Trump moves to toss Jan. 6 obstruction charges, citing Supreme Court ruling
Source: Reuters
October 3, 2024 5:32 PM EDT Updated 10 hours ago
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (Reuters) - Donald Trump on Thursday urged a federal judge to toss out two obstruction charges central to the case that the former U.S. president illegally sought to overturn his 2020 election defeat, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling raising the legal bar for those offenses.
Lawyers for Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, argued in a court filing that the Supreme Court's ruling requires U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss charges accusing Trump of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding the congressional certification of his loss to Democrat Joe Biden on Jan. 6, 2021 and conspiring to do so.
Trump is also seeking the dismissal of the two other charges in the indictment on other grounds. Trump has pleaded not guilty to a four-count indictment accusing him of a multi-part conspiracy to block the collection of votes and certification of his election defeat.
Trump's argument is based on 6-3 Supreme Court decision in June, in which the justices sided with a criminal defendant charged under the same obstruction law who was accused of taking part in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. The court found that defendants charged under the law must have acted to impair the availability or integrity" of documents or other records related to an official proceeding - or attempted to do so.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-moves-toss-jan-6-obstruction-charges-citing-supreme-court-ruling-2024-10-03/
Think. Again.
(17,928 posts)If so, It seems obvious the trump legal team is down to just grasping at straws since there is no question trump's actions were indeed an 'attempt to impair the availability or integrity" of documents or other records related to an official proceeding' because votes are obviously "documents or other records".
But I guess they're just applying the delay tactic again.
DallasNE
(7,557 posts)Think. Again.
(17,928 posts)DallasNE
(7,557 posts)With Lawyers for Trump as the PAC name that supports Trump separately from his political PAC that pays most of his legal expenses. To me, it is confusing and odd to phrase it "lawyers for Trump" rather than "Trump's lawyers" if they did not want to call them by name.