# Fischer v United States Oral Argument re: Jan 6th Obstruction

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fischer-v-united-states-oral-argument-re-jan-6th-obstruction/1000396>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [April 17, 2024, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fischer-v-united-states-oral-argument-re-jan-6th-obstruction/1000396 "2024-04-17T07:57:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eric1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3bc359/32.png) [@Eric1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric1)\
**Post date:** [April 17, 2024, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fischer-v-united-states-oral-argument-re-jan-6th-obstruction/1000396/1 "2024-04-17T07:57:18Z")

</div>

What do you think about C1 and C2? Did what Elizabeth Prelogar said yesterday make sense where it covers peaceful protests? How about a ‘break in corruptly mens rea’; I was trying to understand how this applies to the January 6th Obstruction (like whether it had the nexis for the argument to apply). I would clearly have to look it up in legal databases too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\
**Post date:** [April 17, 2024, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fischer-v-united-states-oral-argument-re-jan-6th-obstruction/1000396/2 "2024-04-17T08:08:26Z")

</div>

I am of the viewpoint that using Sarbannes-Oxley to prosecute rioters who were trying to interrupt a vote-count in Congress is rather a long stretch of what SarbOx was meant to deal with - namely, financial crimes in Wall Street or Enron-type scandals.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eric1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3bc359/32.png) [@Eric1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric1)\
**Post date:** [April 17, 2024, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fischer-v-united-states-oral-argument-re-jan-6th-obstruction/1000396/3 "2024-04-17T08:18:59Z")

</div>

Thanks velocity! How you wrote that makes sense! I’m going to research more about this relationship the US government’s trying to show here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\
**Post date:** [April 17, 2024, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fischer-v-united-states-oral-argument-re-jan-6th-obstruction/1000396/4 "2024-04-17T10:52:44Z")

</div>

Elucidation (gift link):

> **[Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Using Obstruction Law to Charge Jan. 6...](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/us/supreme-court-jan-6-trump.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.lE0.87k0.daAgsmAy8R1l&smid=url-share)**
>
> The justices considered the gravity of the assault and whether prosecutors have been stretching the law to reach members of the mob responsible for the attack.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eric1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3bc359/32.png) [@Eric1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric1)\
**Post date:** [April 18, 2024, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fischer-v-united-states-oral-argument-re-jan-6th-obstruction/1000396/5 "2024-04-18T04:33:48Z")

</div>

Thanks Comma Sense for the article. It was a good description of what the justices asked about yesterday. Fischer cheered and went into the Capitol for four minutes after they’d broken. He apparently wasn’t one of the really violent rioters but he did put himself where he could get arrested with others. Like you and Velocity pointed out, it can be to charge him der the Oxley law.