The Legal Fate of Trump and His Supporters: A Reinterpretation of the Law
The legal future of former President Donald Trump seems to be linked with that of Thomas Robertson, a former Army Ranger who was convicted for his participation in the January 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol. The prosecutions of Trump and his supporters, including Robertson, have often relied on innovative interpretations of the law.
Utilizing Uncommon Laws
In their pursuit of the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia, the Department of Justice utilized the seldom-used Foreign Agents Registration Act to justify investigations and wiretaps of Trump's allies. Similarly, in the Georgia election fraud case against Trump and several campaign advisors, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is employing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, a law designed to combat organized crime. Even her supporters admit this is a stretch.
Financial Crimes Statute
In Washington, D.C., prosecutors are using a financial crimes statute enacted by Congress in 2002 in response to the Enron scandal to bring felony charges against hundreds of January 6 defendants, including Trump and Robertson. The defense attorneys for these individuals argue that the law is being misapplied, a controversy that could soon reach the Supreme Court.
Weaponizing Vague Legal Language
Defense attorneys argue that the government is misinterpreting and weaponizing ambiguous legal language. In three separate motions filed on October 23, Trump's lawyers repeatedly raised objections based on the "vagueness" factor of the four counts in special counsel Jack Smith's January 6 criminal indictment against Trump.
The Charges Against Trump
The four charges against Trump are conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of an official proceeding. John Lauro, Trump's lead attorney in the January 6 case, argues that Trump's alleged conduct falls outside the plain language of the charged statutes.
Key Statutes in Question
One of the key statutes in question is 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed by Congress to prevent fraudulent financial reporting by corporations. Defense lawyers claim that the statute can be used to criminalize political activity due to its open interpretation of the terms "corruptly" and "official proceeding."
The DOJ's Legal Basis
The DOJ's legal basis rests on the argument that the joint session of Congress held on January 6 to debate and certify the 2020 election was an "official proceeding," as opposed to a ceremonial gathering. Those who interrupted Congress, causing a six-hour delay, or planned to disrupt it, committed that particular obstruction felony, according to prosecutors.
Unsettled Judicial Territory
The application of the statute is in unsettled judicial territory. While the various courts that have heard appeals regarding its use have so far backed the government's position, they have all rendered split decisions marked by often fiery dissents.
Appeals and Future Implications
Defense attorneys in the Fischer case recently filed petitions before the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court's 2-1 ruling. Robertson's attorneys are expected to file their own pleadings before the highest court. Some court observers warn of danger ahead for DOJ, the federal courts, and Smith, the special counsel.
Trump's Legal Future
This is the tangled legal and judicial system in the nation's capital that now awaits Trump: a quick-trigger jury pool deciding the merits of a dubious charge as federal judges widen the utility and interpretation of a law written to close a loophole related to corporate interference in criminal investigations. The special counsel is now on a collision course of sorts.
Supreme Court Involvement
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a brief on October 30 asking the Supreme Court to deny the petition to review the appellate court's decision in Fischer; the Supreme Court—only four justices need to agree—could take up the matter as early as this month. By granting certiorari, the court would send a signal it is prepared to overturn how both the government and the federal courts have interpreted the obstruction statute. If that happens, Smith will be presented with a major decision: whether to proceed with the prosecution of a former president on an offense that may be overturned by the Supreme Court—and one he brought at some risk months after the divided Fischer opinion.
Conclusion: The Implications of Legal Reinterpretations for New Businesses
The reinterpretation of laws in the prosecution of Donald Trump and his supporters, including former Army Ranger Thomas Robertson, has set a precedent that could have significant implications for new businesses. The use of laws in novel ways, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, demonstrates a shift in legal interpretation that could potentially affect businesses.
This could lead to increased legal uncertainty for new businesses, as they may face prosecution based on laws that have been interpreted in ways that were not initially intended. This could increase the legal risks associated with starting a new business, potentially discouraging entrepreneurship.
Moreover, the use of these laws in this manner could lead to a loss of public trust in the legal system. This could affect businesses' relationships with their customers, as well as their ability to attract investors.
In conclusion, the reinterpretation of laws in the prosecution of Trump and his supporters could have far-reaching implications for new businesses. It underscores the importance of legal certainty and public trust in the legal system for the success of businesses.
.svg)
