This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could undermine not only many cases against those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against former President Donald Trump. An adverse ruling could limit the charges that Smith can bring against Trump. The court should not interfere with these prosecutions and should allow federal prosecutors, including Smith, the chance to hold those responsible for the events of Jan. 6 accountable for their actions.
Smith’s indictment against Trump lists four counts: “conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding” (the certification of the Electoral College vote), “obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding” and “conspiracy against rights” (in this case, Americans’ civil rights to have their votes counted).
Unless the court fast-tracks the case, it is unlikely to issue a ruling before the end of June.
The question now pending before the Supreme Court involves the second and third charges: whether the federal law that guards against corruptly obstructing an official proceeding can apply to individuals involved in the Jan. 6 attack. Congress enacted the law in the wake of the Enron scandals more than 20 years ago. It was originally intended to guard against white collar malfeasance: for example, a CEO accused of shredding documents or tampering with evidence during an ongoing criminal investigation.
The fact that the law was enacted in the wake of corporate financial scandals and meant to guard against white collar misconduct doesn’t mean it’s inappropriate to use the law here. Prosecutors have charged hundreds of alleged Jan. 6 rioters under this statute (18 U.S. Code § 1512). But in one of those cases — involving defendant Joseph Fisher — one federal judge ruled the statute’s wording doesn’t apply to those involved in Jan. 6.
While Judge Carl Nichols acknowledged that…
Read the full article here