Know the facts

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Creative

During the Proud Boys trial, one of the defendants offered this explanation of the scene:

Shown video of himself in the middle of a violent push against police on those steps, Meza described the melee as “officers who are being thanked for doing their job, and who are being sprayed by other officers.”

  WaPo

That's a good one, I must say.

January 6 defendants get a (temporary?) reprieve

[More than 300] Jan. 6 obstruction cases — one of the most commonly charged felonies against those who breached the Capitol or confronted police that day — are facing new uncertainty after a divided appeals court ruling Friday.

The three-judge panel spared the Justice Department an immediate disaster by agreeing to permit three challenged Jan. 6 obstruction cases to continue. But the judges — one liberal and two conservatives — all raised serious questions about whether other Jan. 6 obstruction cases might face legitimate challenges.

At the heart of the conflict is how to measure whether Jan. 6 rioters acted with “corrupt intent,” a central element in the crime of obstructing an official proceeding. The judges noted that the requirement of “corrupt intent” was meant to avoid inadvertently criminalizing traditional protest or lobbying activities.

[...]

Judge Florence Pan, who wrote the majority opinion, said it was the wrong time to decide that broad question because the three defendants whose cases were before the court were all also charged with assaulting police. There’s little question that those who assaulted police that day acted with “corrupt intent.” But in Jan. 6 obstruction cases that don’t involve assault, determining “corrupt intent” is much more complicated, she said.

“It is more prudent to delay addressing the meaning of ‘corrupt’ intent until that issue is properly presented to the court,” Pan wrote.

  Politico

I can see this leading to a huge mess.  If convicted defendants are released, they may have to be retried on some other count.  Or they may just be released to regroup and go at a future revolt.

The immediate effect of the appeals court’s 2-1 vote is the reversal of a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, who determined that obstruction charges were being improperly applied to Jan. 6 defendants. But Nichols’ ruling did not dissect the “corrupt intent” aspect of the law. Rather, he contended that the obstruction charges required evidence that the defendants interfered with physical documents — computer files, papers or other tangible evidence.

More than a dozen other district court judges had rejected that premise, contending that the meaning of the obstruction law — passed in the aftermath of the Enron scandal — is clear: Obstruction includes a wide range of efforts to frustrate the official work of government, not just tampering with documents.

[...]

The Jan. 6 select committee urged the Justice Department to charge Donald Trump with this precise crime as well, after a federal judge in California agreed that Trump “likely” committed obstruction. Any ruling narrowing the definition of “corrupt intent” could take such a charge off the table.

To be continued.

UPDATE 09:17 am:  

Oopsie

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Who didn't see this coming?

A federal judge on Friday denied a Jan. 6 defendant’s request to delay her imminent trial in order to review thousands of hours of security footage recently made available by Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

  Politico

Surely she'll appeal.

Prosecutors trying the seditious conspiracy case of several leaders of the Proud Boys also recently confronted the issue, when a defense attorney asked the Justice Department whether it would help organize access to the additional footage. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason McCullough called it a “serious question” and a “serious issue,” but said it was too soon to say how DOJ would be handling the matter.

[...]

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg said he understood why Sara Carpenter — who is facing two felony charges for her actions at the Capitol — would like time to review the material. But he said she had failed to explain why any additional footage of her movements inside the building would be exculpatory, particularly when prosecutors had already turned over footage of the vast majority of Carpenter’s 34 minutes inside the building.

Boasberg worried that widely permitting Jan. 6 defendants to slow down their criminal proceedings in order to review this footage could “derail dozens of trials that are set in the next few months.”

Part of the reason Tucker wanted it and McCarthy gave it to him. And I expect people who've already been tried and convicted to start filing appeals.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Guilty

Oath Keepers trial

Jessica Watkins, a former bar owner in Ohio and an Army veteran, took the stand on Wednesday in a high-stakes trial charging Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four other militia members with the rarely used charge of seditious conspiracy.

Watkins, who has been locked up for two years following her arrest in the case, said she did not intend to stop certification of President Biden’s 2020 election victory when she stormed the Capitol in a military stack formation with other Oath Keepers.

[...]

Watkins explained she was given a “steady diet” of conspiracy theories about the 2020 election from “Infowars” host Alex Jones.

  The Hill

Force fed, I guess.

Watkins, Rhodes and three other Oath Keeper members on trial face up to 20 years in prison if convicted on the seditious conspiracy charges. Closing arguments could begin as early as this week.

[...]

When he took the stand, Rhodes also said it was “stupid” for Oath Keepers members to charge into the Capitol and repeated that he never meant to overturn certification of the 2020 election.

Rather, Rhodes said he and other militia members were awaiting orders from former President Trump to invoke an old series of laws known as the Insurrection Act, which allows the commander-in-chief to call up a militia to quell a domestic disturbance.

Then it follows that they created the disturbance in order to have Trump make the call. Which is, of course what the plan was, and Trump was in on it.

But Watkins on Wednesday said there was no plan to invoke the Insurrection Act.

[...]

“There was talk of the Insurrection Act, but no one was taking it seriously."

[...]

[Another Oath Keeper on trial, Thomas] Caldwell, a retired Navy intelligence officer, said he was not serious when he wrote messages to the militia group about ferrying “heavy weapons” across the Potomac River into Oath Keepers’ “waiting arms,” according to the AP.

Caldwell called those messages “creative writing.”

Sure.

At least Watkins and Caldwell - or their attorneys - understood Rhodes' admission they were waiting for the Insurrection Act call up was a bad mistake.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.