Jack Smith's attempt to damage Donald Trump's electoral chances with an "October surprise" legal filing could backfire on Democrats, conservative legal analyst Jonathan Turley warned.
In a column for the Hill, Turley blasted Smith for releasing evidence against Trump just weeks before Election Day.
If voters re-elect Trump, Smith will likely never have the chance to bring Trump to trial over January 6th, Turley said. So instead, Smith is bringing his case directly to the voters, in violation of legal norms.
Smith was unable to speed the trial along despite having a sympathetic judge, Tanya Chutkan, who has consistently ruled in Smith's favor, Turley noted.
Last week, Chutkan and Smith jointly released a 165-page legal filing full of evidence against Trump. Turley condemned the move as "premature" and politically motivated.
"If voters reelect Trump, then neither Chutkan nor Smith will likely see a jury in the case," Turley added. "This is why they must convict Trump now in the public eye or else admit to an effective acquittal by plebiscite."
Smith is "making his closing election argument to voters because he knows that the 2024 election will be the largest jury verdict in history," Turley said.
While Smith appears determined to tip the scales against Trump, the political timing of Smith's "October surprise" could have the opposite effect, Turley warned.
"Their timing could well backfire. The weaponization of the legal system is central to this election, including the role of the Justice Department in pushing the debunked Russia-collusion allegations from the 2016 race," Turley wrote.
Smith's "October surprise" has faced criticism across the political spectrum. CNN legal pundit Elie Honig, who is normally aligned with the left, accused Smith of violating the norms of the legal profession to take a "cheap shot" at Trump.
"Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects," Honig wrote in a column for New York magazine.
Meanwhile, Turley quipped that Smith's "October surprise" is not surprising, but consistent with Smith's relentless, politically driven approach to prosecuting Trump.
"For years, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election," Turley wrote.
"Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections."
