Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald Trump and others involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, may have inadvertently undermined his own case by admitting to potential procedural missteps. Smith’s admission that the evidence taken during the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 might not have been properly categorized raises questions about the integrity of the chain of custody and could jeopardize the case against Trump.
Legal experts have suggested that Smith’s handling of classified documents might violate the same federal law he’s using to prosecute Trump and J6 defendants. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), anyone who “corruptly… obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding” can face up to 20 years in prison. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a case arguing that this statute applies only when documents or physical records are obstructed, altered, or concealed to impede an official proceeding, which many J6 defendants claim did not occur during the January 6 riots.
Smith’s recent filing acknowledges that some boxes containing evidence taken from Mar-a-Lago don’t match itemizations given to Trump’s co-defendant, Walt Nauta, raising concerns about evidence manipulation. Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett highlighted the importance of preserving evidence in its original state, noting that the digital scan of documents doesn’t align with the physical order in the boxes, which is a significant procedural error.
The American Thinker’s Andrea Widburg argues that this oversight may undermine Smith’s case against Trump. The maintenance of documents in their original order is crucial, as it can indicate chronology, intent, or innocence. Given that the documents were allegedly packed by the General Services Administration before Trump retrieved them, this lack of order creates further doubt about the evidence’s reliability.
Moreover, reports indicate that the Department of Justice might have altered crime scene photos to suggest that Trump violated national security laws. If true, this would constitute manipulation of evidence, violating the very law used against the defendants. If both the crime scene photos and the evidence boxes are compromised, the prosecution’s case could be significantly weakened.
