Newest appeals court ruling on J6 defendants could come back to bite Trump: legal expert

That’s the view of former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who predicted that the issue “may well now go to the Supreme Court,” Newsweek reported today. Weissmann termed the decision an “important development” Friday in a Tweet. Conservative attorney and Trump critic George Conway retweeted that sentiment Saturday with a one-word comment: "HUGE".

The panel voted 2-to-1 Friday to uphold the use of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge, reversing a decision to toss out what had been issued by Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, according to NBC News. The issue reportedly impacted hundreds of January 6 cases.

Weissman sent an email Saturday to Newsweek stating the decision benefits Special Counsel Jack Smith in several ways, the magazine reported.

"The most important of which is the very practical one that it is useful for the courts to settle the law on obstruction before any indictment for obstruction is issued against the former president. Of course, the [appeals court] decision, also resolves a couple of substantive issues in the government's favor, including that obstructing Congress was intended to be within the ambit of the criminal obstruction statute," he explained.

He continued: "All that being said, the whole D.C. Circuit or even the Supreme Court may weigh in on the issue that split the [appeals court] DC panel, namely what standard needs to be met to separate legitimate First Amendment protected protests and illegal obstructing of Congress."

The appeals court had this to say in an opinion document, Newsweek reported:

"The question raised in this case is whether individuals who allegedly assaulted law enforcement officers while participating in the Capitol riot can be charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)," the opinion read.

“The opinion document also stated that Nichols' ruling "held that the statute does not apply to assaultive conduct, committed in furtherance of an attempt to stop Congress from performing a constitutionally required duty. We disagree and reverse."

ALSO IN THE NEWS: Republicans have been lying to their voters — and now those same voters are dying