Special Counsel Jack Smith has sparked some controversy with his remarks suggesting that he may ignore a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding obstruction charges against President Trump.
Joe Biden’s weaponized DOJ has filed charges against over 300 J6 defendants under 18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(2). Moreover, two out of the four charges leveled against Trump in Jack Smith’s Washington D.C. case pertain to conspiracy to obstruct justice, making the Supreme Court’s ruling potentially detrimental to the special counsel’s case against Trump.
Jack Smith hinted at exploring alternative legal strategies should the Supreme Court reverse two of the charges against Trump.
On Monday, Smith submitted a legal brief addressing whether a former president can face criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether President Trump retains presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed during his presidency. Smith argued that a former president does not possess absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for official acts. According to Smith, this argument is grounded in constitutional separation of powers principles and historical precedents, asserting that presidential immunity does not extend to actions that violate federal criminal laws.
“The President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them,” Smith wrote. “The President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them.”
Just when you thought Jack Smith’s J6 case against Donald Trump couldn’t get any more laughable–it just did.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 9, 2024
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… pic.twitter.com/1MNLAWSHnp
The brief cites historical cases and judicial rulings that bolster the argument that a president or former president can face legal proceedings and criminal prosecution post-presidency. Smith emphasized a distinction between immunity from civil actions, typically granted to sitting presidents to safeguard their official duties from disruption, and criminal prosecution, which serves the public interest by upholding the rule of law.
The Supreme Court is poised to consider the case of Fischer v. United States, challenging the broad interpretation of the obstruction statute. A ruling in Fischer’s favor could significantly impact the validity of charges against Trump, potentially leading to their reversal and affecting numerous related cases. Despite this, Smith has suggested that he is preparing to pursue alternative legal avenues to uphold the charges against Trump and other implicated parties.
In a recent briefing, Smith argued that even if the Supreme Court deems the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use of 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2) unlawful, other aspects of the charges should remain intact based on allegations of tampering with evidence intended for use in an official proceeding. This position appears to serve as a contingency plan aimed at preserving some degree of legal accountability for Trump, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Section 1512(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which addresses obstruction of justice, states:
(c)(1) – Whoever corruptly—
(A) 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
(B) 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.
(c)(2) – Whoever corruptly 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.
From The Federalist:
A decision in Fischer’s favor would seemingly negate the two 1512(c)-related charges against Trump and “upend hundreds of charges filed by federal prosecutors against those present at the Jan. 6 Capitol riot,” according to Justice.
In an apparent attempt to sidestep such a ruling, however, Smith argued in his Monday brief that even if SCOTUS deems the DOJ’s use of 1512(c)(2) unlawful, the related charges filed against Trump should still stand because Trump somehow impaired evidence for use in an official proceeding.
“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, additionally claiming that “the use of falsehoods or creation of ‘false’ documents satisfies an evidence-impairment interpretation.”
