Legal experts say the DOJ was “on the ropes » in Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court in a case questioning whether a Jan. 6 rioter can be charged with obstruction.
Legal experts said the Biden administration was « on the ropes » in Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court in a case questioning whether a Jan. 6 rioter can be charged with a federal « obstruction » crime, which carries implications for former president Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, Jeffrey Green, lawyer for Joseph Fischer – who is one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with « obstruction of an official proceeding » in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol – argued that the federal statute shouldn’t apply, and that it had only ever been applied to evidence tampering cases.
The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a « deliberate attempt » to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statue that criminalizes behavior that « otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do, » and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
But legal experts told Fox News Digital that the government’s argument started to « fall apart » after questioning from the justices.
Jonathan Turley, a practicing criminal defense attorney and professor at George Washington University, praised Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloger as one of « the best appellate litigators, » but said she appeared « clearly on the ropes » and « made some uncharacteristic concessions » on Tuesday.
At one point, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether, under the government’s argument, heckling at the State of the Union address or the recent incident of Rep.
