Will the Supreme Court finally take the chance to settle the January 6 issues once and for all? If so, what verdict will they deliver?

From The Epoch Times. The evidence-tampering statute being used by the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants is unconstitutionally broad, interferes with First Amendment free speech, and has left prosecutors with “unbridled, standardless discretion to effectively make up their own law,” a new Supreme Court filing argues.

View Comments (7)

Let the IFA community know how to pray for you.

Mr. Lang, at least 317 other defendants, and former President Donald Trump have been charged with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding: the tallying of Electoral College votes from the 2020 presidential election by a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. The charge is a felony with a maximum 20-year prison term.

Obstruction of an official proceeding is the most widely charged felony in Jan. 6 cases. Dozens of Jan. 6 defendants have already been convicted under the law. …

Judge Nichols wrote that §1512(c)(2) “requires that the defendant have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.”

The DOJ has not yet responded to the challenges presented in the Lang case. Just before the Sept. 29 deadline for its submission, the DOJ asked the Supreme Court for 30 more days to file its brief because of heavy workload. That request was granted. The new deadline is Oct. 30.

Legal researcher Jonathon Moseley, who helped prepare the FormerFedsGroup brief, said the DOJ’s use of the obstruction law in Jan. 6 cases is dangerous. …

“The amicus curiae brief focuses also on how the DOJ is stripping the qualifier ‘corruptly’ out of the statute,” Mr. Moseley said. “Removing that limitation means that the Biden DOJ can charge anyone—yes, any reader of The Epoch Times, anyone—with a 20-year felony.” …

“In 2018, protestors obstructed the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and physically took over the Hart Senate Office Building to try to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Mr. Renz wrote. “They were mostly released in about five hours on $50 bond, later dropped.

“In May to June 2020, rioters laid siege to the White House. Apparently, more law enforcement officers were injured in the assault on the White House than on January 6, 2021,” the new brief reads. …

“The only guiding principle appears to be whether a protester agrees with government messages,” Mr. Renz wrote.

The statute reads:

“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.” …

A key issue in the debate is the meaning of the word “corruptly” in the statute. …

“In Pettibone, the Supreme Court opined in 1893 that ‘corrupt’ implied more than a state of general malevolence; it required a ‘specific design to thwart justice,’” he wrote. …

“What did Congress mean about ‘corruptly’ obstructing a proceeding when Congress already addressed this exact scenario in a different set of statutes without using the term “corruptly?” Mr. Renz wrote. …

Congress already covered acts at the Capitol that could interfere with proceedings such as hearings, Mr. Renz said.

Title 40 U.S. Code §5104 prohibits “utter[ing] loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engag[ing] in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress.”

That statute does not use the term “corruptly” and carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail. Mr. Renz said.

“Turning 6–12 month misdemeanors into a 20-year felony demands more of us in a precise, sound definition,” he wrote. …

Share your prayers below for the January 6 defendants.

(Excerpt from The Epoch Times. Photo Credit: Samuel Corum/Getty Images)