Analyst flags 'aggressive' legal filing that's 'threatening' criminal case against Trump

While the media is focusing on Special Counsel Jack Smith's monster legal brief in the prosecutor's criminal case against Donald Trump for alleged 2020 election subversion, there is an overlooked filing that is threatening the existence of the case itself, according to one legal journalist.

Smith's brief has stolen the show, with some media outlets focusing on the details it contains about Trump's purported efforts to overturn his 2020 loss and others emphasizing the timing of the filing in relation to the upcoming presidential election.

But beneath the surface lies an "aggressive" filing by Trump that is putting the case at risk, according to Jordan Rubin, writing for MSNBC.

ALSO READ: Inside Trump and Johnson's shocking new bid to suppress women's votes

"The big news this week in the federal election subversion case is special counsel Jack Smith’s monster motion, which argues for why the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling doesn’t block Donald Trump’s prosecution. But another new filing shows that immunity isn’t the only thing threatening the case," Rubin wrote. "On Thursday, the former president’s lawyers filed a motion citing another case from the high court’s past term: Fischer v. United States."

According to the analyst, the case is based on claims by Jan. 6 rioter Joseph Fischer, who recently "argued that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding is meant for evidence tampering rather than rioting."

"The justices sided with Fischer," according to Rubin, who noted that the Fischer argument is different for Trump.

"To be sure, Trump’s obstruction charges don’t automatically go away after Fischer. The theory of the case against him is different from the narrower cases against rioters," Jordan wrote. "He’s accused of a broader scheme to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election in a way that could still fit within Fischer even if rioters benefit from the ruling. Trump has pleaded not guilty."

Still, it appears Trump's argument, which Jordan labels "aggressive," is aimed at a more friendly appellate audience.

"To the extent that that language is meant for a legal audience, it might be more directed toward the justices who’ll eventually review Chutkan’s latest round of work — that is, if Trump doesn’t win in November and kill the case before it can go back up the appellate chain," according to Jordan.

Read the full article here.