WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a man involved in events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, can be charged for obstructing an official proceeding in a case that could have significant implications for the federal government’s prosecution of Donald Trump.
The defendant, Joseph Fischer, was indicted on seven charges after January 6, but the charge in question is a count under a provision enacted after the Enron scandal for anyone who “corruptly … obstructs, influences and impedes any official proceeding,” known as 18 U.S.C. 1512.
Trump’s allies argue that the provision was clearly intended to cover the destruction of evidence related to white-collar crime and that the Supreme Court’s decision to examine this issue is bad news for U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith and the government’s broad interpretation of the statute.
“Today was a bad day for Jack Smith, and a good day for the rule of law,” former U.S. Ambassador Ken Blackwell exclusively told Breitbart News.
Prosecutors say Fischer assaulted the police to disrupt the congressional certification of the results of the 2020 election and that his actions fit under 18 U.S.C. 1512. Although Trump is not part of Fisher’s case, the statute is a central piece of Smith’s criminal prosecution of the former president.
That trial is scheduled to begin March 4, 2024, but the Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue could delay that start date. If it rules that Fisher cannot be charged for obstructing an official proceeding, Smith’s case against Trump could be significantly handicapped.
“The criminal law at issue here is the heart of Jack Smith’s prosecution of President Trump,” said Blackwell. “Biden’s Justice Department now must try justifying pursuing President Trump. The result should be that the courts will hold that this statute does not apply to these facts. This is a power grab where those in power are desperately attempting to jail Biden’s leading 2024 rival.”
Judge Greg Katsas of the D.C. Circuit appeals court dissented from the appellate decision, holding that Section 1512 applies here, indicating that the statute used by Smith has never been used for this purpose because it was not intended to be used in such a manner.
“Section 1512(c)(2) has been on the books for two decades and charged in thousands of cases—yet until the prosecutions arising from the January 6 riot, it was uniformly treated as an evidence-impairment crime,” he wrote. “This settled understanding is a ‘powerful indication’ against the government’s novel position.”
The case is Fischer v. United States, No. 23-5572, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Comments are closed.