"Watershed Moment" -- U.S. Supreme Court To Review Case That Could Erase Charges Against Trump, J6 Protestors

The tide is turning….can you feel it?

I can.

It started a couple months ago, and everything that has been “off” over the last 3 years suddenly seems to be shifting.

The two biggest categories are the unlawful and Unconstitutional prosecution against President Trump and the J6 Defendants.

Both of those may soon undergo a seismic shift as the Supreme Court has agreed to review a case that could undo the legal underpinnings of those cases.

In other words, cut them off at the knees.

It all stems from a case called Fischer v. United States.

Here’s a quick summary to bring you up to speed:

In the Joseph Fischer v. United States case, Joseph Fischer is one of the people charged in connection to the Capitol riot that happened on January 6, 2021. The case is about whether or not the government can charge people with a crime called “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding” (18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2)). This charge is important because it is one of the main charges against many of the people who were involved in the riot.

Recently, there was a ruling in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that said the government can charge people with this crime in cases related to the Capitol riot. This ruling is important for the case against former President Donald Trump and the other defendants in the January 6 cases.

The impact of this ruling on the Jack Smith case against Trump and the cases against the J6 defendants is that it makes it more likely that the government can successfully prosecute them for the “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding” charge. This charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, so it is a serious matter.

However, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has decided to take up the case of Fischer v. United States, which deals with the misapplication of ‘obstruction of an official proceeding’ charges to J6 cases. This could result in a major victory for Donald Trump if the court strikes down the DOJ’s charges.

In the meantime, Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of his petition for certiorari in the Trump case. This means that Smith wants the Supreme Court to quickly review the case and make a decision.

There are different opinions on how this case will affect the Trump and J6 defendants’ cases. Some people think that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case is a bad sign for Trump, while others believe that it could result in a major victory for him.

The Supreme Court’s decision on this case could have a significant impact on the outcome of the Trump and J6 defendants’ cases. It remains to be seen how the court will rule, but the case is being watched closely by many people.

Here’s more:

MASSIVE news out of the Supreme Court this morning.

The Court will hear Fischer v. United States, a January 6 case challenging the scope of section 1512(c)(2), which criminalizes obstruction of an official proceeding. Two of the four charges President Trump faces in his DC case… pic.twitter.com/8R8GmudItA

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) December 13, 2023

MASSIVE news out of the Supreme Court this morning.

The Court will hear Fischer v. United States, a January 6 case challenging the scope of section 1512(c)(2), which criminalizes obstruction of an official proceeding. Two of the four charges President Trump faces in his DC case involve 1512(c)(2).

That section, first passed as part of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2004, has typically been used to prosecute destruction of evidence or similar conduct. Its applicability to alleged obstruction of the electoral count process has been hotly contested since the start of the January 6 prosecutions, and the DC Circuit split sharply on the issue.

This is a huge deal, with potentially major ramifications for many January 6 defendants as well as for President Trump.

These are the Questions Presented:

As we (nervously) await word from SCOTUS as to the 1512(c)(2) petition, I am re-reading petition for cert.

Crux of argument: Obstruction of an official proceeding–passed in wake of Enron/Arthur Anderson scandal–addresses evidence/document impairment not political activity: pic.twitter.com/IEYj2wJsfz

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) December 11, 2023

Hard to overstate the importance of this case:

HOLY SH*T: Supreme Court will review 1512(c)(2), obstruction of an official proceeding case.

This is felony used against 300+ J6ers and represents half of Jack Smith's indictment against Trump.

If SCOTUS determines DOJ has misused the statute…will be a game changer.

My…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2023

Hard to overstate the total humiliation of DOJ and 15 DC district court judges who upheld 1512c2. Only one—Judge Carl Nichols—dismissed the count in 3 cases.

The beauty here is that DOJ appealed Nichols. If DOJ would’ve left it alone, this wouldn’t be at SCOTUS now.

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2023

Even the AP is referring to this as a “watershed moment”:

The court’s decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump’s trial, currently scheduled for March 4. The justices separately are considering whether to rule quickly on Trump’s claim that he can’t be prosecuted for actions taken within his role as president. A federal judge already has rejected that argument.

What to know
The Supreme Court decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge related to the Capitol riot could threaten the start of Trump’s trial, scheduled for March 4.

The obstruction charge has been brought against more than 300 defendants in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

This is not the only legal challenge facing the former president. Take a look at some of the other allegations.
A lawyer for Trump didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment on the supreme court’s decision to review the charge.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March or April, with a decision expected by early summer.

The obstruction charge, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, has been brought against more than 300 defendants and is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a bid to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House.

At least 152 people have been convicted at trial or pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding, and at least 108 of them have been sentenced, according to an Associated Press review of court records.

A lower court judge had dismissed the charge against Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer, and two other defendants, ruling it didn’t cover their conduct. The justices agreed to hear the appeal filed by lawyers for Fischer, who is facing a seven-count indictment for his actions on Jan. 6, including the obstruction charge.

Special counsel Jack Smith asks the Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether Trump can be prosecuted
The other defendants are Edward Jacob Lang, of New York’s Hudson Valley, and Garret Miller, who has since pleaded guilty to other charges and was sentenced to 38 months in prison. Miller, who’s from the Dallas area, could still face prosecution on the obstruction charge.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

The Justice Department challenged that ruling, and the appeals court in Washington agreed with prosecutors in April that Nichols’ interpretation of the law was too limited.

Other defendants, including Trump, are separately challenging the use of the charge.

Defense attorney Kira Anne West, who has represented several Jan. 6 defendants charged with obstruction of an official proceeding, said the courts will have to “undo a whole bunch of cases” and adjust many sentences if the Supreme Court rules in their favor.

“This is a watershed day,” she said. “In our world — defense lawyer world — this is huge.”

West represents a man scheduled to be tried in early January on charges including the obstruction count. She doesn’t yet know if she will seek a delay until the Supreme Court resolves the challenge.