Jack Smith is Kamala Harris’ secret weapon in the 2024 election.
But Jack Smith is also on the wrong side of the law.
And now Jack Smith just got indicted for this nasty election violation he thought he’d gotten away with.
Jack Smith’s election interference
Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed Jack Smith’s detailed 165-page brief, using the flawed argument that all the sham criminal charges he filed against Trump for contesting the 2020 election fell outside the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling as her excuse.
Chutkan made the brief public, which allowed Smith to present a one-sided case to the public of his evidence and arguments presented in the best light possible, which also denied Trump’s due process rights to test Smith’s case in court using cross examination and the rules of evidence.
Donald Trump slammed the attempt to try the case in public – since the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling meant there would be no trial before the election.
“The release of this falsehood-ridden, Unconstitutional, J6 brief immediately following Tim Walz’s disastrous Debate performance, and 33 days before the Most Important Election in the History of our Country, is another obvious attempt by the Harris-Biden regime to undermine and Weaponize American Democracy, and INTERFERE IN THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
“Deranged Jack Smith, the hand picked Prosecutor of the Harris-Biden DOJ, and Washington, D.C. based Radical Left Democrats, are HELL BENT on continuing to Weaponize the Justice Department in an attempt to cling to power,” Trump added.
Legal experts agree
Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith is no fan of Donald Trump.
Goldsmith is a hardcore Never Trumper.
But even Goldsmith knows that Jack Smith twisted the law to advance the political agenda of Kamala Harris’ Presidential campaign.
In a New York Times op-ed, Goldsmith argued that Smith damaged “public confidence” in the system that used to hinge on the belief that prosecutors “conducted fairly and apolitically” their cases.
Goldsmith argued that by putting out his 165-page brief, which amounted to a public show trial, Smith “failed” to take, “scrupulous care to assure the public that the prosecutions are conducted in compliance with pertinent rules.”
The rule Goldsmith believes Smith violated is the Justice Department’s “60-day rule,” which holds that the Justice Department doesn’t take any prosecutorial actions within 60 days of an election.
Smith dumped his entire case into the public realm 30 days before the election.
Goldsmith wrote that the only reason for Smith to make this briefing public was to influence the outcome of the election.
“It is hard to understand any reason to go forward this close to the election other than to influence it—a motive that would clearly violate department policy,” Goldsmith added. “It is imperative that the department explain in detail why this inference is false and why its actions comported with past department practices and understandings.”
Goldsmith argued that even a charitable explanation of Smith’s actions – something that few have evidently been willing to offer, given the grievous harm the prosecutor’s actions have brought to the law – would hold that, at a minimum, Smith created an appearance of the Justice Department trying to influence the outcome of the election on behalf of the incumbent party.
“Mr. Smith, at a minimum, created a strong appearance of impropriety without any explanation in a context in which public confidence in the integrity of his decisions is vital,” Goldsmith continued.
