I was confident about 1512 when all but one judge at the district level (I think it was something like 15 of 16 judges) upheld the charge and the reasoning of the sole judge who disagreed seemed tortured.
But I am a little less confident now because the objections to the charge gained significant traction at the Court of Appeals level. One judge dissented, agreeing with the tortured reasoning employed by the district court, and the two judges in the majority did not agree on how to interpret "corruptly."
In the end, I think that from a realpolitik perspective, SCOTUS is not going to want to been seen obviously throwing Trump a lifeline and/or throwing a monkey wrench into the prosecutions of hundreds of the more serious Jan 6 offenders, so I think it is probably safe.
I read the full text of the indictment this morning. There is a lot in there that I did not know. Count One is quite a story, well told. I come away with the uneasy feeling that although the indictment identifies 6 co-conspirators, the alleged conspiracy is broader than that. I am reminded of the 1973 Knapp Commission report which characterized "meat eaters" and "grass eaters" with reference to police corruption in New York City. The defendant and others, who by analogy could be characterized as "meat eaters", could not have pushed this scheme as far as they did without support from the "grass eaters" base. In defense of the "grass eaters", the "manner and means" employed by the "meat eaters" of "dishonesty, fraud and deceit ... to impair, obstruct and defeat" arguably incited treasonous actions by some before, on and after January 6th. Count Four appears to me to provide a broad basis for addressing this matter.
I was confident about 1512 when all but one judge at the district level (I think it was something like 15 of 16 judges) upheld the charge and the reasoning of the sole judge who disagreed seemed tortured.
But I am a little less confident now because the objections to the charge gained significant traction at the Court of Appeals level. One judge dissented, agreeing with the tortured reasoning employed by the district court, and the two judges in the majority did not agree on how to interpret "corruptly."
In the end, I think that from a realpolitik perspective, SCOTUS is not going to want to been seen obviously throwing Trump a lifeline and/or throwing a monkey wrench into the prosecutions of hundreds of the more serious Jan 6 offenders, so I think it is probably safe.
I read the full text of the indictment this morning. There is a lot in there that I did not know. Count One is quite a story, well told. I come away with the uneasy feeling that although the indictment identifies 6 co-conspirators, the alleged conspiracy is broader than that. I am reminded of the 1973 Knapp Commission report which characterized "meat eaters" and "grass eaters" with reference to police corruption in New York City. The defendant and others, who by analogy could be characterized as "meat eaters", could not have pushed this scheme as far as they did without support from the "grass eaters" base. In defense of the "grass eaters", the "manner and means" employed by the "meat eaters" of "dishonesty, fraud and deceit ... to impair, obstruct and defeat" arguably incited treasonous actions by some before, on and after January 6th. Count Four appears to me to provide a broad basis for addressing this matter.