Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has pursued Republican nominee former President Donald Trump with crazy-eyed abandon for the better part of the last two years, but a legal expert suggested in a Monday op-ed in The Hill that Smith has actually "botched" the indictments to the point where Trump will never be convicted.
Smith "has pursued Trump with the zeal of Inspector Javert, but has thus far come up empty handed," James Zirin said in the piece.
One of Smith's cases against Trump involving mishandling of classified documents was dismissed because the judge ruled that as a private citizen not confirmed as special prosecutor by Congress, Smith didn't have standing to bring it.
The other has been hacked to pieces by the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, which also delayed its timeline until after the 2024 presidential election.
Zirin argues that Smith's latest motion amounts to election interference. He said,
Straining to right a listing ship, Smith has filed a 165-page, procedurally irregular dump of his grand jury materials, containing evidence that Trump cannot refute. The filing obviously flouts the internal Justice Department rule that “Federal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
He referenced Elie Honig, a legal expert from CNN, who called the brief “Smith’s October Cheap Shot” in another op-ed piece, agreeing that it is a "late hit" intended to hurt Trump with voters.
It's nice to see even some liberals wringing their hands about how President Joe Biden's Justice Department has been trying to put their finger (or in this case, maybe something much heavier) on the scale in order to help Democrats and hurt Trump in the 2024 election.
The Trump campaign probably doesn't need to worry too much about Smith's brief because the kind of Americans who haven't made up their mind yet who to vote for are not politically engaged enough to be swayed by it. As least not in any significant numbers.
Any voter who would be swayed by the brief not to vote for Trump has had plenty of ammunition already for that position.
On the other hand, the brief could very well make some undecided voters angry enough about yet another blatant attempt by Democrats to smear their opponents that they decide to vote for Trump.
"The reasons for the rule not to mix politics with law enforcement are obvious," Zirin said. "Smith could have waited a month. There was no hurry."
But Zirin pointed out other Smith blunders in addition to the brief.
Waiting 2 1/2 years to indict Trump was no doubt intended to coincide with Trump's candidacy in 2024, but Smith underestimated Trump's ability to delay proceedings (as anyone able to afford a passel of expensive lawyers can do easily, Zirin argued).
Bringing the classified documents case in Florida instead of Washington D.C. was another blunder, in Zirin's opinion. A D.C. jury would have ripped Trump to shreds whether the case had any merit or not.
Smith's incompetence has been Trump's gain, and he's laughing all the way to the ballot box.
