Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative from New York, claimed that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s hurried legal challenge to former president Donald Trump constituted vote interference. Smith, Stefanik said, has been “abusing the assets of the federal government to fraudulently tamper with the 2024 presidential vote”.
The complaint, filed with the Office of Professional Responsibility within Biden’s Department of Justice ( DOJ), argues Smith is attempting to rush the trial of Trump regarding his speech about the 2020 election ahead of this November’s rematch, in violation of the DOJ’s Justice Manual.
Federal prosecutors are permitted to choose the timing of any actions taken in accordance with Section 9- 85.500 of the manual, which has the provisions that “federal prosecutors does not choose the timing of any action… to affect any election, or to give an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or social party.”
Stefanik contends that Smith “petitioned the District Court for a January 2, 2024, test day” in August of that year. According to Stefanik, Smith’s designed five-month return was an obvious attempt to rush a complicated case to get a verdict before Election Day, according to Stefanik, who cites the almost 13 million pages of evidence Trump’s team had to examine in addition to other evidence.
Any fair spectator will soon discover that Jack Smith is attempting to stifle Donald Trump’s election in 2024, Stefanik said in a speech. He has repeatedly tried to accelerate his illegal prosecution of President Trump with the clear ( if unstated ) intention of trying him before the November election.
Stefanik alleges that Smith violated the same act by asking the Supreme Court for appeal before a lower judge had rendered a decision in an effort to quicken his case against Trump.
According to Stefanik,” Jack Smith’s sole motivation was the desire to interfere in the November vote was successfully proven two months later” when he opposed Trump’s plea for review on the issue of political resistance. In rejecting Trump’s complaint, Smith claimed that the country had a” powerful interest in the quick resolution of this situation.”
” The people, respondent, and the government are entitled to everything less”, Smith argued, despite the fact that the Sixth Amendment grants the right to a speedy trial to accused, not” the state” or” the public”.
What” cruncating interest” does the public have in the timely resolution of this case, aside from the upcoming election? Stefanik asked. ” Why should this interest—based on an unstated reason—override the due process rights of a criminal defendant”?
The congresswoman also alleged Smith “repeatedly and deliberately violated” a district court’s stay of proceedings, including when he served an additional nearly 4, 000 pages of discovery to Trump’s team. The district court had requested a stay of “any further proceedings that would move this case toward trial or place additional burdens on Defendant.”
In addition to the 4, 000 pages of discovery, Stefanik pointed to Smith’s decision to file” a motion in limine in District Court” after Smith indicated to the Supreme Court that” the case is now on hold” at the district level. Smith’s “refusal to abide by the District Court’s stay” violated D. C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4 ( c ), and his admission to the Supreme Court that the case was “on hold” indicated he did so “knowingly”, Stefanik argued.
No one in this country is above the law, according to Jack Smith, who unwaveringly declared. If that is true, then he should be open to, and welcome, an ethics investigation into conduct that, on its face, implicates potential violations of DOJ policy and multiple rules of professional conduct”, Stefanik wrote. ” His partisan attempt to influence the results of the 2024 presidential election, and his blatant violation of District Court orders, are evidenced by binden special counsel Jack Smith’s highly unusual and obviously improper attempts to expedite the trial,” according to the statement.
In a similar complaint, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz requested that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz look into why Smith is apparently hellbent on trying Trump before November.
The Federalist’s election correspondent, Brianna Lyman.
