The article discusses the lack of coverage by major news outlets, such as CNN, WSJ, and WaPo, regarding the unanimous approval by Washington D.C. District Judges of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) in relation to the January 6 insurrection. It also highlights how only Judge Carl Nichols mandated an evidentiary component—a decision that was later supported by the Supreme Court. The piece points out the apparent disconnect between judicial actions and media reporting, emphasizing the relevance of these legal developments in the broader narrative surrounding the January 6 investigation.
Every single DC District Judge approved the use of 18 uSC 1512(c)(2) in relation to January 6, showcasing a collective judicial stance on the matter.
The Supreme Court of the United States also adopted a stance on the evidentiary component required for application, indicating a layered judicial process.
Collection
[
|
...
]