This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sen. Chuck Schumer has lost his temper many times, and his rants are spectacles. One troubling incident was when he was not getting his way at the Supreme Court and in a rally outside threatened, or at least tried to influence, the justices.
He screamed, "I want to tell you [Neil] Gorsuch. I want to tell you [Brett] Kavanaugh]. You release the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."
Members of Congress have special speech protections while they are in session, but that comment fell outside, since it happened at a rally that was held during arguments in an abortion case, and was without a doubt trying to influence the court's ultimate decision.
But worse than being unprotected speech, it could actually be criminal, under a reinterpretation of federal law that the Biden administration has adopted.
And a conservative organization is arguing on behalf of Schumer's speech freedom.
The situation arose, according to a report by the American Center for Law and Justice, in that the Biden administration has argued that a federal law protecting documents in fraud cases applies to, well, everything.
The ACLJ explained the law states, "w]hoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."
It is a part of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act and carries a possible 20-year sentence.
It is being used by Biden's DOJ now against the January 6 protesters and President Donald Trump, too.
The case at hand is about the January 6 events.
The "trial judge here originally determined that the statute did not apply to the events of January 6, but the D.C. Circuit reversed that decision. The Supreme Court is now reviewing the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation to determine whether it is an appropriate interpretation," the report said.
"This case goes far beyond the radical Left’s attempt to throw the book at President Trump through the use of novel legal theories and could significantly curtail lawful protests and First Amendment activity. But it should be noted that a loss for the prosecution in this case would significantly impact President Trump’s cases."
The report noted that people are accused of "otherwise" influencing an official proceeding.
"The D.C. Circuit decided that “otherwise” does not really limit the statute and that any action taken to influence official actions is sufficient to be a violation of this law. It did so, even conceding that 'outside of the January 6 cases brought in this jurisdiction, there is no precedent for using § 1512(c)(2) to prosecute the type of conduct at issue in this case.'" the ACLJ said.
The impact is huge, the report said.
"In the court’s view, this statute includes any act that influences, affects, or hinders the proceeding, including advocacy, lobbying, and protest."
The ACLJ has filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing its points for freedom of speech.
"We highlighted in our brief how this interpretation would sweep many areas of First Amendment activity into this statute with a 20-year prison sentence. Any protest outside a courthouse or outside a legislative proceeding tries to influence it; by the court’s interpretation, any such activity can be criminal. (Think of everything from the extreme Sen. Schumer’s 'you will reap the whirlwind' on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court to any benign public statement for or against a particular judge’s ruling, likely even this blog post.) For the people constantly trying to make their voices heard through advocacy, this interpretation stifles speech seeking to influence official actions."
That scenario allows the government "to go after whomever it chooses and leave it to defendants to address their own mental state at trial. Even where such defendants could prevail on appeal, lives and careers are ruined and speech is chilled. The financial and reputational costs of a defense would itself be a severe punishment. It is unconscionable that a law would be interpreted so broadly as to apply to anyone, depending on their mental state or intent," the ACLJ charged.
The filing suggested the correct way to handle that word "otherwise," is to say it "properly defines the role of the statute to apply to the destruction of evidence."
"The Corporate Fraud Accountability Act should not be twisted into a tool to attack individuals for exercising their rights."
