Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against President Donald Trump may be in jeopardy thanks to the Supreme Court.
The high court heard arguments from a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, protests at the U.S. Capitol.
The case from the Jan. 6 defendant undermines two of the charges against Trump, Slate reported.
Last week, oral arguments began in Fischer v. United States.
The case centers around Joseph Fischer, who was charged with obstruction of an official Congressional proceeding.
The Supreme Court will decide whether Democrat President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) was overreaching with that charge.
Legal experts believe that the court is leaning toward siding with Fischer, which would undermine Smith’s case against Trump.
The prosecutor has used the same charge against Trump in the election interference case.
A decision in favor of the plaintiff would mean Smith could only pursue two of the four charges currently against Trump.
Court watchers believe the more conservative justices are sympathetic to Fischer’s case.
They are questioning whether he indeed violated Section 1552(c) of the Constitution, which would carry a penalty of up to 20 years in jail.
The law states that a person who “corruptly… obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” would be breaking the law.
Justice Clarence Thomas seemed skeptical of this rationale in Fischer’s case as a Jan. 6 protester.
“There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings,” Thomas pointedly noted.
“Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past?”
Justice Neil Gorsuch similarly pointed to the pitfalls of applying the provision in the broadest sense, CNN reported.
He posited whether the law would apply to situations such as someone who pulls a fire alarm to disrupt a vote in Congress as Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) infamously did.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back on the DOJ’s interpretation that ignores the statute’s key ingredient, which includes evidence tampering.
“You can’t just tack it on and say, ‘Look at it as if it’s standing alone.’ Because it’s not,” Roberts said.
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley contends that the case against Trump’s role in the so-called “insurrection” was flawed from the start.
“The biggest problem for me is that the 14th Amendment, Section Three, deals with rebellion and/or insurrection,” Turley told Fox News earlier this year.
“This was neither,” Turley went on.
“This was a riot, and at some point, mature minds have got to kick in here and say, ‘Look, he has never even been charged with incitement, let alone rebellion and insurrection.’
“But more importantly, putting aside the fact that he hasn’t been convicted, this wasn’t a rebellion or insurrection,” he added.
“I know that the other side has really tried hard to portray it that way, but the American people don’t even view it that way.
“Polls indicate that the public views this as a protest that became a riot.
“It doesn’t excuse what happened,” Turley clarified.
Smith’s case against Trump is on shaky ground as it is.
If the Supreme Court further chips away at the charges, Smith might find himself left only with a hollow husk of case.
READ MORE – Jack Smith Begs Judge to Block Trump from Delaying Trial: ‘This Must Stop’
