Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

U.S. News

Special Counsel Jack Smith Hit with Official Election Interference Complaint

via CBS
This article was originally published at Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak, UltimateNewswire and others. To learn more about syndication opportunities, visit About Us.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz filed a complaint alleging special counsel Jack Smith’s effort to expedite the election interference trial against Donald Trump amounts to unlawful election interference.

Gaetz claims Smith wants to influence the 2024 presidential election, violating DOJ policy against actions affecting elections.

Gaetz cited DOJ rules prohibiting prosecution actions aimed at impacting elections.

“The witch hunt against President Trump by Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith is a partisan exercise, and the American people know it!” Gaetz wrote on X.

He noted Smith’s briefs pushed for a “rapid” trial without explaining why speed was needed beyond public importance.

Gaetz argued the only reason for urgency was to hold a trial before the 2024 election.

“Jack Smith’s attempt to speed up the trial against President Trump violates the DOJ’s rules and the law. His public comments and his office’s briefs before the Supreme Court demonstrate that he has no reason for his actions other than to unlawfully interfere in the 2024 presidential election,” he wrote.

Gaetz wrote that the DOJ Manual states, “Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution.”

It is “the core of prohibited conduct that a purpose (not the purpose) of any official action of a prosecutor be to affect any election,” Gaetz wrote.

One brief “repeatedly urges ‘rapid’ review of the federal prosecution of Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, and the incredible ‘public importance’ of the case, without once explicitly stating why the rapidity is warranted, or what the public importance is,” Gaetz wrote.

“Were there a legitimate, non-election related purpose for this request, these attorneys, who have filed in appeals courts many times, would have listed such. Since charges have been filed and the defendant himself is taking a legal position on timing and lodging various appeals, that justification cannot, for example, be the rights of the defendant under the Constitution or Speedy Trial Act,” he wrote.

“So, there can be only one conclusion: Special Counsel Jack Smith sees it as of paramount importance to hold a trial before the November 2024 election, but he is unable to explicitly say so, as such a justification is in violation of Departmental policy and law,” Gaetz wrote.

He requested a review of “compliance of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith with Departmental regulations, particularly related to investigatory and prosecutorial actions during an election season.”

Gaetz cited concerns a rushed trial could undermine the legitimacy of any conviction or election outcome if Trump was seen as losing due in part to the DOJ violating norms.

“The precise scope of an investigation may be as narrow as interviewing the Special Counsel, and determining that he has a lawful purpose in seeking the expediting of his case against Donald Trump, and determining that he did not have the purpose of keying a trial date to the election calendar. Or it may be wider,” Gaetz wrote.

“Normally the Court, if it grants at this stage, would set the case for oral argument in April and decide the case by late June. If the Court goes faster, the only conceivable rationales for doing so would be the political ones that have motivated Smith to rush to trial, canvassed above.”

“We should at least be aware of the possible adverse consequences of Smith’s rush to trial. They potentially go far beyond a mere violation of a Justice Department rule,” he wrote.

“If Trump is convicted and is seen to lose the election even in part because President Biden’s Justice Department violated norms in rushing Trump to trial (and in giving Trump inadequate time to prepare), then the trial, and the election outcome, could be deemed illegitimate and unfair by approximately half the country,” he wrote.

Read Also:

Bombshell Decision from Michelle Obama on 2024 Run

Former Border Chief Shreds Biden With 4 Simple Words

You May Also Like