The Chief seems sympathetic to siding with Katsas's dissent below, which would have thrown out the obstruction charges against J6 defendants, because there was an OLC opinion agreeing as much. The SG says that was never adopted, but the Chief didn't seem to care.
Evergreen x.com/mikesacksesq/s…
Also I can never really tell Roberts's views when Prelogar is arguing before him because he loves playing with her x.com/mikesacksesq/s…
Also I can never really tell Roberts's views when Prelogar is arguing before him because he loves playing with her x.com/mikesacksesq/s…
Alito going for a gotcha quoting Prelogar against herself and she was ready for it.
Prelogar shoulda shot back citing Alito against himself x.com/leahlitman/sta…
Prelogar shoulda shot back citing Alito against himself x.com/leahlitman/sta…
Kavanaugh going back into "otherwise," suggesting he, too, is sympathetic to Katsas's dissent (see grabs below) for throwing out the obstruction charges against J6 defendants
Kavanaugh citing other counts against the J6 defendant and asking "why aren't those six counts good enough?" Translation: Sure I'm gonna vote to throw these obstruction charges out but PLEASE DON'T BE MAD AT ME EVERYONE I'M NOT TRYING TO LET THESE BAD GUYS GO FREE
Barrett asking Prelogar to make her feel more comfortable siding against the J6 defendant. Prelogar, as ever, knocks it out of the park, but query whether Barrett sincerely wants to be assuaged. Her follow-ups about Congress's intent in writing the law suggest she doesn't.
KBJ also asking if the statute even applies to J6 rioters, given that Congress passed it to cover the "Enron loophole" about the company's document destruction. She doesn't seem convinced by Prelogar's answers, either.
(KBJ, remember, was a public defender and would seem ideologically loathe to give broad application to federal criminal laws. So if she were to side with the government here, I'd think she'd track Walker's concurrence)
This is looking 6-3 (perhaps even 7-2 if Jackson's final questions tipped her hand more than her initial ones) to throw out the obstruction charges against this J6 defendant (and, consequently, others, including, perhaps, Trump).
(Whoa I don't think I've ever written a phrase that has a comma after every single word. But I think that was still grammatically correct?)
@MikeSacksEsq @billscher At least BEATING COPS, breaking things, trespassing, and shitting on desks had nothing to with the distinction between "proceedings" and "documents.."
@MikeSacksEsq The 1st one is unnecessary and gives only a dramatic effect, 4th and 5th could have been parentheses instead. Parenthesised paratheses rock.
@MikeSacksEsq They were there with the purpose of obstructing the count, pressuring Pence is Trump obstucting, no gray area there.
@MikeSacksEsq I hate that though. Trump was a part of fake electors signing fake documents though
@MikeSacksEsq I guess the q for trump is whether the effort to submit fake electors counts as document related enough to qualify