trump lawyer Special counsel Jack Smith filed a memorandum Thursday in support of his motion to dismiss all charges brought against the former president, discussing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fisher v. United States, which he believes That supports their argument for dismissing the obstruction charges.
The filing comes as of Thursday trump Lawyers are using two blockbuster Supreme Court decisions to attack the legal principles pressed by special counsel Jack Smith – United States v. Trump, which concerns presidential immunity, and United States v. Fisher, which concerns obstruction. Is.
Judge throws out key petition in special counsel’s election case against Trump
Trump’s lawyers filed a motion last year to dismiss all allegations made by Smith against the former president, but the case was put on hold. Thursday’s filing is a brief response to his motion seeking dismissal of all charges.
Trump’s lawyers said in their brief Thursday that Smith’s superseding indictment against the former president, which was filed after the Supreme Court ruled that presidents and former presidents were immune from official acts, “for those events. Wants to blame those who President Trump did not control and did not take action to protect against.”
“The special counsel blatantly ignores the fact that federal prosecutors have taken the opposite stance in this district,” the filing said. “It is clearly of no consequence to the office, and those who support its efforts, that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was caught in a previously unknown video accepting ‘responsibility’ for the events at the Capitol.”
Trump’s lawyers also argue that General Mark Milley had admitted, “long before he was charged in this case” that Trump “directed the Department of Defense on January 3, 2021 to ‘make sure you have “There are enough National Guard or troops to make sure that happens.” A safe event.”
Trump was charged with count 1: conspiracy to defraud the United States; Count 2: Conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings; Count 3: Obstructing and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding; and Count 4: Conspiracy against authority.
However, Trump’s lawyers stressed that Smith and federal prosecutors “cannot ignore or hide” the new precedent from the Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. United States, saying it would be a “legal practice targeting the President.” Another important application of the rule of law is to reject the excesses of “Trump.”
“Fisher is required to dismiss counts two and three of the superseding indictment, and its argument also fatally weakens counts one and four,” the filing said.
US v. Fisher stems from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fisher – one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with “obstructing official proceedings” in the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not apply, and that it applied only to evidence-tampering cases.
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of one of the partners in January 6, 2021, Capitol riot Who challenged his conviction for a federal “obstruction” crime.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a narrow interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on any person who corruptly alters, destroys, defaces, or records a record, document, or other object. Has, or conceals, or attempts to do so. , with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in any official proceeding.”
The ruling reverses a lower court ruling, which the high court said was too broad in areas such as peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returns the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a say in Friday’s ruling. There will be an opportunity to re-evaluate the matter keeping this in mind. ,
“Under Fisher, the Office (of the Special Counsel) has been using the law as a catchall provision to criminalize otherwise-legitimate activities selectively misappropriated by people with opposing political views,” the filing said. “Can’t do it as.” Evidence of damage with corrupt intent.
Trump’s attorneys argue, “Once President Trump’s official acts are stripped of immunity and First Amendment protection of political advocacy, any elements required by Counts Two and Three in the superseding indictment will no longer be supported.” Adequate factual allegations are lacking.” “President Trump expressed serious and legitimate concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election in accordance with his authority as chief executive.”
Trump’s lawyers said Trump was “part of an open, public discussion regarding the use of contingent slates of electors in a manner consistent with historical practice and reflective of the then-current version of the Electoral Count Act.”
He argued, “The Congressional record from January 6 reflects an acknowledgment of legitimate debate over certificate objections considered by the ECA, as well as historical precedent for contingent slates.” “There is no precedent for a criminal prosecution based on such a record.”
Trump’s lawyers said Smith’s office “cannot establish the necessary connection between the alleged obstruction and any ‘evidence’ used in the certification proceedings, or that anyone acted with corrupt intent.”
Trump’s lawsuit stemming from Jack Smith’s investigation was delayed last Election Day
Trump’s lawyers also said Fischer’s decision “hinders the office’s efforts to rely on the events at the Capitol on January 6 to support the charges.” He said, “The indictment does not adequately allege that President Trump impaired, or intended to impair, the integrity or availability of any document or other item used in any official proceeding.”
Meanwhile, when the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that a president is immune from prosecution for official acts, Smith was required to file another indictment against Trump in an effort to resolve the case. The charges can be amended. Supreme Court Ruling. The new indictment retained the prior criminal charges, but limited the charges against Trump and was filed anew following a high court ruling that gave former presidents broad immunity.
Trump declared himself innocent of all charges new indictment Too.
Last month, Chutkan said she would not prosecute Trump until after the 2024 presidential election on charges stemming from Smith’s January 6 investigation. They set a deadline of Nov. 7, after Election Day, for responses and paperwork from federal prosecutors and Trump’s legal team.
