In June, the Supreme Court handed J6 defendants a long-awaited victory by effectively gutting the 1512 obstruction of justice statute.  Leading up to that decision, the DOJ had been using the statute in a context totally unrelated to its original intent and purpose.  The statute was enacted shortly after the Enron scandal of the early 2000s to provide oversight into fraud and corruption within the accounting industry.  The law’s originators never conceived of its use in a presidential certification process, much less against peaceful demonstrators who simply exercised their First Amendment rights to protest a contested election.  Nevertheless, radical lawyers within the DOJ, abetted by outside lawfare groups, took it upon themselves to completely pervert the statute’s meaning.  Rather than fighting accounting fraud, it was now being weaponized by vindictive, bad-faith actors within the DOJ to deny J6 political prisoners of fundamental rights, and in many cases, imprison them with cruel and unusually long sentences.  The statute’s vague wording that was the focus of much of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer had previously given the DOJ convenient cover to stretch its construction to absurd lengths.  This is how a statute enacted to limit the tampering of evidence to protect whistleblowers in a proceeding for accounting fraud became twisted and applied in a completely foreign area – namely, the context of punishing J6 defendants. 

Much of the oral argument centered on this glaring problem: how a statute that was designed very clearly in one area was being weaponized to crack down on political dissidents.  Justice Thomas asked this question point blank to Biden’s Solicitor General: “Has the Government applied this provision to other protests in the past and has this been the Government’s position throughout the lifespan of the statute?”  The obvious answer, of course, is no – which the SG did finally admit after waffling back and forth with the Justice.  However, that minor oversight did not stop the DOJ from marching forward with its prosecution – which it did with shameless abandonment against hundreds of political demonstrators.  This included many who never touched a police officer nor even broke a window, a group that includes President Trump.  In fact, the government’s arguments for using the statute against J6ers were so ridiculous that even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden’s only Supreme Court nominee, found it problematic and sided with the 6-3 majority. 

Jackson is no moderate: she is a true believer in the Progressive cause.  She admitted as much in her decision, maintaining that the January 6^th protest constituted a political insurrection, even though there was no realistic chance that any of those protesters had the intent, much less means, to overthrow the government.  The whole thing was a lie made up by mainstream media outlets like the NY Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC.  That even Justice Jackson could, to her credit, readily identify the deep errors in the Government’s argument demonstrates just how ridiculous the Government’s whole cockamamie scheme was.  The Court’s majority likewise sided with the District Court in ruling that 1512’s original intent was stretched far beyond the boundaries of its intent and defies logic and common sense, effectively overturning the Circuit Court’s decision below.  That, for all intents and purposes, should have been the end of the story.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of statutory interpretation.  The Court held, very clearly, that 1512 is a narrow statute, to be applied strictly to cases in which evidence tampering was an overriding concern.  Typically, that would include only those cases envisioned by the statute’s framers – cases like accounting fraud, and proceedings arising therefrom.  Not presidential certification proceedings, which are largely political and ceremonial in nature, and not the sort of proceeding especially suitable for litigation.  Certainly not in the overwhelming majority, if any at all, of J6 cases.

Moreover, the kind of evidence implicated by 1512 necessarily concerns tangible items or things that risk being easily disposed of in a proceeding implicating accounting fraud.  For example, things like documents and other objects that the statute seeks to preserve for the purpose of protecting whistleblowers.  Social media posts made on one’s private account, for example, are not contemplated by the statute – and could not possibly, based on the Supreme Court’s very narrow Fischer holding, be offered as evidence of criminal liability to prove obstruction of an official proceeding.  It is an abomination that overzealous prosecutors have so egregiously misapplied 1512 in the first place, weaponizing the statute against J6 defendants in a context its designers never dreamed of.  That is a travesty.  But to continue to weaponize the statute, even in the aftermath of Fischer, which essentially declared that 1512 cannot be used to prosecute J6 protestors, is many steps beyond the pale. 

And yet, that is exactly what courts have continued to rule, even in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.  The latest example of this is the tragic case of Stephanie Baez, a January 6^th defendant hit with the 1512 obstruction of justice statute.  Baez was one of millions of Americans who were rightly indignant about the fraudulent 2020 election.  In response, she did what any patriotic American would do and made her voice heard by protesting alongside thousands of her fellow countrymen and women at the Capitol building on January 6^th, 2021.  Baez’s protest was fully aligned with both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment: she never got violent – nor did she even commit so much as a misdemeanor.  She did not assault any police officers; she did not break any windows.  She followed the swarm of demonstrators into the Capitol, many of whom were actively ushered into the building by Capitol police.  For her actions that day, federal prosecutors cracked down on her as if she was a member of ISIS.  They terrorized and tortured her, draining her – like so many of her fellow Americans – of time, energy, and precious resources. She lost many years of her life fighting the system. The lawfare took an enormous toll on her: emotionally and physically.  As a young woman hoping to start a family, she suffered multiple miscarriages from all the stress.  She was in and out of hospitals.  She was bankrupted by the government, scarred, and basically reduced to a shell of her former self – the ultimate victim, indeed casualty, of invidious lawfare.

Despite the indignities leveled against her by her own government, Baez has held firm. She has fully cooperated with government officials this entire time.  She has been fully transparent and agreeable.  She has maintained a respectful demeanor, even though a lesser man or woman would not – and with justification.  She entered a plea deal to several misdemeanor charges, which all essentially boiled down to trespassing, even though she did not do anything wrong – other than – Heaven forbid! – exercise her First Amendment rights and walk into a public building that she pays with her tax dollars.  Baez is the daughter of Mexican immigrants, who escaped from a Socialist government when she was young.  Her family, who immigrated here lawfully, has deep-seated memories of what it was like to live under a banana republic system, replete with kangaroo courts and vindictive judges who found guilty verdicts for people it disliked, rather than presuming innocence and working through the facts and the law to reach a guilty verdict, as a free justice system demands.

Despite harboring memories of Socialism, Baez still cooperated with authorities – understanding that little good would come out of rattling those presiding over a rigged system and who hated her guts simply because of her political views.  She likely figured that she would boldly tackle any punishment her government, however wrong, doled out to her – and just grind through the ordeal, however much it troubled – and saddened – her to witness American justice descend to such horrific depths, on par with the Marxist regime that her parents were forced to flee.  After all, what other choice did she have?  It was not like Baez was unique, either; thousands of her fellow patriots were similarly prosecuted by a rigged and corrupt justice system clearly out to get those who demonstrated on behalf of President Trump. If Donald Trump, the most powerful man in the world, could not escape the heavy hand of an increasingly tyrannical and weaponized system, what chance did she face?

On June 28, 2024, Baez thought she received some good news when the Supreme Court ruled that 1512 could not be weaponized against J6 demonstrators.  The notorious obstruction of justice statute was one that DOJ prosecutors attached to her relatively late in the game to ensure that she would receive a lengthy sentence.  1512 was the bugaboo of hundreds of J6 defendants, including President Trump himself, and was the most fleshed-out legal theory for felonious conduct worked out by the Government.  1512 gave prosecutors sufficient ammunition to justify lengthy sentences, because of the 20-year statutory decree.  Moreover, because of its ambiguous wording, it was a godsend for vindictive prosecutors; any ambitious prosecutor could basically read whatever he or she wanted into it.  The old saying that a skilled prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich was the M.O. here. 

Thus, when the Fischer decision was handed down, it appeared like the wind had been knocked out of the Government’s sails.  Rather than the ambitious construction preferred by Merrick Garland and co., which allowed the DOJ to take the nebulous statute to absurd lengths, the Court circumscribed its interpretation to a very limited set of facts.  These were facts that closely tracked the letter and intent of 1512’s original purpose.

So, easy victory?  Not so fast. Rather than abide by the authority of their superiors, lower courts – acting in conjunction with the DOJ – instead doubled down on their scheming.  Where many courts, including Alvin Bragg’s criminal case against Trump in Manhattan and Jack Smith’s indictment in DC, began delaying – in some cases, indefinitely – their lawfare against the 45^th President, in lower-profile cases like Baez, the Government actually put more force on the pedal.  In Baez’s case, rather than at least wait until the next administration was sworn in before proceeding forward, understanding that Trump carried a mandate from the people to end these prosecutions, the DOJ has instead advanced Baez’s case, perniciously, forward – refusing to delay Baez’s trial until after inauguration day.

So, as things currently stand, Baez is still facing a major felony trial in a few short weeks – on December 3^rd.  Like many other J6 defendants hit with the 1512 obstruction of justice charge, the Government has just tinkered with a few facts to contrive a totally different theory of the case, one they claim is consistent with Fischer, even though it so flagrantly violates that decision in both letter and spirit.

Duplicitous lawyering did not stop bad faith actors from using the 1512 statute in a context wholly unsuited to its original purpose: why on earth would these same actors be expected to abide by a decision that, for all intents and purposes, should have neutered that statute’s use in the J6 context once and for all? (As an aside, the Supreme Court probably erred in relying primarily on a legal semantics argument to convey their disapproval of the J6 prosecutions.  Rather than going down legalistic frolics on obscure Latin canons like noscitur a sociis, the Court would have done better by simply tackling the main issue head-on: that J6 demonstrators should not be subject to political persecution.  The inability to deal with issues directly created ambiguities in the law.  These ambiguities allowed bad faith actors, sensing the Court’s uncertainty, to pounce on the majority’s perceived weakness, where none should have existed, and triple down on their persecution.  The lesson here for conservatives is to never, ever waver — and always boldly proclaim the truth, plainly and with certainty, or face the consequences for one’s cowardice later on.) 

Because of the pervasive cowardice throughout our system, Stephanie Baez now finds herself as another casualty of political persecution – a tragedy for a nation that purports to cherish the presumption of innocence and due process as bedrock legal principles.  She is drained of everything – emotionally, physically, and financially.  She cannot afford the transportation costs to fly herself to the trial, let alone pay for the exorbitant and inhumane legal fees that she will no doubt incur, regardless of the outcome, as a result of being dragged through this ordeal.

Stephanie Baez Call To Action!

Stephanie Baez and her lawyers have a huge undertaking on their hands, and President Trump’s victory, despite being the closest thing to a miracle that we will likely ever experience, is not going to change the rot at the DOJ overnight.  It will require everyone’s collective efforts to make sure progress is made and a thorough house cleaning of the DOJ, and rest of the deep state, is delivered.  President Trump’s political mandate is only as powerful as the people who support him.  We all have a part to play in this ongoing saga. 

For the particular case of Stephanie Baez, the public can provide assistance.  Any contribution towards her – and her lawyers – will be applied directly to the legal fees and costs of her and other indigent January 6th defendants. 

Baez is represented by lawyers at the Trump-supported National Constitutional Law Union.  Any help you give will go a long way towards fixing the weaponized justice system, and finally delivering the justice that people like Stephanie Baez, and hundreds of others, have waited for so long – and deserve after so many years of darkness and uncertainty.  On behalf of Stephanie Baez and her family, thank you for your contributions.

The Supreme Court struck down 1512’s use as a weapon of legal lawfare. It’s high time the rest of the justice system gets the memo.

Please donate to Stephanie Baez at the following GiveSendGo page: https://www.givesendgo.com/stephaniebaez.

Thank you and God bless!

Paul Ingrassia is a Constitutional Scholar; Communications Director of the NCLU; a two-time Claremont Fellow, and is on the Board of Advisors of the New York Young Republican Club and the Italian American Civil Rights League. He writes a widely read Substack that is regularly posted on Truth Social by President Trump. Follow him on X @PaulIngrassia, Substack, Truth Social, Instagram, and Rumble.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.