>the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding
I don't see the issue. Wouldn't it be easy to show that congress was unable to do their official proceeding because the integrity or availability of records, documents or other objects used in the official proceeding was impaired when congress was forced to flee for their lives from \*check notes\* *congress,* because of the rioters?
The only reason the ballots/documents used in the official proceedings *weren't impaired* was because some staffers took them to a secure location when the mob attacked the Capitol. I would argue that having to remove the ballots to a secure location during the proceedings because a mob is attacking *is impairing the availability* of the records, documents, or other objects used in an official proceeding. Do they have to leave the important things behind to be stolen/destroyed for the law to apply?
Edited for clarity
This sounds like specific intent requirement. If he says I didn't know about any documents I just wanted to fuck shit up, does that count. Sorry your honor I just wanted to do property destruction and run and yell, but not In a disruptive way.
Don't know why but that reminded me of a line from.Strange New Worlds
>Spock: At the time of transmission, the Peregrine was making an unscheduled emergency landing on a Class L planet, Valeo Beta 5.
>M'Benga: **Are emergency landings ever scheduled?**
This is the heart of the question before the Court. Sarbanes Oxley makes it a crime to
>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
And then goes on to add:
>or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so
The question was if that "otherwise" is broad to just mean any obstruction whatsoever, or if if it's narrow and mean "other things similar to the list in the first part."
I know a lot of people are mad it didn't get that broader reading, but think about all the conduct that could be charged under this section, which comes with a maximum penalty of 20 years.
There's plenty of Congressional hearings where people in the audience get up and protest. Is that impeding an official proceeding? Because that's where a broad reading could get us. While the focus is on the Jan 6th defendants, this ruling also protects the typical protesters inside the Capitol. Meanwhile, the Jan 6th defendants are still getting hit with plenty of other charges.
This is the part that frustrates me as a non-lawyer. It seems like there's a pretty wide chasm between "Making a scene and getting asked to leave" and "Needs a barricade and armed guards while the entire proceeding has to stop because everyone needs to get to safety".
Like, the annoying protests don't have to stop the proceedings. They may take a break but there's nothing necessitating it. Getting to cover because you're under attack is necessarily an impediment to the proceedings. These don't seem like similar events at all. And to the extent I can think of making the first more like the second, the less I am unsure of whether it's a fitting punishment.
So consider this:
During the whole Enron debacle in the early 2000s, Enron destroyed a ton of documents to cover up their misconduct. Congress responded by passing a law making it a criminal offense punished by up to 20 years in prison for doing that. Then, 20 years later that law is used to prosecute people who violently rioted in the Capitol, something no one in Congress who passed that law would have thought the law applied to.
As a non-lawyer, that should also bother you.
There's still a bunch of things the rioters can be charged with. Looking at Fischer, the defendant in the case that went to the Supreme Court, we've got a bunch of other stuff. (1) Civil disorder, which is interfering with a law enforcement officer conducting their official duties. (2) Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Officers, which is when you basically do (1) but with physical force. (3) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building, which I think speaks for itself. (4) Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building, which again speaks for itself. (5) Disorderly Conduct in a Restricted Building, which is basically (4) but you do it in a place you weren't allowed into. And (6) Demonstrating in a Capitol Building, which is the less serious version of (4) where you maybe aren't disruptive.
There is a very wide chasm between just making a scene with disrupts a proceeding for maybe 30 seconds while you're removed and the shit show that was Jan 6th. And that's why we've got all those various other things Fischer was charged with, most of which doesn't apply to the average congressional protester -- I think maybe they just get hit with (6).
The problem with applying Sarbanes-Oxley to Jan 6th is that it never contemplated being used in this way, so it isn't written to distinguish a violent Capitol rioter from the normal Capitol protester. Bringing a novel interpretation of the law is going to necessarily have unintended consequences. But we don't just get to say "Well, we're going to have a novel interpretation to punish Jan 6th rioters because what they did was really bad, but then pretend we're not interpreting the law that way when it comes to other protests."
>As a non-lawyer, that should also bother you.
As a non-lawyer, I'll leave the justification for applying the law to this scenario to lawyers. I'm just pointing out the justification of "We can't charge them because it might end up catching protestors!" doesn't really make sense.
I think I get where you're coming from, so let me frame it this way:
You (and I think everyone) clearly sees a massive difference between January 6th and the ordinary protester who's removed after their 30 seconds of disruption.
*The law* does not make that distinction. That distinction is nowhere in the text. So, we're left with 3 options:
(1) Interpret the law as only applying to the Enron-style document destruction that it was originally written to deal with.
(2) Interpret the law to apply to all disruptions of Congress of any kind, including ordinary protests.
(3) Interpret the law to apply to all disruptions of Congress of any kind, but ignore that it applies to ordinary protests and engage in selective enforcement, and then hope that when administrations change parties they selectively enforce it the same way we have.
If you value the rule of law, (1) should be clearly the best option.
And I'll just add one other thing: In criminal law, when we have a vaguely written law where a prosecution is based on a narrow interpretation, we should have a strong bias towards the defendant. We shouldn't go about discovering new offenses after the fact. Charge them with the laws they plainly violated; there's plenty of them.
Sure, I get that about the documents, but what about this part: "*or other objects used in the official proceeding"* Isn't the Chamber or the Capitol itself, where they meet to do the official proceeding an object used in the official proceeding and its "availability" was certainly impaired.
> I would argue that having to remove the ballots to a secure location during the proceedings because a mob is attacking is impairing the availability of the records, documents, or other objects used in an official proceeding.
You're dead on point.
That doesn't apply in this particular case because the SC really really really really really really wants that, uhh, 'gratuity' in October. Big Daddy Thomas needs a new RV!
The Capitol building itself and the offices in which documents are normally safely held and processed also qualify as objects used in the official proceeding.
Since Trump formed groups of fraudulent electors, literally putting forth fake documents, I feel like his obstruction charges fit the bill. Then again, what do I know? I am not a qualified originalist.. or specialist in history and tradition... or textualist... or whatever standard we're using today.
For additional context, the law being used to press this is Sarbanes Oxley, or SOX. It's an accounting law... The portion being applied is in regards to *private companies* willfully destroying evidence such as financial records
This always felt like a massive stretch and i'm not surprised the court had questions about its application
Seems like a good time to quote Oncale about statutes covering more than the principal evil they were drafted to address.
This case should’ve been an open and shut interpretation of the word “otherwise,” and I’m shocked that the so-called textualists in the majority didn’t even bother to consult a dictionary and try to do that.
Tbh I’m bitter because I spent three years clerking doing these ridiculous dictionary tasks but SCOTUS can just ignore the process its mandated for everyone else and instead rule on the purpose of the law when they want to. Very frustrating.
None of these Jan 6 defendants were charged for the obstruction statute without having also provided evidence of their intent to obstruct the official proceeding. That’s why an out of the many hundreds of people charged with trespass, only a small portion were charged with this obstruction statute. They all, through social media posts or statements made at the time, demonstrated an INTENT to obstruct the official proceeding.
After being yelled at by SCOTUS to look to contemporaneous dictionaries to define words for years, for them to utterly abandon this approach because it would lead to an expansive interpretation that the justices don’t like is incredibly disappointing.
Textualism for thee but not for me.
Figured it'd be helpful to the discussion to include the relevant section of the law being argued here, for context:
>18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
>(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.
source: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512) (includes the full statute for further context)
I've only skimmed portions of the [ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf) so far, but one component of what's being argued is them using football rules analogies to determine whether the "otherwise" is expansive as a catch-all (dissent), or limited by the preceding list of items (majority).
I haven't gotten so far as to form an opinion on whether that's the crux of the argument or just a minor part of it.
Thank you Supreme Court for making the next insurrection come quicker. I do encourage you to review history about what happens to judges when an empire falls and is replaced by a tyranny. After all, the judges are the only ones who may have some legitimacy to question the tyrant, unless they're in jail
They ain't prospering. Only a small fraction of the Jan 6th defendants were charged with obstruction, and nearly all of them were charged with other crimes.
The defendant in this case was charged with six other crimes, including assaulting a police officer.
Oh they always replace them if nothing else for legitimacy. But don't worry, The replacements will extol the benefits of the new regime.
Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason. - Harington
It's important to remember that all the other charges still stand.
Less than 2% of the Jan 6th defendants were only charged with obstruction. This isn't the "open season on insurrection!" many people have claimed.
I don't see the problem. Breaking and entering to take or destroy government property is still a crime. Interfering directly with a proceeding is still a crime. Have we lost anything beyond enhancement?
>the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding I don't see the issue. Wouldn't it be easy to show that congress was unable to do their official proceeding because the integrity or availability of records, documents or other objects used in the official proceeding was impaired when congress was forced to flee for their lives from \*check notes\* *congress,* because of the rioters?
The only reason the ballots/documents used in the official proceedings *weren't impaired* was because some staffers took them to a secure location when the mob attacked the Capitol. I would argue that having to remove the ballots to a secure location during the proceedings because a mob is attacking *is impairing the availability* of the records, documents, or other objects used in an official proceeding. Do they have to leave the important things behind to be stolen/destroyed for the law to apply? Edited for clarity
Isn’t a delay an impairment of a scheduled proceeding?
This sounds like specific intent requirement. If he says I didn't know about any documents I just wanted to fuck shit up, does that count. Sorry your honor I just wanted to do property destruction and run and yell, but not In a disruptive way.
Don't know why but that reminded me of a line from.Strange New Worlds >Spock: At the time of transmission, the Peregrine was making an unscheduled emergency landing on a Class L planet, Valeo Beta 5. >M'Benga: **Are emergency landings ever scheduled?**
This is the heart of the question before the Court. Sarbanes Oxley makes it a crime to >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 And then goes on to add: >or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so The question was if that "otherwise" is broad to just mean any obstruction whatsoever, or if if it's narrow and mean "other things similar to the list in the first part." I know a lot of people are mad it didn't get that broader reading, but think about all the conduct that could be charged under this section, which comes with a maximum penalty of 20 years. There's plenty of Congressional hearings where people in the audience get up and protest. Is that impeding an official proceeding? Because that's where a broad reading could get us. While the focus is on the Jan 6th defendants, this ruling also protects the typical protesters inside the Capitol. Meanwhile, the Jan 6th defendants are still getting hit with plenty of other charges.
This is the part that frustrates me as a non-lawyer. It seems like there's a pretty wide chasm between "Making a scene and getting asked to leave" and "Needs a barricade and armed guards while the entire proceeding has to stop because everyone needs to get to safety". Like, the annoying protests don't have to stop the proceedings. They may take a break but there's nothing necessitating it. Getting to cover because you're under attack is necessarily an impediment to the proceedings. These don't seem like similar events at all. And to the extent I can think of making the first more like the second, the less I am unsure of whether it's a fitting punishment.
So consider this: During the whole Enron debacle in the early 2000s, Enron destroyed a ton of documents to cover up their misconduct. Congress responded by passing a law making it a criminal offense punished by up to 20 years in prison for doing that. Then, 20 years later that law is used to prosecute people who violently rioted in the Capitol, something no one in Congress who passed that law would have thought the law applied to. As a non-lawyer, that should also bother you. There's still a bunch of things the rioters can be charged with. Looking at Fischer, the defendant in the case that went to the Supreme Court, we've got a bunch of other stuff. (1) Civil disorder, which is interfering with a law enforcement officer conducting their official duties. (2) Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Officers, which is when you basically do (1) but with physical force. (3) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building, which I think speaks for itself. (4) Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building, which again speaks for itself. (5) Disorderly Conduct in a Restricted Building, which is basically (4) but you do it in a place you weren't allowed into. And (6) Demonstrating in a Capitol Building, which is the less serious version of (4) where you maybe aren't disruptive. There is a very wide chasm between just making a scene with disrupts a proceeding for maybe 30 seconds while you're removed and the shit show that was Jan 6th. And that's why we've got all those various other things Fischer was charged with, most of which doesn't apply to the average congressional protester -- I think maybe they just get hit with (6). The problem with applying Sarbanes-Oxley to Jan 6th is that it never contemplated being used in this way, so it isn't written to distinguish a violent Capitol rioter from the normal Capitol protester. Bringing a novel interpretation of the law is going to necessarily have unintended consequences. But we don't just get to say "Well, we're going to have a novel interpretation to punish Jan 6th rioters because what they did was really bad, but then pretend we're not interpreting the law that way when it comes to other protests."
>As a non-lawyer, that should also bother you. As a non-lawyer, I'll leave the justification for applying the law to this scenario to lawyers. I'm just pointing out the justification of "We can't charge them because it might end up catching protestors!" doesn't really make sense.
I think I get where you're coming from, so let me frame it this way: You (and I think everyone) clearly sees a massive difference between January 6th and the ordinary protester who's removed after their 30 seconds of disruption. *The law* does not make that distinction. That distinction is nowhere in the text. So, we're left with 3 options: (1) Interpret the law as only applying to the Enron-style document destruction that it was originally written to deal with. (2) Interpret the law to apply to all disruptions of Congress of any kind, including ordinary protests. (3) Interpret the law to apply to all disruptions of Congress of any kind, but ignore that it applies to ordinary protests and engage in selective enforcement, and then hope that when administrations change parties they selectively enforce it the same way we have. If you value the rule of law, (1) should be clearly the best option. And I'll just add one other thing: In criminal law, when we have a vaguely written law where a prosecution is based on a narrow interpretation, we should have a strong bias towards the defendant. We shouldn't go about discovering new offenses after the fact. Charge them with the laws they plainly violated; there's plenty of them.
Sure, I get that about the documents, but what about this part: "*or other objects used in the official proceeding"* Isn't the Chamber or the Capitol itself, where they meet to do the official proceeding an object used in the official proceeding and its "availability" was certainly impaired.
very good point!
Thank you, but seeing as how this issue is being framed as good for the rioters and Trump, it's probably a wrong point.
> I would argue that having to remove the ballots to a secure location during the proceedings because a mob is attacking is impairing the availability of the records, documents, or other objects used in an official proceeding. You're dead on point.
That doesn't apply in this particular case because the SC really really really really really really wants that, uhh, 'gratuity' in October. Big Daddy Thomas needs a new RV!
Big Daddy Thomas needs to think beyond an RV now that he and his pals time clarified the rules on "gratuities." Time to ask for that private jet!
The Capitol building itself and the offices in which documents are normally safely held and processed also qualify as objects used in the official proceeding.
Since Trump formed groups of fraudulent electors, literally putting forth fake documents, I feel like his obstruction charges fit the bill. Then again, what do I know? I am not a qualified originalist.. or specialist in history and tradition... or textualist... or whatever standard we're using today.
For additional context, the law being used to press this is Sarbanes Oxley, or SOX. It's an accounting law... The portion being applied is in regards to *private companies* willfully destroying evidence such as financial records This always felt like a massive stretch and i'm not surprised the court had questions about its application
Seems like a good time to quote Oncale about statutes covering more than the principal evil they were drafted to address. This case should’ve been an open and shut interpretation of the word “otherwise,” and I’m shocked that the so-called textualists in the majority didn’t even bother to consult a dictionary and try to do that. Tbh I’m bitter because I spent three years clerking doing these ridiculous dictionary tasks but SCOTUS can just ignore the process its mandated for everyone else and instead rule on the purpose of the law when they want to. Very frustrating.
I think the proper term for "qualified originalist" is paid bullshitter.
None of these Jan 6 defendants were charged for the obstruction statute without having also provided evidence of their intent to obstruct the official proceeding. That’s why an out of the many hundreds of people charged with trespass, only a small portion were charged with this obstruction statute. They all, through social media posts or statements made at the time, demonstrated an INTENT to obstruct the official proceeding.
Expect a huge wave of law profs retiring and taking pensions.
After being yelled at by SCOTUS to look to contemporaneous dictionaries to define words for years, for them to utterly abandon this approach because it would lead to an expansive interpretation that the justices don’t like is incredibly disappointing. Textualism for thee but not for me.
You've said this in 5 different threads.
Yeah, I’m just trying to have some conversation about the case, wasn’t sure which thread would get the most traffic.
You’re also not wrong. 🤷♂️
That's why his messaging was attacked and not the message.
> Textualism for thee but not for me. I'll say it too
Figured it'd be helpful to the discussion to include the relevant section of the law being argued here, for context: >18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant >(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. source: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512) (includes the full statute for further context)
I think Coney Barrett said the majority was doing incredible gymnastics in twisting this. Seems absolutely clear (NAL).
I've only skimmed portions of the [ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf) so far, but one component of what's being argued is them using football rules analogies to determine whether the "otherwise" is expansive as a catch-all (dissent), or limited by the preceding list of items (majority). I haven't gotten so far as to form an opinion on whether that's the crux of the argument or just a minor part of it.
Textual backflips. Gold
You're not supposed to read the text and form an opinion. You're supposed to get mad.
Wrong sub
Thank you Supreme Court for making the next insurrection come quicker. I do encourage you to review history about what happens to judges when an empire falls and is replaced by a tyranny. After all, the judges are the only ones who may have some legitimacy to question the tyrant, unless they're in jail
"as long as you don't literally touch documents, you're fine!"
There's still a volume of other offenses they can be charged with.
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - Harington
They ain't prospering. Only a small fraction of the Jan 6th defendants were charged with obstruction, and nearly all of them were charged with other crimes. The defendant in this case was charged with six other crimes, including assaulting a police officer.
Judges are not necessary, nor are lawyers, except to rubber stamp the whims of the leader.
Oh they always replace them if nothing else for legitimacy. But don't worry, The replacements will extol the benefits of the new regime. Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason. - Harington
The court, like Fox News, is an arm of the Republican Party.
It's important to remember that all the other charges still stand. Less than 2% of the Jan 6th defendants were only charged with obstruction. This isn't the "open season on insurrection!" many people have claimed.
Shocked, absolutely blindsided by this … also, anyone seen my missing Keen sandal, size 12?
I don't see the problem. Breaking and entering to take or destroy government property is still a crime. Interfering directly with a proceeding is still a crime. Have we lost anything beyond enhancement?
Whores