Politico:  “A federal judge aired grave doubts Friday about a key charge the Justice Department is relying on in cases against hundreds of Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants, raising the prospect of legal turmoil in more than a third of the prosecutions stemming from the violent attack.  During a two-hour hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich contended that the government is applying a particular obstruction offense in a way that “seems really far afield” from what Congress intended.

“The criminal charge is one prosecutors have leveled against at least 265 of the more than 700 Jan. 6 defendants, according to DOJ statistics issued earlier this month.  Friedrich, an appointee of President Donald Trump, appeared to be seriously considering dismissing the obstruction count — which carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence — in the case of Guy Reffitt, who is charged with confronting an officer outside the Capitol and bringing a firearm onto the grounds.

“Such a ruling would almost certainly lead to dismissals of that charge in other cases she’s handling and could influence similar rulings in other cases against Jan. 6 participants. In many instances, the obstruction charge is the most serious count the defendants face.  At issue is the Justice Department’s decision to hit the Jan. 6 defendants with a criminal charge that is more commonly applied to alleged intimidation of witnesses, jurors or judges, or to destruction of records or evidence.

“The offense is usually described in court dockets and news stories as obstruction of justice, but prosecutors turned to it to charge alleged Capitol riot participants because it technically applies to efforts to thwart any ‘official proceeding’ conducted by the federal government. That includes the Jan. 6 counting of Electoral College votes that lawmakers are constitutionally mandated to conduct, DOJ contends.

“Grand jury indictments charge many alleged Capitol riot participants with trying to disrupt that process.

“But defense lawyers for some alleged rioters argue that the provision — and its whopping two-decade maximum prison term — doesn’t apply outside the justice system. They note that one word in the statute, ‘corruptly,’ seems easy to understand in the context of threatened witnesses or shredded documents, but doesn’t have a clear legal significance in connection with a physical disturbance that forces a Congressional proceeding to break up or be delayed.”