Lawfare Live: Discussing the Supreme Court's Fischer Decision

Today at 3 p.m. ET, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes will sit down with Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Roger Parloff for a live discussion of the Supreme Court's opinion released this morning in Fischer v. U.S., narrowing the interpretation of an obstruction statute used by the Department of Justice to charge over 300 Jan. 6 defendants, including former President Trump.
You can help make this coverage possible by becoming a monthly material supporter of Lawfare at our Patreon page: / lawfare .
Or make a one-time donation to support Trump Trials coverage here: givebutter.com...

[@VirginiaBronson]

In the vein of “other things”, I wonder if disrupting the availability or integrity of a chair or desk or podium that also facilitates the proceeding would count in this new ruling?? You know, since they decided not to make the “other things” exclusively evidence. There seemed to be quite a bit of destruction of furniture that day lol. Or even removing a pen? Heck, an entire room is also an “other thing” required for the use of an official proceeding, and occupying it may count?

[@clayrogers423]

I'm going to copy this complaint to every pro-democracy site (I listen to), you all have teed me off so much. All the anti-Trump commentators are criticizing our President, Mr. Biden's performance in last night's debate while saying Trump did pretty well, for Trump. I despise this rhetoric. Yes, President Biden stuttered occasionally; he has all his life. Yes, he seemed tired; Hell, he'd already worked a 16-hour day, and he had a cold. BUT his comments were on-cue and correct, especially compared to Trump's usual rambling B.S. On the other hand, Trump was his usual lying self. Trump took credit for the work the Biden did to get us out of the Covid-19 Pandemic and guide our economic recovery so it was rapid despite Republican interference. Trump talked about supporting unions, but he only speaks at non-union plants. His lies are endless. Commentators should put everything Trump says in quotes preceding each statement with: (Trump lies when he says:) and following with (the truth is ....) - fill in the blanks. Everybody, whether in podcasts, televised national/local news, or local/national newspapers, should do this. You must shout louder than MAGA-land to save Democracy.

[@petepistola4946]

Roberts narrowly applying Ejusdem Generis to obstructing an official proceeding.

[@JR-pr8jb]

Applying it for the specific purpose of favoring Trump's brownshirts.

[@bassplayinben]

These same panelists, during the Mueller probe, debated whether 1512 even covered investigations or was restricted to trials, now they are telling you 1512 encompasses ceremonial congressional proceedings. We have a memory of more than 15 minutes.

[@stephenbevan2320]

And your point is? Ah yes the interpretation and application of the word “proceedings” can cause discussion of fine nuance in the DIFFERENT contexts in which it might arise. My memory is greater than 15 minutes. Perhaps the point is not expressly stated to avoid fully exposing its inanity?

[@bassplayinben]

@@stephenbevan2320 right, trials, maybe investigations, but not ceremonial sessions of Congress

[@stephenbevan2320]

@bassplayinben 2 hours ago (edited) “ @stephenbevan2320 right, trials, maybe investigations, but not ceremonial sessions of Congress” Oh dear 18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision (a)As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section- (1)the term “official proceeding” means- (A)a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury; (B)a proceeding before the Congress; (C)a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or (D)a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce; …

[@stephenbevan2320]

@bassplayinben 2 hours ago (edited) “ @stephenbevan2320 right, trials, maybe investigations, but not ceremonial sessions of Congress” Oh dear 18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision “( a)As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section- (1)the term “official proceeding” means- (A)a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury; (B)a proceeding before the Congress; (C)a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or (D)a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce; …” And see also 12th Amendment US constitution specifying Congressional procedures for count of electoral college votes including quorum of Congress. And Acts of Congress relating to Electoral Count. The count of Electoral college votes are proceedings before Congress within 1515 (a)(1)(C) and 1512 Your qualification “ceremonial” does not take the Constitutional mandated proceedings outside those provisions no matter how hard you wishcast Notably in Fischer v US the argument you attempt to make was not taken nor considered by SCOTUS - because it is nonsense.

[@stephenbevan2320]

@bassplayinben 2 hours ago (edited) “ @stephenbevan2320 right, trials, maybe investigations, but not ceremonial sessions of Congress” Oh dear 18 U.S. Code § 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision “( a)As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section- (1)the term “official proceeding” means- (A)a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury; (B)a proceeding before the Congress; (C)a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or (D)a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce; …” And see also 12th Amendment US constitution specifying Congressional procedures for count of electoral college votes including quorum of Congress. And Acts of Congress relating to Electoral Count. The count of Electoral college votes are proceedings before Congress within 1515 (a)(1)(B) and 1512 Your qualification “ceremonial” does not take the Constitutional mandated proceedings outside those provisions no matter how hard you wishcast Notably in Fischer v US the argument you attempt to make was not taken nor considered by SCOTUS - because it is nonsense.

[@janemack8852]

Roger, I love you, but taking too long to get to the ruling...

[@geoffj54]

Not much of this aged well. Rule of thumb: do not predict supremes!

[@JR-pr8jb]

Jackson was a big disappointment in this.

[@gregorsamsa4580]

The real question for this court is, would you have come to the same conclusion if the defendants had been Black?

[@DamienPalmer]

I stan for white folks like Hunter Biden riding the express train to overturning laws primarily used against Black folks.