Biden DOJ Dropped Nearly Half Of Pending Obstruction Charges For Jan 6 Defendants After Supreme Court Ruling | The Daily Caller
By: dailycaller
Overstep a bit did we? LMAO
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped nearly half of pending obstruction charges against Jan. 6 defendants since the Supreme Court issued a major ruling in June, according to recent data.
The Supreme Court ruled in June that in charging Jan. 6 defendants, the DOJ had interpreted too broadly a statute that carries up to 20 years in prison for anyone who corruptly "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding." Since the Fischer v. United States ruling, around 60 of 126 defendants had the pending obstruction charges dropped, DOJ data from Sept. 6 shows.
The DOJ is continuing to pursue charges for 13 defendants with pending charges and still assessing its course of action for the remaining defendants. (RELATED: DOJ Will Move Forward With Obstruction Charges Against Two Jan. 6 Defendants After Supreme Court Ruling)
Latest DOJ stats on impact of Fischer (18 USC 1512c2, obstruction of official proceeding):
* of 126 cases pre-sentence, charge dropped in ~60; being pursued in 13; under review in ~53.
* of 133 cases post-sentence, charge dropped in ~40, still under review in remainder. pic.twitter.com/u4NsqhQOXW
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) September 9, 2024
Of the 133 defendants whose cases had already been adjudicated when the Fischer ruling was released, the DOJ "does not oppose dismissal or vacatur of the charge in approximately 40 cases," though it is still assessing the remaining cases, according to the data.
"There are zero cases where a defendant was charged only for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512," the DOJ noted. "In other words, even if the government foregoes this charge, every charged defendant will continue to face exposure to other criminal charges."
The Supreme Court held that the government must "establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects" or "other things used in the proceeding" in order to prove a violation of the obstruction statute.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested prosecutors could move forward with charges if they "involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding."
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Trump, Fascism References, Memes, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
414 visitors
That's an "awshit" for the left
Not really.
Prosecutors all over the country - federal and state/local - charge everything they can think of that arguably fit the facts. It’s how they scare people into pleading guilty.
I wish they didn’t operate that way, but they do. What you should not assume is that this practice is unique to this case or this DOJ under this administration. It’s not. It’s SOP for prosecutors pretty much everywhere.
Not at all. Clearly this confused some Trump supporters thinking this actually means some of the insurrectionists are just being let go as they clearly missed where the article says "every charged defendant will continue to face exposure to other criminal charges.", but I guess no one ever said Trump supporters were the sharpest tools in the shed.
I know that this is true however, wouldn't you think they would know the actual law and not push it like in this case? Guess their interpretation wasn't quite right in this case. You think there may be some lawsuits coming from those affected?
No, because the actual law is not fully settled until the appeal process is complete and - in this case - the Supreme Court decides what the law means. It’s just the nature of our system that it’s adversarial and each side reaches for chance at victory. Prosecutors charge everything they can think of, and defense counsel argues every bit of law, evidence, and procedure that they can.
No, because no one was unlawfully arrested or prosecuted. Going forward, if someone were prosecuted for this exact behavior under this statue, then they could potentially have a cause of action.
Thank you........
How did one outlet put it back in June....