Jack Smith dismisses Donald Trump’s claim that he is violating DOJ rules to ‘influence’ 2024 election

WASHINGTON, DC: Special counsel Jack Smith addressed points made by Donald Trump's defense team during a scheduling conference on Friday, March 1.

The defense claimed that the Department of Justice's Mar-a-Lago case was unlawful because it was too soon to the 2024 election and went against DOJ policy.

The DOJ's internal policy and procedure on safeguarding government integrity by avoiding "Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election," as outlined in the Justice Manual § 9-85.500, did not apply to Trump, the special counsel informed the US District Judge Aileen Cannon, because the former President was indicted in June 2023, more than a year and a half after the alleged "60-day rule" came into effect.

Trump's attorneys claim Jack Smith is violating DOJ policies

Trump's lawyers contended in a defense brief on Thursday that the Mar-a-Lago case ought to be postponed until after the election because Smith's suggested trial date of July 8 would "violate Justice Manual § 9-85.500."

Notably, the study cited the DOJ inspector general's findings on the well-documented "mistakes" and improper handling of the Hillary Clinton private email server investigation by former FBI Director James Comey, whether they occurred two days before Clinton's loss in the election or months beforehand.

As stated in part in the OIG report on Comey at the time, "We found no evidence that Comey’s decision to send the October 28 letter was influenced by political preferences. Instead, we found that his decision was the result of several interrelated factors that were connected to his concern that failing to send the letter would harm the FBI and his ability to lead it, and his view that candidate Clinton was going to win the presidency and that she would be perceived to be an illegitimate president if the public first learned of the information after the election."

It further read, "Although Comey told us that he “didn’t make this decision because [he] thought it would leak otherwise,” several FBI officials told us that the concern about leaks played a role in the decision."

It continued, "Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice. We found unpersuasive Comey’s explanation as to why transparency was more important than Department policy and practice with regard to the reactivated Midyear investigation while, by contrast, Department policy and practice were more important to follow with regard to the Clinton Foundation and Russia investigations."

Trump's attorneys claim that Jack Smith is violating DOJ policies and procedures, much like Comey did, and that he is doing so to impermissibly influence the 2024 election.

Federal prosecutors, such as Smith, and federal agents "may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party," according to the Justice Manual section that the Trump team cited.

Jack Smith says there is no issue with his proposed pre-election trial date

According to Lawfare's Anna Bower, Jack Smith informed Judge Cannon on Friday that the case was charged in June 2023—many months ahead of the primaries and outside of the "60-day" window—so there is no problem with his suggested pre-election trial date.

Randall Eliason, a law professor and former federal prosecutor, stated that Smith was "clearly correct" in this regard.

Going one step further, MSNBC legal expert Joyce Vance—a former federal prosecutor herself—called the position put out by the Trump attorneys "dead wrong."

However, Judge Cannon described the offer for a July 8 trial date as "unrealistic". So even if Smith isn't breaking any DOJ regulations, getting a July 8 trial date appears highly unlikely.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.