Found another -- this just isn't true: JUSTICE ALITO: Well, it didn't stop with "obstruct." It added "impede." But what is the meaning of -- how would you define a -- a minimal interference? I suppose a jury would have to be charged on that. In order to prove that the person violated this provision, you must find that the person committed more than, caused, or intended to cause more than a minimal interference. How do you define it? GENERAL PRELOGAR: So I think, you know, to the extent that this would come up in actual prosecutions -- and I'm not aware of any -- but, if this came up, then I think that it would be the defense theory, it's possible that the Court could decide it as a matter of law if, in fact, it was so minimal it doesn't fit within the statutory terms themselves. And I recognize that maybe there could be gray areas about the nature of the obstruction and whether it really satisfies the actus reus. I think that is properly a subject for the jury. The Govt has argued that mere presence inside the Capitol was "obstruction" sufficient to constitute a violation of Sec. 1512 because the Congressional proceedings could not resume until everyone was cleared from the Capitol. That fact is true -- the proceedings could not resume -- but merely being in the building seems to be the kind of minimal interference that Prelogar said was not the basis for any actual prosecutions. That was not true. DOJ has prosecuted such "minimal" interference -- in fact, DOJ has said they intend to charge 1512 against some who were outside on the Grounds and never went inside the building.
Found another -- this just isn't true: JUSTICE ALITO: Well, it didn't stop with "obstruct." It added "impede." But what is the meaning of -- how would you define a -- a minimal interference? I suppose a jury would have to be charged on that. In order to prove that the person violated this provision, you must find that the person committed more than, caused, or intended to cause more than a minimal interference. How do you define it? GENERAL PRELOGAR: So I think, you know, to the extent that this would come up in actual prosecutions -- and I'm not aware of any -- but, if this came up, then I think that it would be the defense theory, it's possible that the Court could decide it as a matter of law if, in fact, it was so minimal it doesn't fit within the statutory terms themselves. And I recognize that maybe there could be gray areas about the nature of the obstruction and whether it really satisfies the actus reus. I think that is properly a subject for the jury. The Govt has argued that mere presence inside the Capitol was "obstruction" sufficient to constitute a violation of Sec. 1512 because the Congressional proceedings could not resume until everyone was cleared from the Capitol. That fact is true -- the proceedings could not resume -- but merely being in the building seems to be the kind of minimal interference that Prelogar said was not the basis for any actual prosecutions. That was not true. DOJ has prosecuted such "minimal" interference -- in fact, DOJ has said they intend to charge 1512 against some who were outside on the Grounds and never went inside the building.
@shipwreckedcrew Do you have a list of non J6 who've been convicted of 1512-c-2 or is that too long of a list to compile?
@shipwreckedcrew Is there some standard way for you to correct the record? File a brief with SCOTUS or something?
@shipwreckedcrew .@shipwreckedcrew If by some miracle Trump gets elected & can assume the duties of office in 2025, what could we reasonably expect from him in his ability/capacity to reform an institution like the DOJ? Other than replacing a few key people is there anything else?
@shipwreckedcrew Is there another example anyone can find of a solicitor general seeming to lack candor in oral arguments before the US Supreme Court?
@shipwreckedcrew Can't you get the info to SCOTUS? And if they see the facts, can't they hold Prelogar (and by extension her entire crew) accountable? Perhaps even disbarred for lying to a court? (I've been told by all my lawyers that they can't ever lie to a court.)
@shipwreckedcrew I didn't know the details like you, but she came across to me as duplicitous and purposely obtuse. And evidently, her conduct goes without review or further examination by the court. I'd like to think the court somehow has a remedy for what happened yesterday.
@shipwreckedcrew The government lied. And didn't a DC judge just recently say if 1512 is out, they'll just up the punishment under some other section? So, that would mean another lawsuit will need to be filed and work its way up to SCOTUS, right? These DC judges seem a mean-spirited lot.
@shipwreckedcrew But I guess you can make up a false person to sue on behalf of to say. I do t want to make a website for these people