This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Special counsel Jack Smith, hard at work to convict President Donald Trump of a crime for criticizing the results of the 2020 presidential election, is being accused of a "slimy maneuver" in his campaign against Trump.

Those results were, in fact, subject to the undue influence of Mark Zuckerberg's $400 million contribution, often spent to recruit Joe Biden voters, and the FBI's interference when it warned media corporations to suppress damaging information about the Biden clan.

But Smith has turned Trump's reactions to the election into criminal charges and now has filed a document suggesting he'll work around a possible Supreme Court ruling that otherwise could limit his assault on Trump.

A report at the Federalist bluntly warns that Smith has signaled he'll "try to circumvent" the high court.

At issue is a portion of a federal law having to do with obstruction by those who destroy or conceal records or documents that might be used in "an official proceeding."

It's been used against hundreds of Jan. 6 case defendants, including Trump, to turn their nominal trespassing cases into felonies by claiming their actions interfered with Congress.

The Supreme Court now is considering a case that challenges the DOJ's use of that enhancement charge against defendants, and a result on behalf of the defendants could end up with hundreds of cases being affected.

Trump also has claimed presidential immunity.

"As legacy media rushed to elevate the special counsel’s arguments against Trump’s immunity claims, they ignored a footnote in Monday’s filing that telegraphs how Smith will attempt to have the former president convicted on several counts — even if those same charges are effectively dismissed in a separate case by SCOTUS," the report explained.

The footnote addresses that statute that provides up to 20 years in prison for those who obstruct.

"A decision in [the [plaintiff's] favor would seemingly negate the two 1512(c)-related charges against Trump and 'upend hundreds of charges filed by federal prosecutors against those present at the Jan. 6 Capitol riot,'" the report said.

But Smith says he'll use the statute against Trump anyway.

He claims the justices, if they disagree with him, would be adopting "the evidence-impairment gloss" of the petitioner but that wouldn't make a difference in Trump's case anyway.

He said the use of "falsehoods" satisfies an evidence-impairment interpretation.

"As investigative reporter Julie Kelly explained, Smith is essentially contending that 'the alternative electoral certificates' supported by Trump and his election team and submitted to Congress 'represent 'documents' that were fraudulently used in an 'official proceeding.'' By arguing this, Smith is attempting to preserve his ability to go after Trump based on subsection (1) of the statute even if his ability to prosecute based on subsection (2) is nullified," the report said.

But the report noted, "contingent electors casting votes for their presidential candidate is neither illegal nor unprecedented."

The report describes how Smith "is desperately trying to stretch the 1512(c) statute in the hopes that he can bypass a potential ruling from SCOTUS deeming the government’s abuse of the law illegal."

"Such a slimy maneuver seeks to give federal prosecutors with Joe Biden’s DOJ the power to continue their lawfare against Trump ahead of the 2024 election."