Shocking Jack Smith Details Revealed

Because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity (in which the ACLJ also filed an amicus brief), Special Counsel Jack Smith is back with a superseding indictment against President Donald Trump in the Jan. 6 election interference case. He will stop at nothing in his political prosecution of Trump.

Let us not forget that a federal court has already declared that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by the Biden-Harris DOJ. According to the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal officers (in this case, a Special Counsel) must be appointed by a President and confirmed by the Senate. Of course, Smith fails on both counts, prompting Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss Smith’s classified documents case against Trump.

However, regardless of how battered and beaten he’s been thus far in court, Smith is still trying to salvage his election interference case against Trump – by interfering in the election himself. Fox News reports on Smith’s indictment that he filed on Tuesday:

The new indictment keeps the prior criminal charges but narrows and reframes the allegations against the Republican presidential nominee after a Supreme Court ruling that conferred broad immunity on former presidents.

Specifically, the indictment has been changed to remove allegations involving Department of Justice officials and other government officials. It clarifies Trump’s role as candidate, and makes clear the allegations regarding his conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence in his ceremonial role as president of the Senate.

The new indictment removes a section of the previous indictment that had accused Trump of trying to wield the Justice Department to undo his 2020 loss.

To be clear, a superseding indictment is a brand-new one that overrides the earlier one. And this time, instead of “President Trump,” Smith is going after “candidate Trump” – even though Trump held the office of President at the time in question.

Even more alarming is that the timing of the indictment reeks of election interference. A DOJ policy prohibits any legal action against a political candidate just prior to an election. Doing so keeps the justice system from appearing to interfere in an election.

The DOJ and Smith point to a “policy” giving a 60-day window before Election Day, and Smith insists his indictment was filed in time. Yet we all know that only about 50% of Americans vote on Election Day. Over 90% of the country – 45 states – have some form of early voting at least 10 days before Election Day.

You’ve likely heard discussion of the 60-day threshold for prosecutions (this rule’s existence as such is enigmatic, as the DOJ’s Justice Manual and publicly available DOJ documents (see Justice Manual Sec. 9-27.260; Justice Manual Sec. 9-85.500; and the Election Year Sensitivities Memo) do not expressly use the term 60 days – many times agency rules are worded ambiguously on purpose, so they may be cited or applied when it suits them.

The Biden-Harris DOJ and Smith’s assertion that they satisfied the rule is contrived false, and his newest tactic still constitutes a clear case of election interference – and everyone knows it. Some might argue it’s similar to FBI Director James Comey’s interference when he publicly announced that he was reopening the FBI investigation into presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails just days before the 2016 election. Smith’s move here is arguably worse, though, because he’s not merely commenting publicly about an investigation but, instead, actually filing a criminal indictment, apparently attempting to revive a failing criminal prosecution.

ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow reacted to Smith’s latest stunt:

Let me tell you what this new superseding indictment isn’t. It isn’t any new allegation on anything – zero, nothing. It’s the same allegations as before, recast in a way to try to get around a Supreme Court decision that was a complete defeat for Jack Smith. You brought up the point about the Department of Justice’s own policy. That policy through the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the legal adviser to the Attorney General, has had a policy for decades saying there can be no legal action taken within 60 days of an election because it could be deemed interference of putting your thumb on the scale. What they’ve done here is redefine interference.

At the end of the day, Jack Smith is a career political hitman – a destroyer. He’s not the legal genius who will successfully prosecute you and put you away. But he’ll bring the craziest charges against you that sound really bad. Even if he loses in court, he only cares about ruining your reputation.

These types of cases are no place for partisan tactics manipulating ambiguous “rules.” The ACLJ will send a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to find out what this DOJ policy really says (and whether they keep parts of the rule out of the public eye), as well as why the DOJ (i.e., Attorney General Merrick Garland) would approve such a clear violation of the DOJ’s apparent rules. We want to put the DOJ on record about these rules and what discussions they have had about changing or redefining the terms – merely so they can prosecute Trump.

We must preserve election integrity for the 2024 presidential election at all costs. Sign our petition to demand election integrity.

We can’t defend election integrity without YOU. We are in the final days of our Life & Liberty Drive. Gifts are doubled during this special time. Give today to help us preserve election integrity and our republic.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s latest attempt to prosecute President Trump. Former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard also joined our broadcast to discuss her endorsement of Trump.

Watch the full broadcast below: