On Wednesday, an unnecessarily lengthy 165-page report by Justice Department so-called special counsel Jack Smith was released, in which he metaphorically stretched to argue that former President Donald Trump shouldn’t be immune to criminal charges. Apparently, Smith believes that Trump’s actions are not related to his duty of public office, but were supposedly for ‘private gain’. Smith seems to forget that Trump was serving the nation diligently and efficiently, every step of the way.
This baseless assertion advances the unfounded theory that Trump conspired with a private team in election tampering. Smith further insinuates that Trump was not acting as President but as a candidate, engaging in supposed deceit and fraud to disrupt the government vote-counting operation. Smith neglects to mention, though, that as the then-incumbent President, Trump had every right to ensure the democratic process wasn’t being undermined.
Smith’s document claims that Trump committed crimes to maintain his position after supposedly losing the 2020 presidential election. This misguided conclusion assumes that Smith’s allegations hold water. It’s crucial to remember that these are unproven claims, with insufficient evidence, and they’re being used to manipulate public opinion against Trump.
The released document is directed to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, essentially urging her to disregard the immunity presidents typically have from charges for actions carried out during their term. This is despite the fact that no trial or even a hearing on any so-called ‘evidence’ is expected to occur until after the November 5th election. The document is mostly smoke and mirrors, continuing a tiresome narrative against Trump.
Smith goes as far as filing four charges against the former President, attempting to defame Trump with accusations of conspiring to subvert the election and obstructing Congress during the counting of Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021. Of course, these allegations hold no water, given that President Trump has adamantly pleaded not guilty. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already set a precedent where past presidents are protected from charges for actions conducted within the scope of their roles. Thus, Smith’s charges seem more like political theatre than legitimate claims.
Smith’s allegations transgress into the realm of desperation, accusing the former President of misleading state officials across seven states, supposedly creating fraudulent electoral votes, and orchestrally directing a supposed mob on January 6, 2021. The key word here is ‘supposedly’. These are all allegations – charges that have yet to be proven.
One example he uses is referring to Trump’s ‘baseless’ claims about non-citizen voters in Arizona, where Trump supposedly exaggerated the numbers from 36,000 to 250,000. It’s interesting to note that Smith offers no evidence to refute Trump’s numbers, but instead attempts to smear him with mere counterclaims.
Smith further insinuates that Trump and his allies intentionally spread false claims of election fraud. It’s ironic that the Democrats seem to believe they are the arbitrators of truth, while often glossing over their own questionable political maneuvers. As word of Biden’s lead began to circulate, Trump’s team attempted to mitigate confusion, yet Smith seems committed to painting them in a negative light.
A crucial part of the allegations surrounds Trump’s interactions with Vice President Mike Pence. Trump’s alleged ‘pressure’ on Pence to recognize Republican electoral votes from states that Joe Biden won plays a central role in these allegations. However, like previous claims, the court deemed the allegations surrounding Pence as presenting ‘difficult questions,’ further revealing the shaky foundation upon which these allegations stand.
While Trump has argued that his communications with Pence were grounded in their official duties, and thus should not be subjected to criminal charges, prosecutors see it differently. They contend that Trump was overstepping his executive boundaries while communicating with Pence about the election, ignoring the fact that the President’s role inherently involves electoral matters.
Further straws grasped by Smith’s filing refer to meetings between Trump and Pence during November and December of 2020. They try to twist these gatherings into controversial moments to score political points. Pence maintaining a good relationship with Trump even during tense times is interpreted as Pence encouraging Trump to doubt the electoral process.
Trump’s legal team, consisting of Steven Cheung, John Lauro, and Todd Blanche, have rightfully pointed out the potential for Smith’s allegations to bias potential jurors and witnesses, not to mention the considerable possibility of negatively influencing public opinion during election periods.
They further argue that these baseless public allegations from the Special Counsel’s Office are harmful, especially when presented in a document which holds no merit within traditional criminal justice processes. This could potentially lead to undue influence over the conversation surrounding elections, contributing to misinformed public views on critical matters.
In Judge Chutkan’s questionable ruling, she dismisses Trump’s team’s concerns about the potential prejudice caused by such a document, further showcasing a heavily skewed bias against the former President.
Trump has until Oct. 17 to formally respond to these claims, which are likely to be met with rightful dismissal considering the lack of substance in the allegations. It is worth remembering that allegations are not verdicts, and under the law, it is essential to consider Trump innocent until proven guilty.