Posted on 01/02/2024 10:37:47 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Last week, the Supreme Court rejected Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request that the high court fast-track an appeal by former President Donald Trump claiming immunity from the charges related to the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. While the immunity questions will likely return to the Supreme Court after the D.C. Circuit weighs in on the issues, before then the justices will consider the validity of two of the four charges levied against the former president — and it is likely a majority of the Supreme Court will rule that the “crimes” the special counsel charged are not crimes at all. Here’s your lawsplainer.
Smith charged Trump in a four-count indictment in a federal court in D.C., seeking to hold the former president and 2024 GOP front-runner criminally responsible for the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Specifically, the indictment charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
While all four theories of criminal liability are weak, the Supreme Court will soon decide whether the events of Jan. 6 qualify as criminal obstruction of an official proceeding under Section 1512 of the federal criminal code in United States v. Fischer.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Joseph Fischer’s appeal that presents the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) criminalizes acts unrelated to investigations and evidence that obstructs an “official proceeding.” Fischer, like Trump, was charged with violating § 1512(c) by engaging in conduct on Jan. 6 that obstructed the certification of the electoral vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
I hope Roberts isn’t the swing vote. He’ll just call it a “tax”.
look for The Beer Drinker to recuse himself.
It’ll be the usual...Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson...6-3.
(c) Whoever corruptly —
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding"
Now when do we get to see the members of the Jan 6 committee charged and put in prison for not preserving video testimony....
The court may well rule in Trumps favor, buty I don’t think Margot’s reasoning is all that clear: “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” might be seen to apply.
Hahaha!
If they just throw out all charges by Jack Smith as he was illegitimately appointed, that would be great.
If the Supremes DO nullify his cases I expect the screams of “MOST POLITICAL SUPREME COURT EVER!” to be loud an proud followed almost immediately by demands to pack the court “to save our democracy!”
But what did they alter, destroy or mutilate?
Under Deranged Counsel Jack Smith’s interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley, the statute in question in the charge against Fischer and Trump and hundreds of other January 6th defendants and now convicted people, Smith has effectively criminalized Lobbying, and even any constituent who writes or calls their Congressional representative or Senator… or even petitions the government for redress during “an official proceeding.”
Trump didn’t engaging in Jan. 6 obstructed of the certification of the electoral vote he **questioned it**.
Gore did the same and the dimpled chads counting began but he’s a democrat.
Inquisitions come in handy when your party owns them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.