Thread by @MuellerSheWrote

THREAD: A couple of interesting things. I'm sure you've noticed by now the deliberate legalese used by Liz Cheney repeatedly during recent hearings. "Whether trump by action or inaction corruptly sought to obstruct or impeded Congress' official proceeding." This is no accident 1/

Liz Cheney's refrain is nearly word-for-word 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(3): "Whoever corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so." I find it interesting that a MoC who can't bring criminal charges is using prosecutorial language. 2/

If you listen to @dailybeanspod or watch @glennkirschner2, you've heard us talk frequently about the importance of the DoJ charging JanSixers with Obstructing an Official Proceeding because by pleading guilty, they admit that they were there to stop the certification. 3/

Glenn and I have said that those guilty pleas could help build a criminal case against donald trump. The DoJ is using 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(3) instead of seditious conspiracy likely because it's easier to prosecute and carries the same sentence (max 20 years). 4/

And it's different than obstruction of congress, 18 U.S. Code § 1505, which only carries a max 5 year sentence. Cheney is saying "congress' official proceeding" in reference to the the 1512(c)(3) statute and not the 1505. That's of note because of a recent court ruling 5/

See, the DoJ has been using the obstruction of an official proceeding felony for some of the higher ups in the Oath Keepers and other militia groups, and some of the defendants filed motions to dismiss arguing the certification is NOT an official proceeding. 6/

A trump-appointed judge named Dabney Freidrich disagreed with them saying "The Joint Session thus has the trappings of a formal hearing before an official body." She also rejected arguments that the law was unconstitutionally vague & only pertains to judicial proceedings. 7/

"There is a presiding officer, a process by which objections can be heard, debated, and ruled upon, & a decision -- the certification of the results -- that must be reached before the session can be adjourned. ... 8/

"Accordingly, the congressional certification at issue here is a 'proceeding before the Congress.'" That ruling was issued Friday, and ever since, Liz Cheney has been repeating language from the statute with regards to donald trump. 9/

Where am I going with this? I just find it deliberate and fascinating that the committee co-chair is using criminal language to describe trump's behavior that's currently being used by the DoJ to charge insurrectionists, and that a judge just ruled they could. END

HA. And @maddow discusses this ten minutes after I post it. <3

@maddow @MaddowBlog I think she's quoting 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(3) and not 1505. FYI. Please see this thread.

PPS: I think Rachel has the right idea but she's quoting the wrong statute. She's quoting 1505 and not 1512(c)(3). Similar language but DoJ is using 1512, and the judge ruled on 1512, it carries a much longer sentence, and it's "official proceeding" specific.

CORRECTION: 1512(c)(2), not 1512(c)(3)

Typo the first time and then copied and pasted 🤦‍♀️