Today the Supreme Court decided to hear a January 6 case, Fischer v. United States, which is HUGE!!!!
This case challenges section 1512(c)(2), a provision that criminalizes the obstruction of an official proceeding. Notably, two out of the four charges levied against President Trump in his DC case are linked to 1512(c)(2).
Here’s how Jack Smith impacted by SCOTUS decision to review 1512c2.
Two of four counts tied to obstruction charge.
By granting cert today, 4 of 9 justices agreed the “splintered” appellate decision required a review. pic.twitter.com/Wy5s3DL07g
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2023
Here’s Julie Kelly on the background of this bogus charge from the DOJ:
In Washington, D.C., prosecutors are using a financial crimes statute passed by Congress in 2002 in response to the Enron scandal to bring felony charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump and Robertson. Lawyers for both and for other Jan. 6 defendants argue the law is being misapplied. The controversy could soon wind up before the Supreme Court.
Defense attorneys say the government is using the power of law enforcement to misinterpret, and even weaponize, nebulous language in the legal code.
In three separate motions filed on Oct. 23, Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised objections based on the “vagueness” factor of the four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal indictment against Trump. Those four charges are: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of an official proceeding.
“President Trump’s alleged conduct — publicly and politically disputing the outcome of the election, attempting to convince Congress to act, and allegedly organizing alternate slates of electors — falls outside the plain language of the charged statutes,” John Lauro, Trump’s lead attorney in the Jan. 6 case, wrote in a motion to dismiss the charges.
One of the key statutes in question is 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed by Congress to prevent fraudulent financial reporting by corporations. The statute was meant to close a loophole in other obstruction laws related to the destruction of evidence, but left open to interpretation the terms “corruptly” and “official proceeding” in the following passage – to the point where, defense lawyers claim, it can be used to criminalize political activity. The passage reads:
(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; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
DOJ’s legal basis rests on the argument that the Joint Session of Congress held on Jan. 6 to debate and certify the 2020 election was an “official proceeding,” as opposed to a ceremonial gathering. Those who interrupted Congress, prompting a six-hour delay, or planned to disrupt it, committed that particular obstruction felony, prosecutors contend.
Federal prosecutors so far have charged more than 300 Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction under that statute. In August, Smith’s office handed down a 45-page indictment against Trump, claiming his attempts to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to reject some electoral college votes and organize alternate slates of electors, among other acts, also represented an attempt to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.
It’s hard to convey the importance and significance of this decision which will impact hundreds of J6 defendants. If the Supreme Court determines that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has misapplied the statute, it could be a game-changing moment.
This is a day so many J6ers have been waiting for.
Lives destroyed, people rotting in prison. All bc Biden’s DOJ abused a post-Enron evidence tampering statute.
And what will Jack Smith do now? 2 of 4 counts in his indictment in jeopardy. This is potentially more impactful than…
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2023
DOJ suspected this was coming. Since the muddy appellate ruling issued in April on proper use of 1512c2 in J6 cases, Matthew Graves has basically stopped using the charge. https://t.co/veJfZMyS1k
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2023
Hard to overstate the total humiliation of DOJ and 15 DC district court judges who upheld 1512c2. Only one—Judge Carl Nichols—dismissed the count in 3 cases.
The beauty here is that DOJ appealed Nichols. If DOJ would’ve left it alone, this wouldn’t be at SCOTUS now.
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2023
Meanwhile the Smith case against Trump is now officially delayed. No way this goes to trial in March. Another win! Wish I could see Weissman and Smith wailing to the sky in anger over this update.
While I’m happy they have finally decided to step in, some of those who were wrongfully convicted of this bullshit statute have been in prison for going on three years. Some of them have taken their own lives, and some have spent a fortune on legal bills all due to the weaponization of the GET TRUMP faction inside our government.
See author page