Federal Judge: Capitol Hill Rioters' Charges Might Be Unconstitutional

There’s going to be a rally in Washington DC this weekend. It’s why the fencing is going back up around the US Capitol Building. There have been over 400 arrests stemming from the January 6 riot that has incorrectly been dubbed an armed insurrection. It was not worse than 9/11. It was not worse than Pearl Harbor and it sure wasn’t as bad as the Civil War. That’s the narrative in newsrooms. Everyone else has moved the hell on with their lives. NO ONE cares. MSNBC and CNN don’t count. It was not our nation’s best day. It was dark for sure—but it was a riot. Nothing more. And at the end of the day, what occurred were many instances of trespassing on federal property. Only one person died inside the building. Her name was Ashli Babbitt, and she was killed by Capitol Police. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who the liberal media erroneously said was killed by the rioters, died of natural causes. And what the hell happened to the guy who planted pipe bombs at the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic Parties?

In the meantime, some of the jail sentences prosecutors are gunning for are outrageous. Now, a federal judge has concerns about the constitutionality of the charges (via The Hill):

A federal judge on Wednesday questioned whether the obstruction of an official proceeding charge that has been levied against at least 235 defendants in Capitol riot cases is unconstitutionally vague. 

During a lengthy hearing Wednesday for the conspiracy case involving 18 members of the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia asked about the determinations prosecutors used to file a felony charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress.