Staff Reports
The legal circus surrounding former President Donald Trump continues to ramp up, with special counsel Jack Smith pushing the boundaries of legal decorum and fairness as he goes hard after Trump. It seems that liberal prosecutors are so eager to take down the former commander-in-chief that they will toss legal standards out the window faster than a Democrat can say “lawfare.” Smith’s latest move—a ridiculously lengthy memorandum—has raised eyebrows, not just among conservatives but even within the left-leaning corridors of the New York Times, proving once again that the worm turns when enough is enough.
In a questionable display of judicial behavior, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan recently unsealed a redacted version of Smith’s mammoth filing, which was ostensibly tied to the January 6 election interference case. Ordinarily, such legal posts would be trimmed down to a mere 45 pages. Yet, here we are, looking down the abyss of 165 pages of smearing allegations about Trump’s state of mind during his perceived infractions. Who knew the left was so attached to psychological evaluations? Critics of this legal overreach have raised their collective eyebrows at the timing, questioning why such a hefty memo was dropped when it could unduly influence voters during early voting season.
MAGA election subversion detailed in Jack Smith filing is even worse now: voting experts https://t.co/dGVIYBThTr
— #RealTrump (@RealTrumppBump) October 4, 2024
Not only does this memo raise eyebrows, but it also seems to blatantly flout a long-standing Department of Justice guideline preventing prosecutors from making moves within 60 days of an election. Chutkan’s leniency in allowing Smith such a vast submission only deepens the skepticism surrounding her impartiality and raises the specter of a politically motivated prosecution. After all, nothing screams “impartial justice” like a judge who coddles the prosecutor’s whims during a contentious election year.
Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith didn’t hesitate to call out Smith for this apparent barrage on legal conventions. He suggests that the special counsel hasn’t just bent the rules but has done so to the detriment of public confidence in the electoral process as serious allegations against Trump are paraded just as ballots are being cast. Goldsmith points out that Smith has previously shown a lack of respect for essential guidelines, pushing to have the case rushed ahead of November’s elections—evidence, he claims, of serious impropriety that could undermine the integrity of our democracy.
Jumping into the fray were legal commentators Jonathan Turley and Elie Honig, each lending his voice to the growing chorus of skepticism regarding Smith’s tactics. Turley alleges that Smith’s reckless behavior could ultimately backfire, especially given the backdrop of the “weaponization” of legal frameworks during elections. Meanwhile, Honig, though no friend of Trump, called Smith’s actions nothing short of a “cheap shot,” highlighting just how far the special counsel is willing to go to grind down Trump’s chances of rounding up votes. He asserts that Smith has abandoned all pretense of principled conduct in favor of a no-holds-barred approach, indicating that the continued assault on Trump could very well shape the minds of voters come November.
The message is loud and clear: Smith’s legal theatrics are not just a trial; they’re an all-out assault on the electoral process, emphasizing the troubling reality that justice is being wielded as a political weapon. The integrity of the legal system should never be subject to the whims of partisan political agendas, but here we are, staring at a spectacle that looks less like a pursuit of justice and more like a calculated move to sabotage a political rival. With the election looming, it is imperative for voters to keep their eyes wide open to the machinations at play behind Smith’s theatrics.
