On Tuesday, Red State reported on a reevaluation of the charges that were used to keep the January 6th protestors in jail for four years.

The article reports:

On Monday, the Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, announced that his office would undertake a review of the decision-making that led to the charging of hundreds of January 6 protesters with “obstructing Congress” in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(c). That was a statute passed by Congress in 2005 to address an alleged hole revealed in an obstruction of justice statute criminalizing the destruction of records, documents, materials, etc., to obstruct an investigation. The “hole” was the fact that the language of the existing statute made it a crime to direct third parties to undertake such obstructive acts, but it did not – by its plain language – make it a criminal act to take such action yourself.

This was the finding of the Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen v. United States, an infamous case related to the Enron scandal where then-U.S. Attorney Andrew Weissmann put one of the “Big 5” accounting firms out of business – costing maybe 80,000 Arthur Andersen employees their jobs – only to eventually be reversed by the Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision.

The crime that Arthur Andersen supposedly committed? It followed its internal policy for destroying client records – Enron in this case – before it received a federal grand jury subpoena for those records as part of the probe into Enron’s accounting practices. Arthur Andersen was charged under Sec. 1512(b)(2) – there was no subsection (c) at that time – which made it a crime to “knowingly [and] … corruptly persuade another person … with intent to … cause” that person to “withhold” or “alter” documents intended for use in an “official proceeding.”

The article concludes:

What is also significant about each of the cases listed above is that the convictions in each case were affirmed by the federal Appeals Court — just like Joseph Fischer’s conviction was affirmed — before the convictions were reversed by the Supreme Court, and those reversals were unanimous in almost every case.

This unbroken line of decisions by the Supreme Court should have been warning enough to Biden DOJ prosecutors who decided to charge hundreds of January 6 protesters with a felony using a novel legal theory under a new statute.

Some involved in making that decision may now pay a price for having done with their jobs – and rightly so.

Please click on the link above for further details. Someone needs to be held accountable for violating the civil rights of the January 6th prisoners.