Jason Willick in a WashPost column says “Prosecutors have since [its enactment] used 1512(c) to target evidence-tampering, as Congress intended. But the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland tried stretching the law to cover the Capitol riot, on the grounds that it “otherwise” influenced a proceeding — Congress’s counting of electoral votes — in a way the law’s drafters didn’t contemplate.” https://wapo.st/4cFUSK7. But the Just Security article says: “The Trump administration’s Department of Justice was the first to use this specific obstruction statute – 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) – to prosecute individuals who participated in the Capitol riot (see for example, Indictment of Jacob Chansley on Jan. 11, 2021 and the Criminal Complaint against Joe Biggs on Jan. 19, 2021).”
Jason Willick in a WashPost column says “Prosecutors have since [its enactment] used 1512(c) to target evidence-tampering, as Congress intended. But the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland tried stretching the law to cover the Capitol riot, on the grounds that it “otherwise” influenced a proceeding — Congress’s counting of electoral votes — in a way the law’s drafters didn’t contemplate.” https://wapo.st/4cFUSK7. But the Just Security article says: “The Trump administration’s Department of Justice was the first to use this specific obstruction statute – 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) – to prosecute individuals who participated in the Capitol riot (see for example, Indictment of Jacob Chansley on Jan. 11, 2021 and the Criminal Complaint against Joe Biggs on Jan. 19, 2021).”
Yes, Willick is wrong about a number of things in that column. I critiqued it in this post: https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/obstruction-of-justice-and-the-capitol?utm_source=publication-search
Whatever happened to the first rule of interpretation based on the accepted meaning of the law’s text and words?
Para 1512(c)(2) begins with “otherwise,” which means to me “other than 1512(c)(1),” or in a different way.
Other than altering, destroying or concealing evidence, obstructing an official proceeding also is proscribed and prohibited.