SCOTUS arguments continued

According to SCOTUS blog the referenced argument was indeed entertained by the Court. Amy Coney Barrett suggested that even if agreeing that (c)(2) is limited by (c)(1) it could still apply "because he was trying to obstruct the arrival of the certificates arriving to the vice president’s desk for counting?" Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed noting that (c)(2) could be interpreted to "prohibit the corrupt tampering with things that are used to conduct an official proceeding with the intent of undermining the integrity of the thing and thereby obstructing the proceeding." She also "suggested that the court could send the case back to the lower court for it to apply the new standard." The Solicitor General agreed that the narrower interpretation of (c)(2) would apply because the actions were "to prevent Congress from being able to count the votes, from being able to actually certify the results of the election."