A favorable decision of the Supreme Court In this case, it can also almost automatically annihilate the accusations against former president Donald Trumpwho seek to disqualify him or destroy his image before voters a few months before the presidential elections of November 2024.
The judges of the Supreme Court will consider the appeals of the defendants Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang and Garret Miller.
A minimum of four votes from the Supreme Court judges is required to analyze an appeal, which reveals the importance of the issue among lawyers.
The judges will review an appeals court ruling that restored charges against three people accused of “obstruction of an official proceeding.” It refers to the demonstration that stopped for hours the certification by Congress of the controversial and until today dubious victory Joe Biden’s election in 2020.
Congressional Republicans in Washington began publishing more than 40,000 hours of testimonial videos and without editing of what really happened during the demonstration of hundreds of thousands of supporters of then-President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 against the election results of November of the previous year.
The options
If the Supreme Court dismisses the claim filed, a lower court’s decision allowing Joe Biden’s Justice Department to continue charging the defendants and sentencing them will stand.
If the Highest Institution of Justice rules in favor of those prosecuted, then there will be a 180 degree turn in the cases discussed and even in the charges against former President Trump regarding his alleged premeditated interference in the certification process of Biden’s controversial victory in the general elections in November 2020.
Three days after his indictment in the January 6 case, Trump expressed his enormous discontent on his Truth Social platform, calling the charges election interference and urging the Supreme Court to intervene.
The Supreme Court must debate a provision of the Justice Code that penalizes attempts to obstruct, influence or impede an official procedure. It would be necessary to see the assessment of the magistrates on whether the application of the code is appropriate in the case of Trump or is simply a criminal resource used to convict the 45th president, something unusual and unprecedented in the history of the American nation.
A ruling or even the mere involvement of the Supreme Court could offer Trump’s legal team several opportunities: first, postpone the trial for alleged “electoral interference” scheduled for March and second, and more importantly, overthrow the prosecution’s accusations and dismiss the case, among other reasons, for presidential immunity. Trump’s defense appeals first to that appeal to annul the accusations regarding January 6.
This is one of the four charges brought against the 45th president of the United States by a “two-level” Department of Justice, as Republican legislators have cataloged in their condemnation of the political persecution and constant harassment against Trump, since his electoral victory in 2016 on Hillary Clinton.
The indictments filed by special prosecutor Jack Smith, highly criticized by conservatives for his visible far-left stance, accuse the former president of “unlawful association to overturn the results of the 2020 election.” Also of “conspiracy to obstruct an official procedure”, in an unprecedented event in the history of the country: that justice is practiced under the influence of political precepts and interests and against freedom of expression and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The impact
The Court’s decision on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump’s trial, set for March 4. The judges also consider whether they should rule on Trump’s presidential immunity and decision-making freedom, not judicially indictable especially for expressing your disagreement with the electoral results, as his defense argues.
According to former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, Trump’s lawyers could justifiably ask to postpone the trial until the case reaches a conclusion. Eliason also believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling should be before the end of June, which would allow the trial to be held before the elections.
In any case, the acceptance of the Supreme Court to hear the aforementioned cases puts into question slight advantage to Trump’s defense, which seeks to buy time until after the elections, while prosecutors have demonstrated their obsession with speed so that the judicial process can be carried out long before November. The purpose is very clear: to significantly affect the image and leadership of the former president in the face of the collapse of support for the current occupant of the White House, Joe Biden.
Trump leads all polls national elections with an advantage of more than 50 points for the Republican primaries and with a margin between 6 and 8 points over Biden in polls on voting intentions in next year’s presidential elections.
More than 300 people are charged with obstruction in the federal case for the so-called “January 6, 2021 insurrection.”
A Federal Court of Appeals dismissed the accusation against three of the defendants, ruling that the sentence was extreme and against freedom of expression and demonstration.
the reverse
Federal Judge Carl Nichols considered that prosecutors They went too far when applying the law in these cases. Nichols ruled that the defendants acted on the basis of “an action with respect to a document, file or other object” to obstruct an official proceeding.
The Justice Department appealed that ruling, and the Court of Appeals in Washington agreed with prosecutors that Nichols was making a “moderate interpretation” of the law.
The former president and other defendants have appealed the application of that charge by the Department of Justice of the Joe Biden government.
More of 1,200 people have been charged with crimes federal charges stemming from the massive Jan. 6 protest, and more than 650 have pleaded guilty under pressure from prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
(email protected)
Source: With information from AP
