‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
[link removed] [[link removed]] John,

By the end of the month, the Supreme Court is going to release an opinion on a case that could derail accountability for insurrectionists.

It’s a lesser-known case, but we’re here to break it down:

The case challenges whether the Department of Justice can use one of the most frequent charges against January 6th defendants, including Donald Trump: obstruction of an official proceeding.

The outcome of the case could let defendants charged under this provision off the hook for their actions on January 6th—actions that delayed the certification of the 2020 election. If that’s not obstructing an official proceeding, we don’t know what is.

Since January 6, 2021, CREW has been fighting to hold insurrectionists accountable. Stand with CREW and support our fight for accountability by making a donation today → [[link removed]]If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

Donate $5 → [[link removed]]
Donate $25 → [[link removed]]

Donate $50 → [[link removed]]
Donate $100 → [[link removed]]

Donate $250 → [[link removed]]
Other → [[link removed]]

The case was brought by Joseph Fischer, a police officer from Pennsylvania who was charged with, among other things, assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct in the U.S. Capitol, and obstruction of an official proceeding for his actions on January 6, 2021. Two other insurrectionists, Edward Lang and Garret Miller, also joined the case.

They’re arguing that 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), the statute that criminalizes an effort to “corruptly… obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” only applies to evidence tampering and does *not* apply to insurrectionists like them.

To date, more than 332 defendants have been charged under this provision, including nearly two dozen members of the Oath Keepers, and at least four members of the Proud Boys.

Trump’s federal indictment for efforts to overturn the 2020 election also included two counts of obstruction of an official proceeding.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that his indictment for obstruction of an official proceeding should be dismissed based on the same arguments made before the Supreme Court in Fischer . That’s why the case is so important. It’s not getting as much attention as Trump v. Anderson , but it could be yet another way the Supreme Court lets Trump off the hook for his actions on and before January 6th.

The bottom line is that whether it’s Donald Trump or a low-profile Oath Keeper, the people responsible for January 6th need to be held accountable for the sake of our democracy.

If you stand with us, please support CREW’s work fighting for accountability by making a donation today → [[link removed]]DONATE → [[link removed]]

Thanks,

CREW
Make sure this email goes to your inbox. Add [email protected] to your address book.
Email is a key way for us to stay in touch and make sure you get the latest updates from our campaign. But if you would like to unsubscribe, click here [[link removed]] .
Sign up to receive our messages straight to your phone! This is the best and fastest way to support CREW's work. Text 'JOIN' to 40234 to get updates. Txt STOP 2 end, HELP 4 help.
If you'd like to donate to support our efforts, please click here → [[link removed]]
© Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 2020–2023
CFC 42218
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
PO Box 14596
Washington, DC 20044
United States