Special Counsel Jack Smith seized on what Politico called his “last prospect before Election Day” to file a 165-page processing smearing former president Donald Trump as his lawfare work collapsing. The processing, which was released on Wednesday, serves no real purpose other than to provide political feed ahead of the vote.
Judge Tanya Chutkan made Smith’s 165-page filing people on Wednesday, just weeks after she granted Smith’s ask to record the “oversized” short. Filings, per ABC News, “are usually limited to 45 websites”.
According to the filing, Trump and his” co-conspirators” made “knowingly false claims of election fraud,” which were then used in “furtherance of three conspiracies.” According to some, the” theories” include” a plot to tamper with the federal government work by which the country collects and counts vote results,”” a conspiracy to obstruct the official proceeding by which Congress certifies the reasonable results of the political vote,” and” a crime against the rights of millions of Americans to vote and had their votes counted.”
The essence of Smith’s filing is that Trump “falsely used election fraud to undermine the democratic process.”
There are a few peculiar things about the approach this happened, according to CNN older legal analyst Elie Honig.
” So first of all, regularly when it comes time for movements, the security goes primary”, Honig said. ” Ok, Jack Smith said a few weeks ago,’ Judge Chutkan, we want to get first.’ And Judge Chutkan really said,’ Well, that’s pretty unexpected,’ but she let them come second. And as a result, we now have essentially Jack Smith’s case at least on paper, at least the parts that have n’t been redacted, 30-something days before the election, versus when we might not have had it otherwise.
The lawsuit comes after Smith in August filed a superseding indictment against Trump, contending in part that Trump’s First Amendment right to contest an election resulted in “mistrust and anger” and “eroded ] the public’s faith in the election administration.” The Supreme Court’s July ruling, which found a leader had “absolute exemption” for” all official acts” and “at least presumptive resistance, came into effect in the superseding indictment. The Supreme Court returned a number of questions from Smith’s first accusation against Trump to the lower court in order to determine whether Trump’s steps were established acts.
Trump’s attorneys had asserted that the state “aims to proffer their untested and biased opinions to the Court and the public as if they are conclusive” and that “it’s incredibly unfair ] for Smith to report his oversized short in the sense that they’re able to put it ] in the public record at this very delicate time in our nation’s story.”
Trump’s lawyers also argued, according to Chutkan’s ruling, that” the brief would run afoul of the Justice Manual, which prohibits federal prosecutors from ‘ select]ing ] the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election”.
Chutkan claimed that the court “needs not address the substance of those claims.”
Plaintiff does not explain how this court is bound by or has jurisdiction over the enforcement of Department of Justice policy, as Chutkan wrote.
In unsealing the filing on Wednesday, Chutkan accused Trump’s lawyers of engaging in “bad-faith partisan bias”.
According to Chutkan,” These accusations, for which Defendant provides no support, continue a pattern of defense filings that concentrate on political rhetoric rather than the pressing legal issues at hand.” That focus is unresponsive and unhelpful to the court, as well as being unfit for seasoned defense attorneys, and undermining the court’s proceedings in this case.
But Smith’s filing does affect an election, as Trump’s team argues.
Smith’s filing comes just in time for the Harris-Walz campaign to try and make Jan. 6 a top campaign issue. Just before the filing was released, Vice President Kamala Harris posted a message on X on January 6.
In a post on X, Harris wrote,” On January 6, the former president incited an attack on our country’s democracy because he did n’t like the outcome of the election.” ” If you stand for country, democracy, and the rule of law — our campaign has a place for you”.
It also makes sense that Smith’s filing was conveniently released shortly after Minnesota Governor. Tim Walz bombed in the vice presidential debate against Ohio Sen. J. D. Vance.
After the Supreme Court rejected his earlier law-fare attempts, Smith had to strike a fine line in making this filing. That is to say, Smith’s lawfare efforts may be rebuffed by the high court if the charges against Trump violated the lawful definition of presidential immunity.
But Smith does n’t care whether the substance of his motion is just, accurate, or even legal, because it’s never been about the rule of law — it’s always been about interfering in the election.
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