The DOJ’s January 6 Crusade Continues Despite Obstacles

• The Justice Department is adapting to unfavorable court rulings to continue prosecuting Trump and his supporters

• Its fixation on Jan. 6 will likely continue indefinitely, no matter the strain on resources

• Democrats accuse Trump of wanting to jail political enemies while the current administration enthusiastically does the same

The story

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed another indictment against former President Donald Trump, alleging interference in the 2020 election.

Special counsel Jack Smith claims the new indictment aligns with a July Supreme Court ruling that determined presidents cannot be prosecuted for carrying out their fundamental constitutional duties.

The new indictment repeats much of Smith’s false narrative that Trump welcomed the riot at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress was certifying the election for Joe Biden.

Smith’s move is the latest development in the DOJ’s battle over Jan. 6, which has resulted in more than 1,500 prosecutions of Trump-aligned protesters. The federal government continues to track down Americans accused of even nonviolent conduct at the Capitol, despite courts ruling that the defendants are being held to unusual standards.

The largest setback came when the Supreme Court ruled against an “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge used against hundreds of Jan. 6 protesters. The court noted — as Upward News began highlighting two years ago — that the charge comes from a federal law that has nothing to do with protesting. But the DOJ plans to keep using it, threatening defendants with up to 20 years in prison.

The Biden-Harris administration has made the purpose of these prosecutions clear: they are sending a message.

The politics

Only a fraction of Jan. 6 protesters broke into the Capitol and caused violence. Most arrived later and entered peacefully, often with no indication from police that they shouldn’t be there. However, the DOJ blames them collectively, violent or not.

Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted in a recent press conference that the DOJ’s prosecutions of Jan. 6 protesters were to send a message to those “who try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power” and boasted of the 1,400 cases and the “substantial number of convictions.”

Garland declared he wanted to make it “clear to anybody who is thinking about interfering” with election certifications: “They can see what we’ve done with respect to the Jan. 6 prosecutions, and [the] Justice Department will continue to protect our democracy.”

These statements reflect a persistent message from left-leaning officials that conservatives are an extremist threat akin to fascists or terrorists. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, even compared Jan. 6 to 9/11 two years ago.

The politics of Jan. 6 are tricky for Republican leaders; if they defend any of the protesters, they risk being painted as sympathetic to the entire crowd, including actual rioters. Many right-leaning media outlets have also not covered the cases in-depth, letting legacy media shape the narrative.

Consequently, the DOJ operates without much public scrutiny.

The “obstruction” charge persists

Obstruction of an official proceeding, one of the strongest charges used against Jan. 6 defendants, stems from a federal law that Congress passed in response to a corporate scandal in the early 2000s that involved destroyed documents. The Supreme Court ruled this year that the DOJ misused its authority by applying it to demonstrations for the first time ever.

The DOJ has since dropped the charge in several cases. At least one defendant had his sentence reduced by a year due to the ruling, with more reductions likely to come.

This came after years of using it on both violent rioters and defendants such as Paul Hodgkins, who received eight months in prison and a felony conviction for entering the Capitol, taking selfies, and walking around for roughly 20 minutes — all when Congress had adjourned and there was no “official proceeding” taking place.

Prosecutors aren’t done with this legal tactic, though. They’re moving forward with the obstruction charge in the case of an Ohio married couple, while Jack Smith also kept the charge in his revised indictment of Trump. The Justice Department is pressing forward because it claims the Supreme Court didn’t completely ban the charge for use in Jan. 6 cases.

Why it matters

Part of why a Trump re-election in November would be dangerous for democracy, according to Democrats, is that he would try to jail his political opponents. Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration makes a notable exception for its own actions, particularly toward Trump supporters who protested the 2020 election.

President Biden claimed earlier this year that “it was on [January 6] that we nearly lost America.” But a disorganized mob did not come close to ending America’s constitutional system; Congress certified Biden’s win the morning after the disturbance.

Nevertheless, this view has motivated one of the largest criminal investigations in American history, complete with armed FBI home raids, counterterrorism squads, sweeping legal theories, and more. Prosecutors have even asked judges to extend certain deadlines related to Jan. 6 trials, citing the number of cases and the strain on DOJ resources.