Trump’s attorneys filed a memo Thursday in support of their motion to dismiss all charges brought against the former president by special counsel Jack Smith, discussing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fischer v. United States, which they say further supports their case for dismissing the fee hurdle.

Thursday’s filing comes as Trump’s lawyers are using two blockbuster Supreme Court decisions – United States v. Trump, which dealt with presidential immunity, and United States v. Fischer, which dealt with obstruction – to attack legal theories pushed by special counsel Jack Smith.

JUDGE UNLOCKED KEY DOCUMENTS IN SPECIAL COUNCIL’S ELECTION CASE AGAINST Trump

Trump’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss all charges brought against the former president by Smith last year, but the case was put on hold. Thursday’s filing is a brief response to their motion to dismiss all charges.

Trump’s lawyers said in their Thursday filing that the dismissal of Smith’s indictment against the former president, brought after the Supreme Court ruled that presidents and former presidents have immunity from official acts, “is intended to assign blame for events over which President Trump had no control.” and took action to protect against.”

“The special counsel blatantly ignores the fact that federal prosecutors have taken a different position in this district,” the filing states. “It apparently does not matter to the Office and those who support its efforts that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was caught in a previously undisclosed video in which she accepted ‘responsibility’ for the events at the Capitol.”

Trump’s attorneys also argue that Gen. Mark Milley admitted “well before charges were brought in this case” that Trump “on January 3, 2021, instructed the Department of Defense to “make sure you have enough National Guard or troops to make sure that a safe event.”

TRUMP BLAST DOJ for ‘Election Interference,’ Calls Jack Smith Case ‘Fraud’ After Judge Unseals Key Documents

Trump was charged with count 1: conspiracy to defraud the United States; count 2: conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings; count 3: obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and number 4: conspiracy against the laws.

Trump’s lawyers, however, stressed that Smith and federal prosecutors “cannot ignore or hide from” the new precedent resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States, arguing that it is “another key application of the rule of law to reject overreach.” aimed at President Trump.

“Fischer requests the dismissal of counts 2 and 3 of the superseding indictment, and its logic also fatally undermines counts 1 and 4,” the filing reads.

The case, US v. Fischer, stems from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fischer, one of more than 300 people charged by the Department of Justice with “obstruction of an official proceeding” during the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not have application and that it has always been applied only in cases involving the falsification of evidence.

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of the trial participant January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol who challenged his conviction for a federal “obstruction” offense.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court favored a narrower interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other item, or attempts to do so” with the intent of violating the integrity of the item. or its availability for use in official proceedings.”

The ruling overturns a lower court decision that the Supreme Court said was too broad in its coverage of areas such as peaceful but destructive conduct, and returns the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will have the opportunity to review the case with Friday’s ruling in mind.

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN FAVOR OF JOHN. 6 Capitol rioter who contested obstruction conviction

“Under Fischer, the Office (of Special Counsel) may not use this statute as a blanket provision to criminalize lawful activities selectively mislabeled as disruptive by those with opposing political views,” the document states, noting that the Fischer decision “requires proof “damage to evidence combined with corrupt intent.”

“By stripping President Trump of his official acts covered by the immunity and political endorsement protections of the First Amendment, the superseding indictment lacks sufficient factual allegations to support either element as required by counts two and three,” Trump’s lawyers argue. “President Trump has expressed sincere and legitimate concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election, consistent with his authority as chief executive.”

Trump’s lawyers said Trump “was part of an open, public discussion about the use of conditional voter rolls in a manner consistent with historical practice and provided for in the then-current version of the vote count law.”

“The January 6 Congressional Record reflects lawful debates on the certification reservations under consideration by the ECA, as well as recognition of the historical precedent for the provisional lists,” they argued. “There is no precedent for criminal prosecution based on such records.”

Trump’s lawyers said Smith’s office “cannot establish the requisite connection between the alleged obstruction and any ‘evidence’ used in the certification proceeding or that anyone acted with corrupt intent.”

TRUMP TRIAL RESULTING FROM JACK SMITH PROBE DELAYED AFTER ELECTION DAY

Trump’s lawyers also said the Fischer decision “undercuts the Office’s efforts to rely on the events that took place at the Capitol on January 6 to support the charges.” They stated that “the superseding indictment does not sufficiently allege that President Trump compromised or intended to impair the integrity or availability of any document or other item used in any official proceeding.”

Meanwhile, when the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the president was immune from prosecution for official acts, Smith was then required to bring another indictment against Trump, revising the charges to clarify the situation Supreme Court ruling. The new indictment maintained previous criminal charges but narrowed and restated the charges against Trump following a Supreme Court ruling that granted the former presidents broad immunity.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him new indictment also.

Last month, Chutkan said she would not pursue a trial of Trump on charges arising from the Jan. 6 Smith investigation until after the 2024 presidential election. It set deadlines for filing responses and documents from federal prosecutors and Trump’s legal team for Nov. 7 – after Election Day.