SCOTUS may reject two of Jack Smith’s charges against Trump as non-crimes
Last week, the Supreme Court rejected Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to fast-track an appeal by former President Donald Trump, who claimed immunity from charges related to the Capitol violence on Jan. 6, 2021.
However, the justices will still consider the validity of two of the four charges against Trump, and it is likely that a majority of the Supreme Court will rule that the charges are not actually crimes. Let’s dive into the details.
The Charges Against Trump
Special Counsel Smith indicted Trump with four counts in a federal court in D.C., holding him criminally responsible for the events of Jan. 6, 2021. The charges include 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.
Now, the Supreme Court will determine whether the events of Jan. 6 can be considered criminal obstruction of an official proceeding under Section 1512 of the federal criminal code in United States v. Fischer.
The Interpretation of Section 1512(c)
In a separate case, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Joseph Fischer’s appeal, which questions whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) criminalizes acts unrelated to investigations and evidence that obstruct an “official proceeding.” Fischer, like Trump, was charged with violating § 1512(c) for his actions on Jan. 6 that obstructed the certification of the electoral vote.
The key issue in the Fischer case is the interpretation of § 1512(c). To understand this, we need to closely examine the specific language of the statute. Section 1512(c) states:
(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.
Fischer and Trump, along with other defendants from Jan. 6, were charged with violating subsection 2 of § 1512(c) by “otherwise” obstructing or impeding the certification of the electoral vote. Fischer argued that the statute only criminalizes conduct that renders evidence unavailable to an ”official proceeding.” The district court agreed and dismissed the charge against Fischer, but the government appealed.
The Supreme Court’s Likely Decision
Based on previous Supreme Court decisions, it seems likely that the high court will rule in favor of Fischer, Trump, and other defendants from Jan. 6. In a similar case, Begay v. United States, the Supreme Court interpreted a statute that also used an “otherwise” catchall clause.
In Begay, the court held that a prior felony DUI conviction did not constitute a ”violent felony” under the “otherwise” language of the statute. The majority reasoned that the listed examples in the statute indicated that it only covers similar crimes, rather than every crime that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury.
Applying this reasoning to the Fischer case, it can be argued that subsection 2 of § 1512(c) only criminalizes conduct that is similar to the conduct covered by subsection 1. Since the indictment against Fischer does not allege any impairment of evidence relevant to an official proceeding, it is likely that the Supreme Court will dismiss the charge against him. The same would apply to Trump’s § 1512(c) charge and the second count alleging conspiracy to violate the statute.
With the Supreme Court set to decide the Fischer appeal this term, it would be reasonable for Special Counsel Smith to pause the criminal trial against Trump until a ruling is made. However, it seems that Smith’s true goal is to obtain a conviction against Trump before the 2024 election, rather than seeking justice.
But as the Fischer case may soon reveal, the crimes Smith is pursuing may not even exist. Unfortunately, it appears that half the country doesn’t seem to care.
rnrn
What broader implications does the Supreme Court’s decision in the Fischer case hold for future cases involving obstruction of an official proceeding and the interpretation of Section 1512(c) of the PAA
Is directly related to an official proceeding, such as tampering with evidence or obstructing an investigation.
On the other hand, the government argues that the language of subsection 2 is broad enough to encompass any act that obstructs or impedes an official proceeding, regardless of whether it is directly related to evidence or investigations. They claim that Fischer’s actions on Jan. 6, which disrupted the certification of the electoral vote, fall within the scope of the statute.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Fischer case will have significant implications for Trump’s appeal. If the Court interprets subsection 2 narrowly, it could potentially dismiss the charges against Trump, as his actions on Jan. 6 may not meet the criteria of directly obstructing an official proceeding. However, if the Court adopts a broad interpretation, it may sustain the charges and allow the case to proceed.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Fischer case will not only impact Trump’s appeal but also have broader implications for future cases involving obstruction of an official proceeding. The Court’s interpretation of Section 1512(c) will provide guidance on the scope and limitations of the statute and clarify what actions can be considered criminal obstruction.
In conclusion, while the Supreme Court rejected the request to fast-track Trump’s appeal, the validity of the charges against him will still be considered. The Court’s ruling in the Fischer case will play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of Trump’s appeal and establishing a precedent for future cases involving obstruction of an official proceeding. It remains to be seen how the Court will interpret Section 1512(c) and whether it will narrow or broaden the scope of the statute.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
