U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan sealed “evidence” Special Counsel Jack Smith submitted to support his lawful efforts against previous president Donald Trump with less than three months until Election Day. The heavily deleted data fails to support Smith’s questionable state that Trump may be denied his First Amendment right to contest the results and course of an election, which is undoubtedly not the October Surprise the departed was hoping for.
Whether the sealed “evidence” corroborated Smith’s lawfare matters no. What matters is whether Smith, Chutkan, and the advertising media can use it to defame Trump’s chances by influencing public opinion back of Nov. 5, things leftists after held to be inappropriate because they believed their prospect was in the crosshairs.
On Thursday evening, Chutkan issued the order to start the leakage, acknowledging the potential effects of doing so on the approaching election.
According to Chutkan,” [t]he court withheld info that the public usually had a right to access entirely because of the possible political consequences of releasing it,” that withholding may itself constitute — or appear to be — election interference.” Therefore, the court wo n’t continue to take political considerations into account when making decisions, as opposed to incorporating them as defendant requests.
The disclosure comes just days after Chutkan released Smith’s 165-page short, which alleges Trump “used false allegations of election fraud to undermine the democratic procedure” in 2020. Trump’s “refusal ] to say whether he would accept the election results” of 2020, which saw unelected leaders unilaterally change the electoral process, and Trump’s “refusal ] to say whether or not they would support such a thing are grounds for prosecution and jail time, according to Smith.
Chutkan’s bringing of Smith’s 11th-hour short and her subsequent unsealing of “evidence” have been brushed off by the remaining — even though Chutkan’s notice of “political consequences” is an entrance her judgement amounts to election meddling — because they’re useful feed.
ABC News pretended that Chutkan’s decision to unseal the “evidence” was her effort to push “back on Trump’s argument that the release was politically motivated to influence the 2024 presidential election”.
According to ABC News,” Chutkan faulted Trump’s lawyers for peddling what she called political arguments rather than utilizing the relevant facts to support sealing the evidence in the case.”
Meanwhile, Newsweek used the unsealing to write a piece about a “mountain” of “evidence” against Trump— even though The Washington Post, for example, called the unsealing “unrevelatory“.
However, at least by the standard used in 2016, such blatantly obvious attempts to influence the public’s perception of one of the candidates constitute election interference.
Then-FBI Director James Comey announced in October of 2016 that the agency would be investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails. Years of blaming Comey for causing Clinton to lose the race were sparked by the announcement.
NPR made the point that Comey’s decision came” just days before Election Day” and that “former prosecutors and former Department of Justice officials are questioning what Comey hopes to accomplish by revealing the investigation so close to the election.” The article continued to cite a number of unidentified officials who claimed the timing of the announcement would have an impact on the election.
The New York Times cited” senior Justice Department officials” who said they “did everything short of” stopping Comey from” sending the letter” and argued that Comey’s letter could be” seen as meddling in elections”.
In a January 2017 article, Vox stated that Comey’s announcement had an “impact” on the race and” cost Clinton the election. Four pieces of evidence showed this.”
Comey let Clinton off the hook and never did anything to make a charge, and all other factors led to her loss, which included her subpar candidacy and lack of appeal. However, Comey was accused of interfering with the 2016 election just before Election Day and by Democrats and their propaganda press allies.
Of course, they’ve unintendedly lost their appetite for accountability when Trump is in the crosshairs regarding politically charged law.
The Federalist’s Brianna Lyman is a correspondent for elections. With a degree in International Political Economy, Brianna received her degree from Fordham University. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2