**Trump Attorneys Cite Supreme Court Decisions to Dismiss Charges**

Attorneys for former President Donald Trump filed a memo Thursday seeking to dismiss all charges against him, drawing on recent Supreme Court decisions to bolster their argument. This filing aims to counter the legal theories employed by Special Counsel Jack Smith in his superseding indictment against Trump.

The Trump legal team referenced two key Supreme Court decisions: United States v. Trump, involving presidential immunity, and United States v. Fischer, concerning obstruction. They argue that these rulings fundamentally weaken the charges brought by Smith's office. Specifically, they contend that the Fischer decision requires dropping the obstruction charges and undermines the remaining accusations.

In a detailed brief, Trump’s lawyers criticized Smith’s indictment, which they say assigns unwarranted blame to Trump for events beyond his control. They argue that Trump had attempted to mitigate potential issues by instructing the Defense Department to ensure adequate security measures were in place for January 6, 2021.

Trump faces several charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. His attorneys claim that the Supreme Court's ruling in Fischer v. United States mandates the dismissal of some of these counts. The ruling clarified that federal statutes are limited to cases involving evidence tampering with corrupt intent.

The attorneys further argued that once Trump’s actions, protected by presidential immunity and the First Amendment, are excluded, the indictment lacks sufficient evidence to support the alleged crimes. They also highlighted that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had previously accepted responsibility for the events of January 6 in an undisclosed video, questioning the consistency of federal prosecution efforts.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer marked a significant victory for one of over 300 individuals charged with obstruction related to the January 6 Capitol riot. The court's narrower interpretation of obstruction statutes was seen as a significant precedent affecting the legal framework of related cases.

Lastly, Trump's attorneys criticized Smith’s revised indictment, prompted by the Supreme Court's earlier ruling on presidential immunity. They maintain that even the adjusted charges lack the necessary evidence linking Trump to any direct obstruction or corrupt intent, citing the lawful nature of discussions on the use of contingent slates of electors.

As the case progresses, the trial for Trump on these charges has been scheduled to commence after the 2024 presidential election, with additional deadlines set for November 7 for all required replies and paperwork from both parties.