Biden's DOJ Gets Bad News From SCOTUS Hearing
Legal experts have voiced skepticism over the U.S. Supreme Court's handling of the obstruction allegations against former President Donald Trump and others, suggesting that the case presented by special counsel Jack Smith may be faltering.
During the opening of the hearing, Megyn Kelly provided insight into the accusations leveled by Smith against Trump and numerous participants in the January 6th events, alleging "obstructing an official proceeding."
In a tweet, Kelly highlighted the significance of the Supreme Court's deliberations, noting the potential impact on Smith's case: "BIG- Supreme Court arg on whether ‘obstructing an official proceeding’ can form the basis for a crim charge vs J6 Ds (INCLUDING TRUMP – this is the heart of Smith’s J6 case vs him) is not going well for the govt. At all. (All 6 conservatives sound on side of the defense.)."
We are underway at SCOTUS.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 16, 2024
Jeffrey Green, representing Joseph Fischer, opens.
Clarence Thomas asks first question and how 2 provisions (c)(1) and "otherwise" (c)(2) are related.
The question is whether the second part--very vague--is tied or independent of the first part:…
Investigative writer Julie Kelly delved into the legal intricacies, focusing on remarks made by Joseph Fischer's attorney, Jeffrey Green, who was present at the Capitol riots.
Kelly underscored Fischer's connection to a legal clause cited by Smith, which pertains to actions aimed at impairing records or documents in an official proceeding. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas raised pointed questions regarding this clause.
The intent behind the provision, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, became a focal point of inquiry from both conservative and liberal justices. Judge Amy Coney Barrett queried Smith on whether the defendants attempted to obstruct with documents like electoral certificates, while Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about the applicability of the statute to evidence.
Amy Coney Barrett asks question on a point raised by Jack Smith, which is whether 1512c2 defendants did attempt to obstruct with documents, i.e., electoral certificates.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 16, 2024
KBJ presses Green on whether statute applies to evidence since the word "evidence" doesn't appear in the…
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted the potential for multiple interpretations of USC 1512, which addresses tampering with victims, witnesses, or informants, further complicating Smith's prosecution.
Amy Coney Barrett asks question on a point raised by Jack Smith, which is whether 1512c2 defendants did attempt to obstruct with documents, i.e., electoral certificates.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 16, 2024
KBJ presses Green on whether statute applies to evidence since the word "evidence" doesn't appear in the…
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito expressed skepticism about Smith's arguments, suggesting that the interpretation of the statute might be too broad.
Alito: "I think you may be biting off more than you can chew...that the 'otherwise' clause can only be read the only way you read it."
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 16, 2024
Green: 1512 "zeros in" on witnesses and evidence.
Govt reading of c2 is "so broad" that it would apply to anyone who influences in any way any…
Smith hinted at potential strategies if the Supreme Court dismisses the obstruction case, emphasizing the validity of the charges. He also faces challenges from pending criminal charges against Trump, including a case regarding confidential materials and another involving hush money, which could lead to delays in Smith's prosecution.
These developments indicate a complex legal landscape surrounding the allegations against Trump and other defendants, with the Supreme Court's decisions and ongoing legal proceedings shaping the trajectory of the case.