mdemone posted:

Here is the text of what is going before DC Circuit Appeals for the J6 rioters appealing their convictions:

quote:

(c) 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

StrugglingHoneybun posted:

i think the judge is confusing Otherwise with Likewise

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Following my typical mantra of "never trust SCOTUS to not come out with a ruling so brazen and lovely that it will shock you" I'm expecting "Presidents are immune to criminal prosecution, but only in this specific case because [insert tortured rationale] and this ruling can't be applied to any other case ever"

Anything other than that and I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Pappyland posted:

What odds are we giving SCOTUS to finding that presidents aren’t immune to criminal liability?

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Following my typical mantra of "never trust SCOTUS to not come out with a ruling so brazen and lovely that it will shock you" I'm expecting "Presidents are immune to criminal prosecution, but only in this specific case because [insert tortured rationale] and this ruling can't be applied to any other case ever"

Anything other than that and I'll be pleasantly surprised.

mdemone posted:

Intentionally so. And many hundreds of convictions now hang in that balance, for John Roberts to decide.

Zachack posted:

What is the specificity that comes after? I don't know the history of the law but I could see it as a law originally enacted in the narrow sense, and later amended to be expanded so as to capture activities not accounted for, and in doing so just saying "eh gently caress it just hoover up everything" rather than having to constantly add items.

quote:

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(a)
(1)Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—
(A)prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B)prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(C)prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(2)Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B)cause or induce any person to—
(i)withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(ii)alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
(iii)evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(iv)be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C)hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(3)The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
(A)in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(B)in the case of—
(i)an attempt to murder; or
(ii)the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;
imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and
(C)in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any person to—
(A)withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D)be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3)hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(c)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.
(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1)attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2)reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4)causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(e)In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
(f)For the purposes of this section—
(1)an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2)the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
(g)In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—
(1)that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
(2)that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.
(h)There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(i)A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(j)If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(k)Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

quote:

On my colleagues’ view, in contrast, the examples in subsection (c)(1) do no work at all, and section 1512(c) has the same breadth it would have if Congress had omitted all of subsection (c)(1) and the word otherwise. Second, the government’s reading also would collapse most of section 1512 into the subsection (c)(2) catchall. Section 1512 sets forth 21 different offenses, and the government’s reading would fold at least 15 of them into subsection (c)(2). Here are a few random examples: Section 1512(a)(1) prohibits killing a person to prevent his attendance at an official proceeding or to prevent the production of a record, document, or other object in an official proceeding. 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A), (B). Section 1512(b)(1) prohibits corruptly persuading another person to influence, delay, or prevent testimony at an official proceeding. Section 1512(d)(1) prohibits harassing another person to dissuade him from attending an official proceeding. And section 1512(d)(4) prohibits harassing another person to prevent a criminal prosecution. All these acts—and the others prohibited by most other parts of section 1512 would influence or affect an official proceeding. This wholesale surplusage is even stranger given section 1512’s graduated penalty scheme. Section 1512(a) authorizes terms of imprisonment of up to 30 years for various obstructive acts involving the use of physical force, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(3)(B), and up to 20 years for obstructive acts involving the threat of physical force, id. § 1512(a)(3)(C). Section 1512(b) authorizes terms of up to 20 years for obstructive acts involving intimidation. Id. § 1512(b). Section 1512(d) authorizes maximum rerms of only three years for obstructive acts involving harassment. Id. § 1512(d). By collapsing most of section 1512 into its subsection (c)(2), the government’s interpretation would lump together conduct warranting up to three decades of imprisonment with conduct warranting at most three years—a distinction reflected in the broader structure of section 1512.

Third, the government’s interpretation of subsection (c)(2) would swallow up various other chapter 73 offenses outside of section 1512. Two of the most longstanding chapter 73 offenses are sections 1503 and 1505, which trace back at least
to 1909. Section 1505 prohibits corruptly obstructing proceedings pending before Congress or executive agencies. Absent an act of terrorism, it imposes a maximum sentence of five years. Under the government’s reading of section 1512(c)(2), all 197 words of this section are made surplusage by 13 words nested in a subparagraph of a subsection in the middle of section 1512. Section 1503 prohibits corruptly influencing a juror or court officer and, absent an attempted killing or a class A or class B felony, authorizes a maximum sentence of ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 1503(b)(3). The government’s interpretation of subsection (c)(2) makes that part of section 1503 redundant, leaving only its separate application to acts of harming protected persons after the fact.
[...]
Beyond considerations of surplusage, the structure of section 1512 cuts further against the government’s broad reading of subsection (c)(2). As noted above, section 1512 contains 21 separate subparagraphs prohibiting various forms of tampering and obstruction. Setting aside subsection (c)(2), the 20 other provisions are all narrow, and every one of them addresses preserving the flow of truthful (and only truthful) information to investigatory or judicial processes. To break this persistent and uniform focus, one might expect some degree of clarity. Instead, we have the opposite: an otherwise connector suggesting that Congress did not intend a major discontinuity in focus or scope. If subsection (c)(2) were all-encompassing, its placement would also be puzzling. That provision is one subparagraph nested inside a subsection in the middle of 19 otherwise narrow prohibitions. It is not even its own sentence, and it shares with subsection (c)(1) clauses prescribing a mens rea element and a maximum punishment. This is exactly where we might expect to find a residual clause for subsection (c)(1). But it is an exceedingly unlikely place to find an all-encompassing residual clause for most of section 1512 and much of chapter 73. Of course, Congress “does not alter the fundamental details of a [statutory] scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions—it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking rear end’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001).

mutata posted:

lol it's totally gonna be this isn't it.

Paracaidas posted:

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1735340844046049748

Predictably, NY rejected Trump's bid for special treatment in the appeals process.

mdemone posted:

I have an enormous number of thoughts about that, but they all boil down to John Roberts not being signed up for the title of "last Supreme Court chief Justice"

Paracaidas posted:

The section in question bolded.

From the dissent in the appealed ruling:

I agree with the outcome of the majority opinion and find flaws in even the excerpts of the dissent I quoted (the punishment differences undercut the collapse argument for me - as they provide a clear reason why some were delineated despite the catchall), but dislike the general tone in commentary here and elsewhere that Katsas and Nichols are going through ludicrous, indefensible contortions for partisan purpose.

They're reading and contorting in a way that they never would for any other defendants (for partisan purpose)- but that's different.

SixFigureSandwich posted:

Agreed. Even the more nutso SCOTUS justices like having power, and giving the President full immunity would take some of that power away. I think they might just rule that the President has immunity only for official acts and leave it to lower courts to figure out the rest.

cr0y posted:

Has this been brought up? Seems like this is up until now unknown audio as it's being reported that this isn't being cited in any of Jack Smiths filings. Sorry for the screenshot and YouTube like, wanted to provide something that actually had the audio and Twitter is garbage nowadays


https://youtu.be/JH0HE2C6uyE

Murgos posted:

Oh, lawdy there's tapes! I knew that recently it had become clear that Smith had evidence a lawyer had told Trump directly that if he proceeded with his plan that it would be illegal and he would face criminal charges but if there are tapes that's pretty great.

DarkHorse posted:

Is that Chesebro? I'd heard reporting he'd flipped completely and was giving up lots of goodies

DarkHorse posted:

Is that Chesebro? I'd heard reporting he'd flipped completely and was giving up lots of goodies

mdemone posted:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/14/us/georgia-teacher-arrested-threatening-muslim-student-israeli-flag/index.html

Trump stole a binder of Russian intel and it's still never been found. This is new info as of today.

Murgos posted:

Your quoted dissent analysis is flawed in that section (c) has a much higher bar to being enacted in that it requires that the acts be done “corruptly” which is not present in the others and so rightly is it’s own separate action and does not nullify anything in the other sections since they don’t require corrupt intent.

Section (a) don’t kill or attempt to kill someone to obstruct an official proceeding or else

Section (b) don’t intentionally hurt people to obstruct an official proceeding or else

Section (c) don’t corruptly obstruct an official proceeding or else

Section (d) don’t intentionally harass people to obstruct an official proceeding or else

It’s pretty straight forward. Actually.

quote:

I. The lower courts correctly defined the term "corruptly" in Section 1512(b) as "having an improper purpose" "to subvert, undermine, or impede the fact-finding ability of an official proceeding." The lower courts' definition is consistent with the purpose-based definition long given to the identical term in the general obstruction-of-justice statute, 18 U.S.C. 1503, on which Section 1512 was based; in other obstruction-of-justice statutes; and in other federal criminal statutes more generally. That definition does not render the term "corruptly" superfluous. Nor does it criminalize conduct that is not inherently wrongful, because it has long been understood that it is improper to destroy documents when litigation is anticipated for the purpose of frustrating the truthseeking process.

Petitioner's novel alternative definitions of the term "corruptly"-which would require either "proof of improper means of persuasion or inducement to unlawful acts," or "proof of consciousness of wrongdoing"-should be rejected. The former definition cannot be reconciled with the text of the statute; would give the term "corruptly" a different meaning in Section 1512(b) than in other obstruction-of-justice statutes; and would criminalize little, if any, conduct that is not already criminalized by other provisions. The latter definition contravenes the established principle that ignorance of the law is no defense, and no exception to that principle is warranted here.

Neither the rule of lenity, the doctrine of constitutional doubt, nor constitutional principles of fair warning justify petitioner's alternative definitions of "corruptly." The rule of lenity and the doctrine of constitutional doubt are both inapplicable here, because the term "corruptly" is not ambiguous. Petitioner identifies no serious constitutional concerns arising from the lower courts' construction of the statute, and petitioner had fair warning that its conduct was unlawful.

quote:

A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Its disappearance, which has not been previously reported, was so concerning that intelligence officials briefed Senate Intelligence Committee leaders last year about the missing materials and the government’s efforts to retrieve them, the sources said.

In the two-plus years since Trump left office, the missing intelligence does not appear to have been found.

The binder contained raw intelligence the US and its NATO allies collected on Russians and Russian agents, including sources and methods that informed the US government’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election, sources tell CNN.

The intelligence was so sensitive that lawmakers and congressional aides with top secret security clearances were able to review the material only at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where their work scrutinizing it was itself kept in a locked safe.

The Islamic Shock posted:

I'm pretty surprised to find out Trump was rock-hard for declassifying Russian interference intel because in his own mind he's always right and he actually thought the truth would set him free for the first time ever

I mean that sounds like him but I didn't think he was that dumb in his narcissism

cr0y posted:

The DOJ should just put up a "pardon if found" on that binder and watch the trump ecosystem kill each other to be the first to return it.

quote:

the binder, described as being 10 inches thick

haveblue posted:

piL posted:

That's too big for a binder. Get a second binder.

bird food bathtub posted:

Eh, I can see it in this situation. If it's all classified stuff it'd be easier to just track one object than a bunch of normal sized binders.

Oracle posted:

The actual cnn story about Trumps stolen Russian intel here.

The Islamic Shock posted:

I'm pretty surprised to find out Trump was rock-hard for declassifying Russian interference intel because in his own mind he's always right and he actually thought the truth would set him free for the first time ever

I mean that sounds like him but I didn't think he was that dumb in his narcissism

SaTaMaS posted:

I'd assume there are digital backups of important classified material or this still the 1900s

InsertPotPun posted:

trump once tweeted out that he wanted everything in the russia investigation declassified

when people sued to get it trump's attorneys went to court to block it saying twitter isn't orders

when the judge agreed that twitter isn't real trump tweeted out his frustration that the russia info wasn't being released fast enough and repeated that it was declassified.

his attorneys went back to court to argue that twitter isn't real and the judge agreed

The Islamic Shock posted:

I'm not sure how I missed all that, holy poo poo.

Hey our client might be dumber than a sack of hammers AND the President but don't worry we won't let him actually do anything too dangerously stupid most of the time