JONATHAN TULEY: The critical explanation is missing from Jack Smith’s Trump report

Editor’s note: The following comment was originally published on the author’s blog: Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks.

The release of the first part of Jack Smith’s report at midnight on Tuesday night was the version of the special counsel for the Supreme Court. Dobbs’ verdict: we’ve seen it before.

Putting aside the public documents in which Smith fought to release this information before the election, there was little new in the report. What the report did not contain was an explanation of how Smith dismissed his accusations against Trump. One notable thing, however, was Smith’s reliance on the dubious concurrence of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the subject of an earlier column on my blog about what might be a more sane definition by half.

Most of the report was of vintage Smith in rejecting the counterexample and insisting that he “can find and strengthen the conviction in the case.” He may be right about getting a conviction in front of a Washington, DC judge and a very determined anti-Trump judge. However, he could not support any conviction – and this report makes that clear.

Smith repeats the exact same evidence, such as Donald Trump saying “fight” ten times in his speech on January 6, 2021. He reduced the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept mainly the original case. However, the handling of nuisance claims was a major focus and reference point for Smith, who has lost numerous cases due to the over-extension of constitutional and statutory authority.

DOJ RELEASES FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH’S REPORT INVESTIGATED INTO TRUMP ELECTION INTERFERENCE

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States to deny the use of legal proceedings against the defendants on January 6 will have significant legal effect. For others, it may lead to dismissal or, in more serious cases, deportation.

One of those cases that will be affected is the prosecution of President-elect Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction charges. It was unclear whether Special Counsel Jack Smith would agree with the decision or take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson when he concurred.

However, Smith used to push the law to the extreme to include defendants. That was when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously overturned as an overreach of another law.

As I wrote before after the decision, “That’s doubtful [Smith] it will go quietly into the night after Fischer’s decision.” In many cases, the prosecutor would go back and get a passing case because of the loss of the preventive claims. Those claims were the core of the government’s narrative under the Trump case. However, I wrote that “it is not Smith’s style” to agree with the precedent and the possibility ” take not-so-subtle advice from Jackson at the same time.”

TRUMP CALLS JACK SMITH A ‘DISAPPOINTMENT’ AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT AT MIDNIGHT.

Jackson supported the majority in finding that the preemption provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron a charge to deal with the destruction of documents and records.

Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing the progress of an action by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with intent to impair the integrity of the object or its availability for use in legal proceedings. However, the second condition under subsection (c)(2) allowed expenses that would “unreasonably” interfere with, affect, or impede legal proceedings. The Court has held that obstruction charges under Section 1512(c)(2) must be combined with impairing the integrity or availability of evidence.

However, in one of the justices’ moments, he added how Smith and other prosecutors could not rule out the January 6th Section 1512 case:

“That is going on officially [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] clearly used certain records, documents, or materials—including, among others, those relating to the election votes themselves. And it may be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of materials used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1). ” Ante, at 8. If so, Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c) (2) can, and should, proceed. That matter is still available for the lower courts to decide if we are still incarcerated.”

Once again, no other Supreme Court justices joined Jackson in the agreement.

FLASHBACK: ATTORNEY GENERAL GARLAND NOTES SPECIAL COUNCIL TO INVESTIGATE TRUMP ON MAR-A-LAGO DOCUMENTS, JAN. 6

Soon, Smith revealed that he would do exactly what I feared by taking a position supported by one justice. In his report, Smith wrote:

“The obstacles of Mr. Trump and his associates were involved in issuing official election certificates from competing states and replacing them with fake ones—the Office expected such an outcome for Fischer and ensured that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump’s case. reasonable doubt even under the narrow interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).”

Simply stating that the proceeding involves “certain records” is not transparent and enforceable. Even the introduction of another list of voters is not the destruction of voters authorized by the secretaries of state.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW MORE FOX NEWS

Federal law allows challenges to Congress, which Democrats have used without claims of treason or an attack on democracy. J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., voted to challenge the certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election results; Committee member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the law used by Trump supporters in 2020. And then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dick Durbin, D-Ill., praised the challenge organized by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in 2004.

Those challenges under the same loose theory could have been viewed as attempts to deny or destroy certificates from the states. It may, in my opinion, cause some backlash. However, Smith is always about getting convictions more than maintaining appeals. That’s why he filed a second case in DC, where he was given the best judge to prosecute, a judge who is considered by many to be Trump’s.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM

In the process of sentencing the protester on January 6, 2022, Chutkan said that the protestors “existed sincerely, honestly, for one person – not for the Constitution.” Then he added, “[i]it is blind loyalty to one person, who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to him for trial by Smith.

So Smith would continue the theory of single justice with the help of a favorable judge and a motivated judge. Little has changed about Smith since his unanimous reversal in the McDonnell case, which appears to be a major reason for his nomination.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TUREY