President Trump's lawyers filed a memo Thursday supporting a motion by special counsel Jack Smith to dismiss all charges brought against the former president, discussing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Fisher v. United States. , and believe that this decision further supports their argument to dismiss interference. Fee.
Thursday's filing comes as Trump lawyers used two blockbuster Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Trump, which dealt with presidential immunity, and United States v. Fisher, which dealt with obstruction, to argue that special counsel Jack Smith This was carried out in an attack on the legal theory that .
Judge unseals key filings in special counsel's election case against Trump
Mr. Trump's lawyers filed a motion last year to dismiss all charges brought against the former president by Mr. Smith, but the case was put on hold. Thursday's filing is a brief response to a motion to dismiss all charges.
Trump lawyers said in a brief Thursday that Smith's superseding indictment against the former president, filed after the Supreme Court ruled that presidents and former presidents have immunity from official actions, is “Trump's President.” “They are trying to shift the blame for an event that they did not manage and took action on.” To protect from. ”
“The special counsel blatantly ignores the fact that federal prosecutors have taken opposing positions in this district,” the filing states. “The fact that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was seen in an unreleased video admitting 'responsibility' for the events at the Capitol clearly does not matter to the office and those supporting its efforts.”
Trump's lawyers also said that “long before General Mark Milley was indicted in this case,” Trump “on January 3, 2021, told the Pentagon to 'make sure we have enough National Guard troops and troops. “He admitted that he had instructed him to do so.” It's a safe event. ”
President Trump accuses Justice Department of 'election interference', calls Jack Smith case 'fraud' after judge unseals key filings
Mr. Trump was indicted on the first count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Count 2: Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 3: Obstructing an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. And number four: conspiracy against rights.
But Trump lawyers stressed that Smith and federal prosecutors “cannot ignore or hide” new precedent from the Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. United States, which “targets the president.” “This is another important application of the rule of law to reject the excesses of the law.” Mr. Trump. ”
“Fisher has requested that counts two and three of the superseded indictment be dismissed, the logic of which also fatally undermines counts one and four,” the filing states. There is.
The United States v. Fisher case involves Joseph Fisher, one of more than 300 people indicted by the Justice Department on charges of “obstruction of an official proceeding” for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. It stems from a lawsuit filed. His lawyers argued that federal law should not apply and has previously applied only to evidence tampering cases.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the participants on Friday. January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot He challenged his conviction on federal “obstruction” charges.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a narrow interpretation of federal law, imposing criminal liability on those who “alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal records, documents, or other objects, or attempt to do so, due to corruption.” “Impose.” with the purpose of compromising the integrity of the object or its possibility of use in official proceedings. ”
The ruling comes after the high court reversed the lower court's ruling, saying it was too broad in areas such as peaceful but disruptive conduct, and sent the case back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued Friday's ruling. This provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the case with this in mind. .
The Supreme Court ruled in its favor in January. 6 Capitol Riot Participants Pleaded and Convicted of Obstruction
“Under Fisher, the office [of Special Counsel] “This law cannot be used as a blanket provision to criminalize supposedly legal activities that are selectively and incorrectly characterized as nuisance by people with opposing political views.” The Fischer decision “requires proof of impaired evidence coupled with corrupt intent,” the filing states.
“Given that President Trump's official conduct and First Amendment-protected political claims have been stripped of immunity, the superseding indictment does not support any of the elements required by counts 2 and 3. “Lacks sufficient factual allegations,” Trump's lawyers argued. “President Trump, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, has expressed sincere and legitimate concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election.”
Mr. Trump's lawyers said Mr. Trump was “participating, in a manner consistent with historical practice, in public public discussions regarding the incidental use of electoral rolls contemplated by the then-current version of election tabulation law.” ” he said.
“The January 6 Congressional Record reflects a legitimate discussion of the certificate challenges being considered by the ECA and a recognition of historical precedent for conditional slates,” they argued. “There is no precedent for criminal prosecution based on such records.”
Trump's lawyers said Smith's office had “established the necessary connection between the obstruction charge and the 'evidence' used in the certification process or that someone acted with corrupt intent.” I can’t.”
Trump trial stemming from Jack Smith investigation postponed past Election Day
President Trump's lawyers also said the Fisher ruling “negates the Department of Justice's efforts to rely on the events at the Capitol on January 6 to support its charges.” They said, “The superseding indictment does not sufficiently allege that President Trump compromised or intended to undermine the integrity or availability of documents or other objects used in official proceedings.”
Meanwhile, when the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that presidents are immune from prosecution for acts of official conduct, Smith had to amend the charges and refile charges against Trump to survive the legal battle. Ta. supreme court Ruling. The new indictment maintains the previous criminal charges, but narrows and restructures the charges against Trump following a high court ruling that granted broad immunity to the former president.
President Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges. new indictment In the same way.
Mr. Chutkan said last month that Mr. Trump's trial on charges stemming from Mr. Smith's January 6 investigation would not be held until after the 2024 presidential election. She set a deadline of Nov. 7, after Election Day, for responses and documents from federal prosecutors and Trump's legal team.
