Supreme Court Makes Huge Move - January 6 Defendants Celebrating

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabiafore, Explain America, and Jack Smith has been rocked by the Supreme Court, folks

Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe

Those little things really help us out, and they help our channel continue to grow

Jack Smith, he's, you know, he wants to prosecute these January 6th defendants and Trump

And he's using an old law to do it that some January 6th protesters, defendants, they say it's being misused here

So now those arguments are before the Supreme Court, and all reports are indicating that if the Supreme Court says

no, you can't use this statute, well then, that could be the end of the case entirely

Against Trump, against the January 6th defendants, Jack Smith's whole legal cases would fall apart

and possibly his legal career, I mean, it would be a resounding defeat

And really, you know, I'm not a legal expert, so I can't tell you if I think this should be applied or not, I don't know

But legal experts, they're kind of torn on this. So I want you to watch this video, and then let me know what you think after you hear the facts

Please, as always, remember to like, comment, share, and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabiafore, Explain America

We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody. And Tim Hafee

And continue the conversation, or even let's just start the conversation now, Tim, with what Paula Reid was reporting before

which is in another courtroom in another city, where the Supreme Court is going to be looking

is going to be considering oral arguments today that could upend the sentences

and the cases relating to the January 6th rioters. The question before the justices really is one of scope

of this federal obstruction law that more than 350 of them were charged under

The implications and the fallout from this could be huge. What is it going to look like if the convictions of 300 plus people of these riders are now thrown into limbo

Yeah, exactly right, Kate. The Supreme Court has to define the scope of this statute that was passed in the wake of the Enron scandal

It has two halves. Half of it applies to the alteration or mutilation of documents

The other half is or otherwise corrupts, correctly interferes, impedes, or obstructs an official proceeding

The government alleges that that otherwise is sort of a broad catch-all

and any way in which a person somehow interferes with an official proceeding is covered by the statute

Mr. Fisher, the defendant in the case, argues, you have to look at otherwise in connection to that first part, which is the alteration of documents

I think it does have broad implications for what I've always called the sort of blue-collar part of the Jan 6 case

There are a lot of people that are charged with trespass or assault

or cases in which they are alleged to have violently breached the boundaries of the Capitol

But then there's the white-collar part of the case, which is a much broader effort to interfere with the official proceeding

And I don't think that even the narrow interpretation would touch the white-collar part

because there are false documents. There are these fake elector certificates that the government has alleged were part of the charge conspiracy

So even under the narrow construction, I think the white-collar defendants in the Jan 6 cases

including the former president, survive. And that's what I wanted to ask you, because when you talk about implications from the Supreme Court