Staff Reports
Jack Smith’s attempt to breathe new life into his beleaguered case against former President Donald Trump appears less like a legitimate legal maneuver and more like a poorly staged political drama. After suffering a setback at the Supreme Court, Smith’s latest superseding indictment, filed recently, maintains the same four charges but makes a middling effort to disguise them by emphasizing the personal rather than official nature of Trump’s actions. Legal experts suggest this is a sign of desperation rather than a robust legal strategy, indicating that any hope for a pre-election trial is as likely as finding a needle in a haystack.
In a classic move that seems more about gaining headlines than achieving justice, Smith’s new indictment disregards the Supreme Court’s clear ruling that Trump enjoys immunity for his presidential duties. The court had made it crystal clear that Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department were off-limits legally. Yet, here comes Smith with a rehashed accusation, ready to sprinkle on additional salacious details aimed at derailing Trump’s candidacy. With the election fast approaching and the odds of a trial happening before then nearly nonexistent, legal insiders are waving a red flag, predicting this latest indictment could be the swan song of a lost cause.
‘His Swan Song’: Jack Smith’s New Indictment Suggests Desire To ‘Sway Public Opinion’ With Likely Doomed Case: 'Nothing to protect Trump’s constitutional right' https://t.co/SWj6VWmXb0 pic.twitter.com/VgJz66htm7
— Janie Johnson – America is Exceptional (@jjauthor) August 28, 2024
Former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky expressed bemusement at Smith’s decision to pursue this indictment so close to the election, noting there isn’t any legitimate legal reason to do so. Historically, the Department of Justice tends to put the brakes on prosecutions involving political candidates across a critical election period. In layman’s terms, if Trump manages a comeback in November, Smith’s case could end up in the circular file, leaving Smith looking for another gig, perhaps somewhere along the lines of The Hague, where he came from.
This latest indictment doesn’t just raise eyebrows among legal experts; it raises concerns about the fairness of the electoral process. Smith’s actions seem designed to throw one last punch at Trump before the election, potentially swaying public opinion against the former president. Rather than upholding the principle of innocent until proven guilty, Smith is perceived as a meddler in a high-stakes political contest, attempting to influence the outcome while claiming to defend democracy. It’s an ironic twist that could make even the most seasoned political observers chuckle.
Furthermore, some analysts like Mike Davis referred to this maneuver as a “last-ditch effort” to meddle in the electoral process. Davis argued that Smith’s goal is not just to file another indictment, but rather to set up a mini-trial to settle the issue of presidential immunity before the election, all while pretending it’s part of a rational legal strategy. Adding to the circus atmosphere, former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno remarked on how this new indictment was anything but revolutionary, primarily serving as a rehash of old allegations with little originality or substance. Without the backing of solid legal foundations, it risks collapsing under scrutiny just like its predecessor.
In short, this charade appears more about keeping Trump in the headlines than it does about serving justice. As the political landscape heats up, it’s clear Smith’s latest antics are not going to deter Trump’s supporters. Many Republicans are viewing Smith’s indictment as a continuation of a politically motivated campaign against the former president, raising questions about the integrity of the judicial system when it intersects with political ambitions. With the election on the horizon, one cannot help but wonder just how much of this is about the law and how much is about politics, confirming the age-old adage that in the world of politics, perception is often just as powerful as reality.
