts still have a ways to go on the obstruction of an official proceeding charge, and even if that charge is overturned, the other charges stand.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but since half of Triumps DC charges concern this obstruction charge, it means those charges against him are thrown out...
 
Athanasius68 said:
But that can't be the standard for criminal investigation and prosecution.

Can anyone imagine that the guy who shot up the the GOP House leadership a few years ago would NOT have done so absent comments from Sen Sanders?
Click to expand...

I missed your answer. Would all those people have showed up on J6?

And I would hope you can understand that a single person (or even 3-4) showing up somewhere with a gun is not even a close comparison to an entire mob armed with all types of weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom