j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
Bullshit…this sham is not acting on legal authority.Not surprising that you choose snark over a refutation of the facts.
2. Obstructing a Lawful Function of the Federal Government
This is why courts have largely brushed aside defendants’ claims that § 371 is unconstitutionally vague as applied for failure to give adequate notice that the charged conduct is illegal.288 The statutory standard for criminal intent—specific intent to obstruct or impede—and the requirement of deceit or dishonesty narrow the statute’s reach and protect against prosecution for innocuous conduct.289 A great deal of caselaw has given clarity to the statutory language and explained which government functions will—and which will not—be covered.290 Criminal intent would likely be the critical and most hotly contested element of a § 371 prosecution against Trump, Eastman, Clark, Meadows, and possibly other members of their circle. In his litigation resisting a subpoena from the January 6 Committee to turn over his email correspondence related to the assault on the U.S. Capitol, Eastman claimed that he and Trump did not deploy dishonest means because “t is not ‘deceit, craft or trickery’ for the President, based on counsel from trusted advisors, to have arrived at conclusions on various factual matters which the Select Committee does not share.”291 The argument was that the attempts to obstruct and impede Congress and the DOJ could not have been dishonest if Trump and his collaborators honestly believed their cause was just. But—as Judge Carter found in the Eastman v. Thompson litigation, in deciding that Trump and Eastman more than likely violated § 371—that argument cannot withstand scrutiny. There is strong circumstantial evidence showing that Trump, Eastman, Clark, and Meadows subjectively knew that Trump fairly lost a secure election. Regardless of their beliefs about the election outcome, these men also knew that the means by which they pursued their objective were deceptive and inconsistent with established law. And there is no end-justifies-the-means safe harbor under § 371 for conspirators who deceitfully obstruct a lawful government function, even if they subjectively believe that their cause is justified.