Below is my column in The Hill on the release of the filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before the election. Even Judge Tanya Chutkan described the move as “irregular,” but still ordered the release. While the usual voices heralded the move, others, including the CNN senior legal analyst, denounced the release as a raw political act by the court and the Special Counsel. The problem is that it was not in the least bit surprising.
Here is the column:
“The most stupendous and atrocious fraud.” Those words from federal prosecutors could have been ripped from the filing this week of Special Counsel Jack Smith defending his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Yet they were actually from a Justice Department filing 184 years ago, just days from the 1840 presidential election. Democratic President Martin Van Buren was struggling for reelection against Whig William Henry Harrison, and his Justice Department waited until just before voters went to the polls to allege that Whig Party officials had paid Pennsylvanians to travel to New York to vote for Whig candidates two years earlier.
It was considered by many to be the first “October Surprise,” the last-minute pre-election scandal or major event intended to sway voters.
To avoid such allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
Jack Smith, however, has long dismissed such considerations. For years, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial.
Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.
After the Supreme Court rendered parts of his indictment against Trump presumptively unconstitutional, Smith made clear that he was prepared to prosecute Trump up to the very day of his inauguration.
True to his reputation and record, Smith refused to drop the main allegations against Trump to avoid official decisions or acts that the court found to be protected in Trump v. United States. Instead, he stripped out some prior evidence linked to Trump’s presidency, including witnesses serving in the White House. Yet the same underlying allegations remain. Smith just repeatedly uses references to Trump as acting as “a private citizen.”
It is like a customer complaining that he did not order a Coke and the waiter pouring it into a Mountain Dew bottle and saying, “Done!”
Smith even refused to drop the obstruction of official proceedings, despite another recent Supreme Court decision (Fischer v. United States) rendering that charge presumptively invalid.
Smith is making his case not to Judge Tanya Chutkan, but to America’s voters. Chutkan has consistently ruled with Smith to help him expedite the case. She permitted his hastened “rocket docket” despite declaring that she would not consider the election schedule as a factor in the pace of filings or even of the trial itself.
For critics, Judge Chutkan has proven far too motivated in the case. Indeed, many thought that she should have recused herself given her statement from a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022. Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her courtroom for trial by Smith.
In their latest move, Chutkan and Smith used the Supreme Court decision to file a type of preemptive defense — an excuse to lay out the allegations against Trump in a 165-page filing filled with damaging accounts and testimonials against Trump, just weeks ahead of the election.
Even Chutkin herself acknowledged that Smith’s request was “procedurally irregular,” but she still allowed it. This was a premature exercise that would ordinarily occur months later, after defense filings. She could have scheduled such filings just a few weeks from now. She could have easily kept the filing under seal to avoid the appearance of political machinations. But the political effect appears to be the point. Chutkin again selected the most politically impactful option, at Smith’s urging.
This was so “irregular” that ordinarily anti-Trump legal analysts, such as CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig, denounced Smith’s filing as “an unprincipled, norm-breaking practice.” He added that “Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects.”
Others, as expected, applauded the filing as not just well-directed but well-timed. Smith was making his closing election argument to voters because he knows that the 2024 election will be the largest jury verdict in history.
If voters reelect Trump, then neither Chutkin nor Smith will likely see a jury in the case. This is why they must convict Trump now in the public eye, or else admit to an effective acquittal by plebiscite.
Their timing could well backfire. The weaponization of the legal system is central to this election, including the role of the Justice Department in pushing the debunked Russia-collusion allegations from the 2016 race. For many, the content of Smith’s filing is not nearly as important as the time stamp over the case caption. Titled a “Motion for Immunity Determination,” it seems more like a “Motion for an Election Determination.”
Smith’s raw political calculation should be troubling for anyone who values the rule of law. None of this excuses anything in these allegations against Trump. But the most disturbing part of Smith’s October Surprise was that it was not in the least bit surprising.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Jack Smith knows little to nothing about the law. The only reason he’s a player is because he was selected by the Deep State for his unrelenting corruption. The Deep State hold great admiration for such individuals who create legal mudpies and throw them in the faces of law abiding people, whom the Deep State has utter contempt for. However, Jack Smith will soon return to his roots as an “accident” attorney specializing in faked auto accidents carried out by a team of colluding drivers. I will miss him.
So what? He wanted to do it, he flipped off the rules and did it. And you know what? None of our legal “giants” stopped him. Our legal leaders are as guilty as he is for being cowards and cowering in fear. Bottom line: America got punked by a DoJ hit man. He should be drawn and quartered in the town square.
* Harris as a candidate is all wrong. Biden was shuffled out and Harris was just slotted in
Maybe there were other democrats who would’ve stepped up when Joe stepped out. Democrats should be outraged.
Personally I would have moved to another country 10 years ago. Too old, takes a lot of money, mugged and got 2 crushed knees and shoulder. Maybe leaving is your best bet.
It’s beyond disgusting.
* Get yourself a donkey, some goats and a garden. Fuel? Goat dung? Trees won’t last forever.
They seem to return to their own vomit. Not very interesting is it.
OT
The enviro-wackjobs have come full circle—from total insanity back to a reasonable facsimile of coherence—after a fashion.
Jane Fonda, “The China Syndrome” crowd et al. led the lemmings down the path to darkness in 1979.
Now the EV craze has all the wackjobs favoring electricity to the point where nuclear power plants are all the rage and celebrated and promoted.
Nuclear electricity generation was always tractable and should have been cautiously pursued with insuperable redundancy of systems and personnel, etc.
Hysterical and incoherent Comradette Jane Fonda has been deleterious and treasonous to America in multiple facets and aspects and should have been ostracized and ignored.
Jonathan: Judging from some of the comments on your blog DJT’s second rally at Butler, Penn, was a net win. John Say bizarrely claims “Trump and Musk are doing what they do best–mobilizing private efforts to solve problems” (10/7@10:35pm). FACT CHECK: The private aid to help the victims of Hurricane Helene was organized by private charities. DJT and Musk had nothing to do with “mobilizing” those efforts. But DJT and Joh Say falsely claimed credit for those efforts.
John goes on to insanely claim that “If Musk is not mentally healthy–we need more like him. People want their children to grow up like Musk”. Say doesn’t indicate what “people” he is referring to but I doubt any parent wants their kids to follow someone who is mentally unhealthy! Especially someone who insanely claimed at the DJT rally that if Kamala Harris is elected that will be the “last election”. That statement could come only from someone who is definitely mentally unstable!
John finally bizarrely says “Musk endorsed Trump because the Biden administration treated Musk like $hit. Trying to screw him every possible way”. One thing is true. Like DJT, Musk hates any government regulation of his businesses. Musk thinks he is above the law. He thinks any government regulation is an unwarranted intrusion into his unstable business practices that flout the law. Here are some examples of Musk’s problems with X, Tesla and SpaceX and how he has tried to avoid accountability:
–Tech Crunch reported on 9/30 that Fidelity’s Blue Chip Growth Fund, that heavily invested in X, now has reduced the value of its holding by 78.7%. That’s because advertisers have fled X because Musk has turned X into a cesspool racist and neo-Nazi propaganda. That has nothing to do with any actions by the Biden administration.
–Then yesterday the SC rejected Musk’s appeal claiming Jack Smith violated his First Amendment by obtaining search warrants for DJT’s messages on Twitter related to DJT’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. There were no dissents in the Court’s decision. Again, you can’t attribute that decision to the Biden administration.
–Tesla is floundering because of Musk’s erratic behavior. Since 2020 the SEC and the DOJ have been investigating repeated Tesla violations of the law with his unfounded claims about the self-driving capabilities of Tesla cars–where failures have caused the deaths of many drivers. Musk has refused to voluntarily comply with government requests for information about his Tesla cars. So the DOJ is now considering civil and criminal prosecutions.
–Then last month the FAA proposed fines of $633,00 against SpaceX for violating licensing and safety requirements after 2 launches in 2023.
So all these problems are why Musk doesn’t like any government regulations. That’s why Elon would relish the opportunity to be a member of DJT’s cabinet in a second terms where he could join the effort to dismantle the “administrative state” and eliminate government oversight of how he does business. The richest person in the world thinks he should be immune from any government regulation. That’s why desperately wants DJT to win and why he was jumping around the stage at Butler like a penchant 5 year old!
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Teddy Roosevelt thinks you’re a loser.
Dennis reminds me of Peck in Ghostbusters. Specifically…
https://youtu.be/b6dySBLSx8Y?si=uZUnIxhU2nrfFNr_
60 Minutes Reporter: Your economic plan would add 3 Trillion dollars to the Federal deficit over the next decade. How are you going to pay for that?
Kamala Harris: I just bought the most fabulous pair of shoes at Neiman Marcus and they were on sale. First Gentleman told me we will be saving lots of money if we look for sales at Tiffany & Co, Cartier and Saks, but for the life of me, I don’t understand why Americans cant find these great sales! I do!
60 Minutes Reporter: Madame Vice President, you have not answered my question:
Kamala Harris: Actually I did but you did not listen. That’s because you’re just a misogynist pig, who happens to be of color, which means you’re an Uncle Tom, who likely beats his girlfriends when they look at other men. You should hang with P Diddy so that he can teach you how to treat women…and men, underage girs & boys, skanks, hoe’s, and ex-girlfriends of First Gentleman
60 Minutes Reporter: Please answer my question!
Kamala Harris: Que sera, sera. I only do what my handlers tell me to do. On my schedule this week is to visit Florida, to support the White Red Necks hit by the hurricanes due to Climate Change. But between you and me, and don’t publish this, when I get a chance, the entire entourage of FEMA and I will descend on the Bal Harbour Shops on Miami Beach and shop till we drop with taxpayer monies! Their Dolce & Gabanna store is divine, which is so typical of those gifted queens!
Estovir,
That was awesome!
If this were back in the days of magazines and newspapers, this photo of Smith would be ripe for a snarky teen to add some devil horns on his head and some fangs. My late mother did that well into her years. I think she got that from her dad who had a God given gift of cartooning. He used to redraw some of the Sunday cartoons, especially Dagwood for us when we were kids, but with his wry sense of humor. Anyway, Jack does have that “evil” look.
Two longtime Dems bemoaning Biden-Harris’s failure to lead in n response to Helene. Perhaps they’re too busy trying to “get Trump” as Sam says below.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/07/opinion/helene-reveals-a-rudderless-white-house-and-harris-flaws/
“That ‘one person’ was then brought to her courtroom for trial by Smith.” (JT)
The NY AG runs a campaign of “get Trump.” Then with a “judge” motivated by a desire to “get Trump,” they use lawfare to “get Trump.”
A NYC DA files a bizarre case to “get Trump.” Then with a “judge” who runs a courtroom to “get Trump,” they use lawfare to “get Trump.”
A Special Counsel rushes to the press a smear indictment designed to “get Trump.” Then with a “judge” who bemoans Trump’s freedom, they use lawfare to “get Trump.”
But rest assured, claim Garland and the Leftist talking heads — we do not weaponize the law to “get Trump.”
This is the podcast that just did a Kamala Harris interview. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tCZO9QXvBRg. Don’t listen to it with your kids around. Don’t get to excited Denis McIntyre.