Ruling likely to cause Jack Smith's case against Trump to crash
The Supreme Court has torpedoed the Joe Biden Department of Justice's agenda to finagle every word of the federal law to enhance punishment for those Jan. 6, 2021, protesters who scoffed at the validity of the 2020 presidential election and wanted Congress to know their concerns.
Some of those ended up rioting, and the DOJ has since arrested, charged and convicted hundreds, some for doing nothing more than entering the Capitol through doors held open by security guards.
The concerns of the protesters have since proven major, as analysts have confirmed that the CIA and FBI both interfered in the election, and that interference almost certainly cost President Trump the White House and gave the Oval Office to the now-"diminished" Joe Biden.
One of the schemes developed by prosecutors was to charge protesters with one provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, adopted in the wake of the Enron financial company scandal.
That provision was added to hundreds of the cases against protesters largely because it carries a potential 20-year sentence.
The law provides punishment for someone who corruptly "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" and includes a prohibition of anyone who "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."
The ruling said, "We consider whether this 'otherwise' clause should be read in light of the limited reach of the specific provision that precedes it."
The decision likely will affect hundreds of the Jan. 6 cases that already have been adjudicated, and has the potential to mess up a large part of special counsel Jack Smith's attacks on President Donald Trump over events that day.
The case is about Joseph Fischer, who was charged with several counts, including the enhancer carrying a possibility of 20 years in prison.
He was accused of "obstructing an official proceeding" but moved to dismiss the count because that provision only concerns "attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence."
The ruling, 6-3, said, "To prove a violation, the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so."
The ruling narrows the scope of applying an "obstruction" charge to the hundreds of Americans involved in events that day.
That includes Trump as Smith had made the same claim about him as the DOJ made about Fischer.
The decision upset the expected division of the court, with liberal Justice Ketanji Jackson joining the conservative majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberal bloc.
The court rejected the Biden administration's claims about the use of the law.
The law originally was aimed at corporate fraud, but was ruled to be too broad when applied to the Jan. 6 case.
An analysis explained, "Fischer’s legal strategy focused on the phrase 'otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding,' which is found in the statute. His attorney, Jeffrey Green, argued that the law's primary intent was to address evidence tampering, not to prosecute actions such as Fischer's. The court’s majority agreed, with Justice Samuel Alito being a major voice of skepticism during oral arguments about the government’s broad reading of the statute."
Biden prosecutors faced a huge setback with the decision, as they have relied on that to use against some 300 people.
The ruling now raises questions about the future of those 300 cases, as the defendants could appeal and seek to have their convictions overturned.
The Fischer case now is going back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings that align with the Supreme Court ruling.
Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that the government's interpretation could mean the law could be applied to someone heckling at the State of the Union or Rep. Jaamal Bowman, D-N.Y., who was caught pulling a fire alarm in Congress and diverting a House vote.
The Daily Caller News Foundation reported that former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said the case would "blow up" Smith's prosecution of Trump.
Smith obtained an indictment against Trump over his efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.
McCarthy explained that "obstruction" issue is "key to Smith’s prosecution of Trump in Washington."
He suggested the Supreme Court might rule against Biden, and that would "have a catastrophic impact for Smith on his indictment."
Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, said, "Biden and his Justice Department politicized and weaponized a post-Enron obstruction-of-justice statute on corporate fraud to destroy the lives of political enemies.
"The Supreme Court’s Fischer decision is a crucial victory for Biden’s January 6th political prisoners and the rule of law. Fischer begins to correct Biden’s grotesque injustice and makes clear his political persecutions must end.
"Those involved must face severe legal, financial, and political consequences for their clearly malicious prosecution of many real Americans in real America."
For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
