[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — Weeks before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Joseph Fischer wrote a text message in which he spoke of his desire to take Democratic lawmakers to the “gallows” and warned politicians from leaving the Capitol. He was hanged after a mob trial, according to the government, which predicted he would be dragged away.
According to authorities, Fisher, who was a police officer in Pennsylvania at the time, wrote in a message on December 16, 2020, “If I can’t breathe, I can’t vote lol.”
Mr. Fisher then joined the mob on January 6 to stop former President Donald Trump from losing the election. He currently faces seven criminal charges, one of which is the focus of a Supreme Court case to be heard on Tuesday.
Fisher is asking the court to drop one of the charges he faces: obstruction of an official proceeding.
But Fisher’s charge isn’t the only thing at stake.
Trump is charged with violating that law and its conspiracy provisions. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision may also affect his prosecution.
According to authorities, on January 6, Mr. Fisher joined a crowd that entered the Capitol from the east side. “Charge!” the man yelled repeatedly, according to the government, before charging toward the police line while shouting “Mom!” He and other rioters then fell to the ground. After other rioters lifted him up, video released as evidence in another Jan. 6 trial showed him trying to tell officers protecting the Capitol that he was a police officer too. It has been shown that
“This is our home, bro!” the video appears to show Fisher saying that day. After the officers tell Fisher to turn around and leave, Fisher appears to be pleading with the officers to stand with them “as a patriot.”
“Kneel! Kneel!” riot members chanted, as Fisher recorded on his cell phone.
Fisher, who is still on trial, is also charged with assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building. These charges are not affected by how the court determines the number of obstruction charges.
President Trump cited the Fisher case in his latest petition to the Supreme Court regarding his efforts to seek presidential immunity for his actions to overturn the election results. Oral arguments in this case will be held on April 25th.
‘pay attention’
The law at issue in Fisher’s case is Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2), which criminalizes any effort to “unauthorizedly” obstruct, influence, or interfere with an official proceeding. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison.
The government announced on January 6 that approximately 330 defendants were charged with violating the law.
Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), filed briefs in Fischer’s case, saying the Justice Department had rejected the law as a “political enemy.” He said that he is using it as a “versatile weapon against people who are vulnerable to attack.”
The provision was enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a bill passed in the aftermath of the Enron accounting scandal. As such, the defendants argue that the document was written to address evidence tampering or tampering. It was never intended to apply to incidents like January 6th.
Mr. Fisher’s lawyers argue that the provision’s scope is limited to evidence tampering and points to language elsewhere in the law that refers to records and documents. Therefore, it should not apply to Mr. Fisher’s conduct, including his alleged assault on a police officer.
Trump’s lawyers have made a similar argument that Trump’s alleged actions are not covered by the obstruction law, which they state in briefs for the immunity suit, which charges Trump with a total of four crimes. “It extends far beyond its original meaning,” he said.
The election interference indictment lays out Trump’s alleged criminal behavior and highlights his broader plan to maintain power by urging Congress to reject the election certification that affirmed Biden’s victory. focused. Mr. Trump and his allies instead called for replacement certificates produced by people they called “fake electors.”
Prosecutors argue that Trump’s conduct complies with the law because he made false statements to members of Congress and others and submitted false documents.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump, said in his latest brief in the case that no matter what the court decides in Fisher, “the Section 1512 charges in this case will stand.” ” he said.
That’s because, unlike the Fisher case, Trump’s charges involve an alleged conspiracy to falsify documents, an attempt to use “inauthentic and fraudulent election certification” during Congressional proceedings to certify the results. That’s because they do, Smith said.
Mr. Smith also referred to briefs filed by Mr. Fisher’s attorneys regarding the case being argued Tuesday. They are seeking a narrow interpretation of the law to ensure charges against their clients are dismissed, but leave open the option that someone could be charged with “false allegations” or “false testimony.”
Richard Bernstein, a lawyer who filed a court brief for friends supporting the government, said that if the Supreme Court adopts that approach, Fisher could win the case, but Trump’s own charges would have no impact. He said there is a possibility that he will not accept it.
“All parties to the Fisher case agree that the law applies to false statements and the filing of false documents. If the court agrees, what does that mean for Mr. Trump about Mr. Fisher’s particular case? “It doesn’t matter whether the verdict is handed down or not,” he added.
Federal public defender Fritz Ulrich, one of Mr. Fisher’s lawyers, said the language cited by Mr. Smith was merely intended to strengthen their argument for limiting the law’s scope. Ta.
He added: “We are not paying attention to the prosecution of the former president.”
Broad application of laws and regulations
The central incident in Fisher’s case occurred around 3:25 p.m. on January 6, when police began to regain some control of the building. The government said Fisher later bragged about his efforts to break through police lines.
“The police line was 4 deep. We made it to level 2,” Fisher reportedly wrote. The government also said that Mr. Fisher was “agitated and defiant” when he was arrested weeks after the attack, and that after an FBI special agent appeared at a hearing in which Mr. Fisher attended, his son was “physically… “He had to be restrained,” he said.
Mr. Fisher’s lawyers argued that Mr. Fisher was only in the Capitol building for a short period of time and was primarily interested in obtaining cellphone footage.
“Mr. Fisher did not ‘attack’ anyone on January 6th. He was inside the Capitol for a total of four minutes,” the lawyers said in a court filing last year.
In lower courts, various defendants on January 6 joined Mr. Trump and Mr. Fisher, saying the obstruction law was too broad.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who is handling Fisher’s case, initially dismissed the charges.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the government’s favor last year, prompting Fisher to appeal to the Supreme Court. Two other Jan. 6 defendants, Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, have filed similar appeals, the outcome of which will depend on the decision in the Fisher case.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has often rejected broad applications of criminal law by the Justice Department.
One person who benefited from this approach was a Florida fisherman whose conviction under another section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was vacated in a 2015 ruling.
[ad_2]
Source link
