Trust the plan!

“Do you think it's plausible that Congress would have written the statute that broadly?” the justice asked.

Christ on a bike.

It's just laughable how corrupt the court is.

That 2002 law makes it a felony to “corruptly” alter, destroy or mutilate a record with the intent of making it unavailable for use in an “official proceeding,” or to “otherwise” obstruct, influence or impede such a proceeding. Capitol riot defendant Jospeh Fischer, who brought the case to the high court, argued that, taken together, the law was geared toward prohibiting records destruction. But the Justice Department said it encompassed a wider range of actions – including physical intrusion – that would obstruct a proceeding. 

Seems a pretty arguable point to me that its a run on from altering etc. a document, intending to prohibit doing that with the intention of both making the doc unavailable, or using it to obstruct, influence impeded etc., not a separate stand alone provision relating to all other types of conduct not related to documents

TBH I'm with the sceptical w@ankers on this, as a couple of the w@nkers say; 1. "otherwise" takes ALOT of weight here and 2. why aren't the other charges enough?

this is a weird hill to fight on

You can't reach a sensible conclusion from the CNN butchered version of the wording. When you see the way it's actually laid out, the meaning is pretty clear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstructing_an_official_proceeding

Point is one interprets the words as written. Not what the intent may have been. 

F uck that SCOTUS