The courtroom is becoming the most important battleground in the 2024 election.
Now the Supreme Court is hearing a case that could upend the best-laid plans of Democrat prosecutors.
And Clarence Thomas could hand Jack Smith this game-changing legal setback.
Democrat prosecutors have had to search back to the 1860s and twist the meaning of laws in order to find crimes to charge former President Donald Trump and the protesters on January 6 with.
One of the charges came from a little-known accounting law that was weaponized against them.
Trump and January 6 protesters charged under a law for financial records
Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with a count of obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in the January 6 case.
More than 300 January 6 protesters have been convicted or charged under this law.
Obstructing an official proceeding comes from a law that was passed in the wake of energy company Enron’s collapse.
It was included in the Corporate Fraud and Accountability Act of 2002 and is intended to stop the destruction of documents to cover up a financial crime.
But the charge carries a potential jail sentence of up to 20 years, which makes it a useful weapon for rogue Democrat prosecutors.
Supreme Court case could shut down charges against Trump and January 6 protesters
The Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the Biden Justice Department’s overly expansive interpretation of obstructing an official proceeding by a January 6 prisoner.
Fischer v. The United States asks the Court to look at the “unprecedented expansion” of a law meant for “deterring fraud and abuse by corporate executives.”
This challenge is being brought by Joseph Fischer, who was charged under the law for entering the Capitol Building on January 6.
“Before the January 6 cases, no court had applied Section 1512(c)(2) to conduct not intended to affect the availability or integrity of evidence,” Fischer’s attorney stated. “Nor had a defendant ever been convicted of an obstruction-of-Congress offense outside the context of a legislative inquiry or investigation.”
If the Supreme Court sides with Fischer, then it could overturn the convictions in hundreds of January 6 cases and knock out two of the charges brought against Trump.
The legal tea leaves indicate that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of Fischer.
January 6 protester Thomas B. Adams Jr. and others were given an early release ahead of the case.
“It takes four Justices to grant certiorari and, although this court will not attempt to read tea leaves, the Supreme Court’s decision to review Fischer means, at a minimum, that this case poses a ‘close question,’” District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in his ruling releasing Adams.
New York University law professor Richard A. Epstein said a proper reading of the law “torpedoes a key part of the Smith indictment.”
“Trump never entered the Capitol building, and he never made any statement urging rioters to enter the building,” Epstein wrote. “His despicable conduct consisted of watching the proceedings before asking the rioters and trespassers to leave the premises, which does not count as obstruction under any legal authority of which I am aware.”
The Supreme Court could deal a major blow to the Biden Justice Department’s witch hunt against Donald Trump and the January 6 protesters.
