The Comedy of Justice: Jack Smith’s J6 Case Against Trump Reaches New Heights of Absurdity


Thread by Julie Kelly

Just when you thought Jack Smith’s J6 case against Donald Trump couldn’t get any more laughable–it just did.

In one week, SCOTUS will hear arguments on DOJ’s (ab)use of 1512c2, post Enron document shredding “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute passed in 2002.

My longtime followers know I’ve covered this issue for 3+ years. More than 330 J6ers and Trump have been charged with this felony obstruction count–now SCOTUS has a chance to right an horrific wrong that has destroyed (and ended) lives as this ruthless DOJ intentionally misinterprets the law to criminalize political dissent.

DOJ’s use of the law barely survived 2 appellate challenges. Thank you Judge Flo Pan, Biden appointee and wife of Dem Party activist Max Stier, for being the deciding vote in both 2-1 decisions!

Now her opinion faces long-awaited SCOTUS scrutiny.

If SCOTUS reverses how DOJ has applied 1512c2–and most observers even on the left expect the court will–the decision would gut Smith’s J6 indictment. 2 of 4 counts involve 1512c2.

BUT–Jack (9-0 SCOTUS) Smith now claims even if SCOTUS overturns DOJ application of 1512c2, those related counts in his Trump indictment will stand.


Because the alternative electoral certificates represent “documents” that were fraudulently used in an “official proceeding.”

Pieces of paper signed and sent by other Americans to protest of a rigged election are now equal to accounting records destroyed in service of covering up a crime.

This is from his SCOTUS brief filed last night in the presidential immunity question.

Can’t make it up. Hope the justices are paying attention:

BTW “evidence impairment” element is not “gloss” as Jack Smith describes it.

The language is literally in the f*cking statute.

Controversy over the use of 1512c2 centers around a few factors.

One, proof that the individual acted “corruptly,” seeking a benefit for himself or someone else.

Two, that section (a) animates section (b) and are not two separate elements–because (b) can encompass basically anything which is how DOJ interprets it.

Three, that Jan 6 was an “official proceeding” i.e., an investigative endeavor and not ceremonial.

Keep in mind: DOJ and Judge Flo Pan have admitted DOJ’s application of 1512c2 in J6 cases is “novel.”

The big question is–will SCOTUS go along with the weaponization of a corporate fraud statute to criminalize political dissent and turn otherwise nonviolent protesters into lifelong felons?

I will have much more on this matter as we approach April 16. I probably take this issue as personally as the J6 defendants–my first article on how DOJ was weaponizing 1512c2 was in March 2021.

Not only is Smith thumbing his nose at the court related to a reversal, DOJ and DC judges are doing so as well. Democrats don’t view the court as legitimate and are already preparing workarounds if SCOTUS agrees with J6 defendant Joseph Fischer.

Keep in mind: The wife of DC US Attorney Matthew Graves–who continues to indict J6ers on 1512c2 even though it’s pending before SCOTUS–is an influential leftwing activist in DC who is part of a broad coalition of groups calling for Clarence Thomas’ resignation and expansion of the court.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Act IV, Scene II of Henry VI, Part 2, Dick the Butcher utters the line during a rebellion led by Jack Cade. The full quote is: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”.

Lawfare is a nasty business that the left uses to eat up the clock in a contentious election battle.
Sure, they will “lose the war,” but the clock will have run down.

We shouldn’t allow the left to redefine words and we shouldn’t allow the left to use lawfare as a campaign tactic.

Shakespeare shows where that ultimately leads.

The harsh penalties for opposing and protesting an election decided by fraud instead of the voters needs to be explicitly emphasized because Democrats have another fraudulent election is on the way.

EXCLUSIVE: Former AG John Ashcroft and Constitutional Coalition File Brief with US Supreme Court on Presidential Immunity

The Constitutional Coalition and former Attorney General John Ashcroft filed an amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) in the United States Supreme Court in the case United States v. Trump. The appeal to the Supreme Court concerns the question of presidential immunity. More specifically, whether a subsequent president may criminally prosecute his (or her) predecessor, and current political rival, for official acts the previous president took while in office. This amicus brief was not filed on behalf of either party – Special Counsel Jack Smith (hired by Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute former President Trump) nor on behalf of former President Trump. Rather, this amicus brief was filed to defend the constitutional principle that a President of the United States, as the Nation’s chief executive, must have immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts the President takes during the President’s term in office. Otherwise, the President’s fear of a subsequent political rival bringing a criminal prosecution after the President leaves office will impair the President’s ability to make those decisions necessary to protect our national interest and discharge the duties of the office of Chief Executive.

This does not mean the President is “above the law” or is unaccountable. Quite to the contrary. The Founders adopted a very specific method for holding the President accountable. That method is in Article One of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution, which provides that, after impeached by the House and conviction by the Senate, the President may be subject to criminal prosecution.

Trump isn’t fighting this for himself because he hasn’t done anything wrong. He is fighting against setting a dangerous precedent, something the Democrats, who never worry about following the law anyway, care too much about.

Shouldn’t this apply to J6 committee destroying evidence and Hillary destroying evidence under subpoena?

Should, but Democrats have their “Commit Any Crime You Feel Like It And Evade All Prosecution” card.