Biden’s DOJ Gets Bad News From SCOTUS Hearing

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Experts say that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opening of the hearing on obstruction allegations against former President Donald Trump and others on Tuesday was met with a great deal of suspicion and indicated that special counsel Jack Smith’s case was “not going well.”

Megyn Kelly reported the opening remarks on X, discussing the accusations made by Smith against the former president and hundreds of J6 participants of “obstructing an official proceeding.”

“BIG- Supreme Court arg on whether ‘obstructing an official proceeding’ can form the basis for a crim charge vs J6 Ds (INCLUDING TRUMP – this is the heart of Smith’s J6 case vs him) is not going well for the govt. At all. (All 6 conservatives sound on side of the defense.),” she wrote, adding, “If they side with the defense here, it guts Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump. Huge huge import.”Investigative writer Julie Kelly dug deeper into the legal proceedings, spotlighting points made by defendant Joseph Fischer’s attorney, Jeffrey Green, a police officer present during the riots.

She pointed out that Fischer’s remarks or deeds that day were connected to a clause in the law that Smith had cited, which states that one may “alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal a record, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, had asked pointed questions about this clause.

The intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the provision was the subject of numerous questions from conservative and liberal justices, all of which were asked after Thomas’. Judge Amy Coney Barrett questioned Smith about whether he thought the J6 defendants “did attempt to obstruct with documents, i.e., electoral certificates,” according to Kelly. The prosecutor was then questioned by Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on “whether statute applies to evidence since the word ‘evidence’ doesn’t appear in the language.” Smith’s prosecution was further complicated by Liberal Justice Elena Kagan’s statement that there were several possible interpretations of USC 1512, which addresses “tampering with victims, witnesses, or informants.”

“I think you may be biting off more than you can chew…that the ‘otherwise’ clause can only be read the only way you read it,” conservative justice Samuel Alito told Smith, according to Kelly.

 

In earlier papers, Smith hinted that if the Supreme Court dismissed the obstruction case, he would try to get around it.

“Petitioner asserts … that the grant of review in Fischer v. United States … suggests that the Section 1512(c)(2) charges here impermissibly stretch the statute. But whether the Court interprets Section 1512(c)(2) consistently with a natural reading of its text or adopts the evidence-impairment gloss urged by the petitioner in Fischer, the Section 1512 charges in this case are valid,” Smith wrote according to The Federalist, additionally claiming that “the use of falsehoods or creation of ‘false’ documents satisfies an evidence-impairment interpretation.”

Smith is hindered not only by the defense’s examination of its arguments but also by the other criminal charges that are still pending against President Trump. In the confidential materials case, Florida district Judge Aileen Cannon has declared that she will not hold hearings unless Trump is present. Meanwhile, on Monday, Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan gave the Republican the order to attend daily for his hush money trial or risk being arrested. According to some analysts, the condition might cause Smith’s second case against Trump to be delayed by up to two months.

 

COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend