I do not know how people keep anything straight regarding former President Donald Trump’s election interference case in D.C. and the rest of the Capitol Hill riot cases.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about an obstruction law that over 300 January 6 defendants have been charged with by the DOJ.
The case is Fischer v. U.S. The statute is 18 U.S. Code 1512(c)(2):
Whoever corruptly…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.
The law came into effect due to the 2002 Enron scandal.
Former police officer Joseph Fischer asked SCOTUS to scrub the charge against him, which is one of seven counts against him. The cases of two other defendants, Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, joined Fischer’s case.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols threw out Miller’s obstruction charge and dismissed it in Fischer’s and Lang’s case.
The DOJ appealed.
A federal appeals court sided with the DOJ. In a 2-1 decision, the majority found that Nichols was wrong to dismiss the charges.
Trump is charged under that provision as well. Not only could it undo many of the Jan. 6 cases, but it could cripple Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump:
“Since this statute is key to Jack Smith’s prosecution, and the Supreme Court ruling on this case is not likely to come out until the end of June, that could hold up the prosecution or the trial until after the Supreme court rules,” [Senior Legal Fellow at the Claremont Institute Tom] Caso told The Daily Wire. “That’s going to be in the hands of the district court judge.”Caso added that it’s unclear which way the Supreme Court will go on the issue. The Court doesn’t usually interpret a small provision to “wipe out” the rest of the language of a statute, he said, but, on the other hand, the court could read the provision in isolation and uphold the government’s position.
Jim wrote this morning that Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on former President Donald Trump’s claims that he has presidential immunity and shouldn’t face election interference charges.
The Supreme Court wrote:
Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted, and respondent is directed to file a response to the petition on or before 4 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 20, 2023.
The second part told Trump’s lawyers to respond to Smith’s 14-page petition. He questions “whether a former president is immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office, as well as whether an ex-president impeached by the House but acquitted in the Senate can also be charged with crimes.”
See, it’s not just about immunity. Does it qualify as double jeopardy since the Senate already tried him?
Smith also made a filing to the D.C.-based appellate court:
But Smith also did ask for an expedited review by the D.C.-based appellate court that can allow its criminal case to continue moving toward trial in March, all while awaiting word from the Supreme Court on the immunity question.Late Monday, the clerk for the D.C. Circuit issued an order in response to Smith’s request for an expedited review by ordering Trump’s lawyers to file their briefs by 10 a.m. EST Wednesday, followed by Smith’s reply due by 10 a.m. EST Thursday.The D.C. Circuit also confirmed the names of the three judges who will consider the expedited appeal: Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush; and Judges J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both appointees of President Joe Biden.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY