Smith fights Trump bid to toss Jan. 6 case, charges faced by rioters

Special counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday contested an effort by former President Trump to toss his Jan. 6 prosecution citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of a Jan. 6 rioter facing one of the same charges.  

Smith’s team argues that the charges for obstructing an official proceedings should stand, arguing that the statute includes Trump’s bid to include false slates of electors to Congress.

“The Fischer decision clarified the scope of an obstruction offense under Section 1512(c)(2), but it did not strike down the statute or rewrite it,” prosecutors write, adding that it should be up to a jury to determine if the charges are appropriate.

“Any further assessment of the Government’s proof and whether it satisfies Fischer’s strictures should be reserved for trial under appropriate jury instructions.”

The justices’ 6-3 ruling, not along ideological lines, determined that the Justice Department overreached when it charged scores of Jan. 6 rioters with obstruction of an official proceeding.  

The law, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress, and prosecutors claimed it accounted for attempts to interrupt Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results. 

But the rioter who challenged the charge, ex-police officer Joseph Fischer, claimed it was improperly applied, pointing to the law’s origin in a case involving document destruction. The justices sided with Fischer and remanded the case for further consideration.

Trump, who faces the same charge, asserted earlier this month that the decision undermines his entire prosecution. 

But prosecutors wrote Wednesday that Trump failed to consider the totality of the case, including aspects of the statute that deal with documents.

“The defendant’s supplement ignores entirely that the superseding indictment includes allegations that involve the creation of false evidence,” Smith’s team wrote.

“Contrary to the defendant’s claim … that he bears no factual or legal responsibility for the ‘events on January 6,’ the superseding indictment plainly alleges that the defendant willfully caused his supporters to obstruct and attempt to obstruct the proceeding by summoning them to Washington, D.C., and then directing them to march to the Capitol to pressure the Vice President and legislators to reject the legitimate certificates and instead rely on the fraudulent electoral certificates.”