Jack Smith's 'Irregular' Trump Case Actions Raise Red Flags—Legal Analysts

 

Legal experts are expressing concern that Jack Smith, the special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, may have exceeded his mandate with the recent evidence release in his pursuit of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents enjoy immunity for "official acts" performed in the course of their duties, prompting Smith to adjust his case against Trump. On Friday, he released additional evidence, including possibly redacted grand jury transcripts, as part of approximately 1,900 pages of documents.

These new filings target Trump not as a sitting president but as a presidential candidate—effectively a private citizen—reflecting the recent Supreme Court ruling.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig stirred controversy with an op-ed for New York Magazine, accusing Smith of taking a legal "cheap shot" by re-filing charges against Trump within 60 days of the election, which he views as a violation of Justice Department policy. Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney and New Jersey attorney general, claimed Smith has abandoned any semblance of propriety in his efforts to undermine Trump's electoral chances.

hasham

Jonathan Turley, a legal expert at Fox News and a law professor at George Washington University, echoed these concerns, describing Smith's actions as a legal form of "shrinkflation" that might seem "insufficient" to many justices. He pointed out two main issues: the lack of substantive new charges—many changes were merely rhetorical—and the timing of the release, which he deemed unnecessary so close to an election.

Turley noted that any potential trial wouldn't occur until 2025, questioning the rationale behind the filing's timing. He emphasized that criticism of Smith's actions spans the political spectrum but clarified that he wouldn’t label it as election interference. Instead, he suggested that the court's decision to release the information was unwarranted.

Smith's approach, according to Turley, disregards the appearance of interference, particularly in such a high-profile case. He lamented that the court didn't recognize the public's perception of the timing.

Contrarily, Gene Rossi, a veteran of the U.S. Justice Department, defended Smith and Judge Tanya Chutkan against allegations of impropriety. In an interview with Newsweek, Rossi argued that Chutkan has been efficient in her handling of the case, treating Trump like any other defendant.

Rossi dismissed claims of election interference as politically motivated and not grounded in law. He stressed that "justice delayed is justice denied" and that the public has the right to a timely trial. He commended Chutkan for her impartiality, asserting that if the defendant were anyone else, the proceedings would be treated the same.

Concerns regarding the document release center around its potential influence on voters in a closely contested election, where polling data shows a narrow margin between Trump and Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. Lee Miringoff, director of Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, noted that while the latest developments may have some impact, they’re unlikely to dramatically shift voter sentiment, especially among those who have already made up their minds.

Miringoff suggested that while there may be subtle effects in a tight race, the overall landscape appears well-defined, with issues of voter turnout and fatigue potentially more influential than the latest legal developments.