Okay, I’ve been poking around the internet and found this from DOJ:
While “corruptly” denotes a specific intent to do the proscribed act, it signifies, generally, nothing more than one acting “with bad purpose” to achieve some unlawful end. For example, the standard Devitt and Blackmar jury instruction for public employee bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) and (c), provides: “An act is “corruptly” done, if done voluntarily and intentionally, and with the bad purpose of accomplishing either an unlawful end or result, or a lawful end or result by some unlawful method or means.”
Seems to fit here, so I don’t know what their beef is.
I think they were actually trying the argument that US politics has historically been full of violence, so therefore their violent acts to overthrow a legal election were perfectly acceptable and normal.
That’s how I read it, too. That corruption was absent because this was good faith, honest protest. If this argument carries the day with SCOTUS, we might as well pack it all in.
I don’t think it will. Even they may just forsee the logical follow up that this would mean that any group who disagreed with a Supreme Court decision would be perfectly entitled to attempt a violent overthrow of the court itself, complete with duct tape, zap straps and a gallows.
There are many cases they missed the obvious outcome (e.g. Citizens United) and, even today with the writing on the wall, the court is still in denial about the actual outcomes.
As @F.U.Shakespeare mentioned, maybe if it actually impacts them they will see it. More likely, rioters they like will get a pass and rioters they don’t like will not. It’ll just manage to sort itself out that way. Same as religious freedoms are more for Christians than Muslims.
I wish someone would move on doing the same in Wisconsin (there is a lawsuit in the works to be heard in… October?).
Ron Johnson (R-WI’nie, Election Denier) tried to submit a slate of fake electors, then claimed that he had no idea what that list of names was. Some stranger handed them to him so of course he submitted them, but they were immediately rejected.
"Prosecutors appear to have evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the target letter, two statutes that the House select committee examining the January 6 Capitol attack issued criminal referrals for last year.
The target letter to Trump identified a previously unconsidered third charge, the sources said. That is section 241 of title 18 of the US code, which makes it unlawful to conspire to threaten or intimidate a person in the “free exercise” of any right or privilege under the “Constitution or laws of the United States”."
Thanks. I thought the indictments where going to happen that day. It was just a procedural thing I suppose to ask him I he wanted to come in a talk/defend himself or something.
I think trump was totally expecting an indictment to come out late Thursday, after the deadline he was given to appear voluntarily passed, or some time Friday and he probably had a who shtick prepared. I’m over here laughing at the Sword of Damocles and Jack Smith just biding his time, letting the suspense and anxiety and paranois build, continuing to subpoena witnesses… Until one day, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
