Second U.S. judge questions constitutionality of lead felony charge against Oath Keepers in Capitol

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

Second U.S. judge questions constitutionality of lead felony charge against Oath Keepers in Capitol riot

By Spencer S. Hsu
September 8, 2021 at 7:25 p.m. EDT

A second federal judge in Washington questioned whether the lead felony charge leveled by the government against Capitol riot defendants is unconstitutionally vague, as 18 Oath Keepers accused in a conspiracy case urged the court on Wednesday to toss out a count carrying one of the heaviest penalties against them.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing.

“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’ ” Mehta said. “. . . And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’ ”

At issue is a statute the Justice Department has employed against at least 235 defendants accused of corruptly disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral-college vote.

Prosecutors have brought the obstruction charge in many of the most notorious cases, including against members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters groups who allegedly conspired and prepared in advance for violence. The government has also leveled the charge against scores of individuals not accused of attacking police or destroying property but facing some of the most egregious allegations — such as occupying the Senate chamber, sitting in the vice president’s chair and targeting government officials.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-obstruction-charge-vague/2021/09/08/9a833eaa-10c3-11ec-bc8a-8d9a5b534194_story.html

[JHB]

1. Well, not a Trump judge, at least...

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Mehta

Federal judicial service

On July 31, 2014, President Barack Obama nominated Mehta to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to the seat vacated by Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who took senior status on June 3, 2014.[5] He received a hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 17, 2014.[6] On November 20, 2014 his nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[7] On Saturday, December 13, 2014 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a motion to invoke cloture on the nomination. On December 16, 2014, Reid withdrew his cloture motion on Mehta's nomination, and the Senate proceeded to vote to confirm Mehta in a voice vote.[8] He received his federal judicial commission on December 19, 2014.[4] On June 1, 2021, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Mehta to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[9]

In May 2019, Mehta ruled that accounting firm Mazars had to provide its records of Donald Trump's accounts from before his presidency to the House Oversight Committee in response to their subpoena.[10] In a 41-page opinion, he asserted that Congress has the right to investigate potential illegal behavior by a president, including actions both before and after the president assumed office.[11] The ruling will be appealed by Trump's personal legal team.[11]

In July 2019, Mehta sided with the pharmaceutical firms Merck & Co., Eli Lilly & Co., and Amgen Inc. by blocking a Trump administration rule requiring drugmakers to put prices in television ads, a central part of the president's push to lower the cost of prescription medications. The goal of the rule was to increase transparency; Mehta ruled that requiring big pharmaceutical companies to disclose prices to consumers in television advertisements was something that could be done only by the Department of Health and Human Services if mandated by Congress. Mehta did not find basis to the claim by the plaintiffs that the rule would violate their free speech rights as corporations.[12]

[Tomconroy]

2. It's a real issue.

[abqtommy]

3. I agree. There are many laws that could benefit from reworking the language

so as to provide clarity.

[C_U_L8R]

4. They should have charged them all with the maximum

I mean, c'mon, it was insurrection and treason. They even had the tshirts and swag printed up in advance to commemorate it.

[FBaggins]

5. I'm not sure how those two sentences go together

How does printing t-shirts and swag demonstrate treason and insurrection?

The very problem the judges are having here is inferring different motivations to similar actions. I would not at all be surprised to find that events that were charged as protests also were planned in advance and had “swag”

[C_U_L8R]

6. It demonstrates planning and coordination

Conspiracy to commit treason. It sure wasn't a protest.

[FBaggins]

7. That's circular reasoning

It demonstrates planning and coordination, but not that what they were planning for was treason.

[C_U_L8R]

8. Their tshirts explicitly said Civil War

And all their social media posts broadcast the same. Behind the scenes, the communications and planning were probably more nefarious. We will find out, won’t we.

[FBaggins]

9. So? That's like saying they brought a gallows so they intended to kill people

Left-leaning protestors sometimes bring a guillotine or hang an opponent in effigy... or use the language of explicit revolution.

None of that makes it treason. Some proportion of them almost certainly were guilty of that, but not because they wore t-shirts.

You've been here as long as I have. Are you telling me that you've never seen posters here using the language of revolution or civil war?

[C_U_L8R]

10. They intended to overthrow Congress

And stop the Electoral College count. I don’t know what else to say, I take them at their word.

[lagomorph777]

11. Yes - the judges have been lulled into thinking all the traitors should get off scott-free.

DOJ has set a horrible precedent; this doesn't bode well for prosecuting the ringleaders (Trump et al).