Why SCOTUS Will Toss 350 J6 Convictions

In 2021, the DOJ redefined "Official proceedings" to mean anything the government does, including certification of Electoral College votes.

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.

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.

Joseph W. Fischer was among those charged with "Obstruction of an official proceeding." However, when his case got to an actual court, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols dismissed the "Obstruction" charge because Fischer did nothing "With respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence Congress's certification of the electoral vote." The DOJ took their case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed Judge Nichols's ruling.

It's risky to predict a SCOTUS ruling based on oral arguments, but most of the justices were dubious about the DOJ's use of Sarbanes-Oxley in J6 prosecutions.

Predictably, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor went after Fischer's attorney, Jeffrey T. Green, in an attempt to undermine his argument that the key problem with the DOJ's case is its misinterpretation of "Otherwise" in 1512(c)(2).

Chief Justice Roberts also pressed Prelogar on the DOJ's broad interpretation of "Otherwise." Referring to a unanimous opinion he wrote in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries that was just released on April 12, he cited it as an example of the proper interpretation of "Otherwise:" "[W]hat it said is you had specific terms, a more general catchall, if you will, term at the end, and it said that the general phrase is controlled and defined by reference to the terms that precede it. 

https://spectator.org/why-scotus-will-toss-350-j6-convictions/