The U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing on Tuesday regarding obstruction charges against former President Donald Trump and others in connection to the January 6th Capitol riots was marked by significant skepticism from the justices. According to experts, the line of questioning posed challenges for special counsel Jack Smith’s case.
Megyn Kelly, in her coverage of the opening statements, reported that the charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” is central to Smith’s case against Trump and other January 6th participants. She noted that the conservative majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with the defense, which could undermine Smith’s prosecution of Trump.
Investigative reporter Julie Kelly provided further insights into the legal discussions, noting arguments from Jeffrey Green, a lawyer representing defendant Joseph Fischer, a police officer present during the riots. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned how the law’s provision related to Fischer’s actions on that day, focusing on altering, destroying, or concealing objects in an official proceeding.
Both conservative and liberal justices raised questions about the intent of the Founding Fathers when drafting the provision, as well as whether the language covered actions by the January 6th defendants. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about the involvement of documents such as electoral certificates, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson inquired about the provision’s applicability given the absence of the word “evidence” in the language. Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about the provision’s multiple interpretations.
