Skip to main content
BoomMag: Readers and Fans
Advertise With Us Newsletter

WLT Report WLT Report

Advertise With Us Newsletter
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

DESPERATION: Jack Smith Prosecution Files Wild New Claim About President Trump (19 Days Before Election!)

In a stunning shift in tactics, Special Counsel Jack Smith made new claims against President Trump today.  Smith is attempting to rely on a 15-year old ruling that emphasized certain criteria should only be considered under a jury, rather than pretrial proceedings.

According to reports, the prosecutors argued that President Trump’s role in the events of January 6th 2021 satisfy the Supreme Court’s stipulations of “obstruction” to the extent that further assessment of that issue should be left to an “official proceeding”, according to a story from Newsweek on the matter.

First, here is a short report from ABC News to get the broad view of what Jack Smith thinks he has up his sleeve this time around.

In essence, Jack Smith believe he has found a leg to stand on that will allow him to argue that it is premature, according to the court’s own precedent, to reject the obstruction charges based on the Supreme Court’s ruling — simply because in his estimation the importance of answering the question of whether or not the case meets the stipulations of the Supreme Court in and of itself should be enough (based on that old case) to move forward with official court proceedings in order to answer the question… OF WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO COURT.  (You can see the issue here, right?  You can’t make this stuff up.)

According to the Newsweek article I reference earlier, prosecutors made this filing today in reference to the case of United States v. Pope in which Gorsuch made the ruling that Jack Smith is attempting to use.

U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith used a nearly 15-year-old ruling by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch as part of his latest filing against former President Donald Trump in his January 6 case.

Smith is fighting against a Supreme Court ruling in June which limited the Department of Justice’s ability to charge Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction. Trump argues that he should be included among the 300-plus Jan. 6 defendants whose obstruction charges could be overturned because of the Fischer case ruling.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a Wednesday court filing, Smith cited Gorsuch’s ruling from the United States v. Pope case in 2010. In that case, Mark Pope, who’d been charged with firearm possession after a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction, argued that the charge was unconstitutional and should be dismissed. Gorsuch, who was a 10th circuit judge at the time, affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the charge had to be settled at trial rather than pretrial and therefore would not be dismissed.

Gorsuch emphasized the need to resolve factual disputes at trial rather than through pretrial motions. Pope’s claim that he had the firearm for self-defense was something that a jury had to decide, according to Gorsuch.

Smith argues the same is true here. Trump’s “alternative narrative” defense merits no consideration by the Judge Tanya Chutkan at this stage and instead needs to be decided at trial.

In other words, he is arguing that in order to find out if the Supreme Court’s ruling against bringing this to trail counts, it needs to be brought to trial to find out.  I’m not joking or exaggerating — that’s the basic argument here, wrapped up in the technicalities of legal precedent.  Here’s the story MSNBC ran, and their explanation of Jack Smith’s latest play.

I want to point out that MSNBC’s insinuation that this is just the natural next step in the government’s response to President Trump’s assertion that the Supreme Court rulings should apply to him as well as the other 300 people it applied to… is hog wash.  This is NOT an ordinary, run-of-the-mill proceeding.

This is a politically motivated move which scrapes the bottom of the barrel looking for ANY POSSIBLE LOOPHOLE to keep President Trump in the hot seat just 19 days before the presidential election.

I don’t know what else to call it except the weaponization of the American legal system for the purpose of ELECTION INTERFERENCE.  It is the Biden-Harris administration targeting their political opposition via the court system; something that should NEVER happen in American politics.

The argument that Jack Smith’s prosecutors presented specifically focused on, according to a story by The Hill, the obstruction charge that President Trump attempted to present “false electors” to invalidate the 2020 election results.

Smith’s team argues that the charges for obstructing an official proceedings should stand, arguing that the statute includes Trump’s bid to include false slates of electors to Congress.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The Fischer decision clarified the scope of an obstruction offense under Section 1512(c)(2), but it did not strike down the statute or rewrite it,” prosecutors write, adding that it should be up to a jury to determine if the charges are appropriate.

“Any further assessment of the Government’s proof and whether it satisfies Fischer’s strictures should be reserved for trial under appropriate jury instructions.”

The justices’ 6-3 ruling, not along ideological lines, determined that the Justice Department overreached when it charged scores of Jan. 6 rioters with obstruction of an official proceeding.

The law, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress, and prosecutors claimed it accounted for attempts to interrupt Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

But the rioter who challenged the charge, ex-police officer Joseph Fischer, claimed it was improperly applied, pointing to the law’s origin in a case involving document destruction. The justices sided with Fischer and remanded the case for further consideration.

Trump, who faces the same charge, asserted earlier this month that the decision undermines his entire prosecution.

But prosecutors wrote Wednesday that Trump failed to consider the totality of the case, including aspects of the statute that deal with documents.

“The defendant’s supplement ignores entirely that the superseding indictment includes allegations that involve the creation of false evidence,” Smith’s team wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

There is no doubt in my mind that the timing of this filing alone is damning.  It comes as democrats panic over a collapsing presidential campaign, as various personalities within that campaign have come out with slanderous lies — presenting President Trump as a tyrant who will WEAPONIZE THE LEGAL SYSTEM AGAINST HIS ENEMIES, and literally “put people in camps“, according to Kamala Harris just yesterday.

Listen to Barack Obama JUST TODAY rail against President Trump with arguments that sound as if they came directly out of Jack Smith’s playbook; or visa versa.

It is not coincidence that everyone on the campaign circuit attempting to defeat President Trump are acting in lockstep together  — including Jack Smith.  They might as well give Smith an honorary Campaign Director button, because his actions are much more in keeping with a political campaign chair than that of a U.S. Prosecuting Attorney operating in good faith within both the confines and spirit of the law.

This was my President on January 6, 2021.  He remains my President.  And, God willing, He will be my President after whatever turmoil and strife the Democrats have in store for Election Day.

This is breaking news, and we will bring you more as the story develops.


 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

log in

Forgot password?

reset password

Back to
log in
Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a WLT Report insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.