Pence did not have the power to decline to certify the election on Jan 6. If he had done so, he would have acted unconstitutionally. But if Pence *had* done this, there would have been no obstruction of the congressional certification process itself. 1/7
In that case, everything would have been done pro forma, even though the outcome would have been unconstitutional (and would undoubtedly have thrown the country into complete, violent turmoil). 2/7
But getting Pence to act unconstitutionally was the only way that Trump could have remained in office on Jan 20 *without* obstructing justice. Absent that, Trump had to obstruct the process itself. 3/7
And that, it is clear, is exactly what the mob that Trump sent to the Capitol was expected to do. All that remains is for Garland to build an evidentiary case establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that that was Trump’s intention--viz., to stop the certification process BAMN. 4/7
This is the point I made about obstruction of justice on Jan 9, just three days after the attack on the Capitol. 5/7 tinyurl.com/y6o2azsc
And it’s not just a matter of Garland invoking 18 U.S.C. § 1512 either. Turns out that 18 U.S.C. § 1505 is even more directly on point. That statute says, in relevant part: 6/7 tinyurl.com/y6kab8zg 
As I noted in a previous tweet today, some of the Jan 6 rioters have *alteady* been convicted for obstruction of justice under the federal statutes. 7/7
unroll @threadreaderapp
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
