The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to some Jan. 6 defendants and demanded that prosecutors demonstrate specific evidence to show how the defendant was obstructing an official proceeding.
Fewer than 20 percent of the Jan. 6 attackers were charged with obstruction and those that were generally have other charges affiliated with it. Most of the attackers were charged with trespassing on federal property and other crimes about attacking law enforcement.
Speaking to MSNBC about the matter, legal analyst Lisa Rubin found it interesting that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined a number of conservatives, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissenting.
Read Also: Five unresolved questions surrounding the Jan. 6 attack
"The holding here really narrows the meaning of this statute that penalizes obstruction of an official proceeding," said Rubin. "And that statute has two sections. One that pertains to obstructing an official proceeding by use of records, or documents, or objects or other things used in the conduct of Congress' session that day — this charge can no longer stand."
When it comes to Trump, she explained that he has been charged with a lot more than just obstructing an official proceeding.
"He has been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to do so," said Rubin. "But, remember, also, the allegations against him in the pending indictment cover things like the fake electors scheme, which one could describe as an attempt to obstruct Congress from doing its job by interposing false records."
This means that the Supreme Court's mandate of having a document or specific effort or action to charge a Jan. 6 attacker effectively hands Jack Smith the pathway to ensure that Trump can be legally charged with this crime.
Legal analyst Allison Gill pointed out that she doesn't think the court ruling will kill Trump on obstruction counts.
"In fact, it may not overturn many of the boots-on-the-ground cases," she said. "Fischer has been remanded for the lower court to decide whether Fischer violated the new scope of the statute."
Rubin called it a "matter of interpretation."
"Will those charges then against him stand? I think that's a matter of interpretation, and should the indictment against him survive the presidential immunity challenge, it is yet another issue for Judge Tanya Chutkan and other courts to have to wade through as that litigation progresses," Rubin closed.
See her comments below or at the link here.
What the Supreme Court case just did to Donald Trump's Jan. 6 case www.youtube.com
