Tuesday afternoon, Special Attorney Jack Smith filed an indictment superseding the original in the D.C. case against former president Donald Trump. The indictment was essentially reduced in size, possibly to match the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity in Trump v. U.S.
Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School, explained to Bret Baier on Fox News that Smith retained the four charges filed against Trump but removed any evidence that would have contradicted the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case. He still doubts whether or how this “new and better” effort for Smith will be fruitful.
Trump responded to the news of the new filing on Truth Social shortly after it was reported. The former president was not happy with the new development.
Statement from President Trump: pic.twitter.com/tGmofuFHfq
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 27, 2024
Trump, with his usual flair, lays out his case against the case or cases against him. He calls it an attempt to “resurrect a WITCH HUNT that is dead” and claims that Kamala Harris letting it go forward was a travesty. He called it a “direct assault on Democracy” as well as an “unprecedented misuse of the Criminal Justice System.”
Trump then pointed out, in response to a question he had raised in his first reply, that the superseding indictment could violate Department of Justice Policy, which prohibits any action that may influence an election in the 60 days before that election.
The Department of Justice has a policy that it should not interfere with an election 60 days before the election. However, they have just taken this action. The DOJ violated its policy by interfering in the election. All these Comrade Kamala/Biden hoaxes must be thrown out immediately!
Wait — the election will be held on November 5. We’re still out of that 60-day window, right? Trump says not to hurry. We’re within the rules since early voting begins September 6 in many states (thanks to Dems). Smith will argue that filing a new indictment for a proceeding that is already underway does not violate this rule. (This rule, which, in any case, isn’t formal, but rather a “norm”, that at one point, the DOJ claimed it followed. I think that we’ve established that the ship of the “norms”, sailed when Trump slid down his golden escalator, in June 2015.
Trump’s point is fair, but he also makes a broader one: we are at the threshold of an election. In the next few weeks, any move by the DOJ or state courts will be interpreted as an attempt to influence the election. This is what it should be. It’s not like that will stop them.
