Former President Donald Trump recently filed a brief on Oct. 3 to dismiss two counts in special counsel Jack Smith’s superseding indictment. Trump argued that the indictment lacked evidence to support the other counts in the indictment. The basis for Trump’s argument stems from a Supreme Court ruling in a separate case involving the Sarbanes-Oxley financial reform law, which is used by Smith in his indictment.
The Supreme Court’s ruling this summer determined that the Justice Department had applied the Sarbanes-Oxley law too broadly to Jan. 6 defendants. Specifically, the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c)(2), which is the basis for one of Trump’s counts in the indictment, was deemed to have been misapplied. Trump’s filing on Oct. 3 cited the case Fischer v. United States, which requires the dismissal of Counts Two and Three of the Superseding Indictment. The logic behind this dismissal also undermines Counts One and Four.
Smith utilized Section 1512(c)(2) and 1512(k) to argue that Trump conspired and attempted to obstruct the election certification proceedings on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump had previously filed a motion to dismiss targeting the use of Sarbanes-Oxley in Smith’s original indictment. Smith responded by accusing Trump of obstruction, including attempting to manipulate the certification process through false electors and deception of state officials.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States focused on the interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2) in relation to obstructive conduct in official proceedings. The Court ruled that the government must demonstrate that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding to prove a violation of this section.
Trump’s brief on Oct. 3 presents various arguments as to why the statute does not apply to his actions, including references to the Electoral Count Act and the First Amendment. Trump’s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment is based on statutory grounds, with additional arguments related to federal law and presidential immunity.
It remains to be seen how U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will address Trump’s arguments, as she previously rejected his dismissal arguments based on constitutional grounds. Chutkan’s opinion emphasized that the First Amendment does not protect speech used as a tool for criminal activity, suggesting that Trump’s statements related to the election may not be shielded by the First Amendment. Can you rewrite this sentence for me?
Source link
