Last week, as Mia covered, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a new indictment against former and potentially future President Donald Trump to do with January 6. Days later, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, taking issue with the "latest sham indictment" and calling Smith's move out as "Election interference."
As Jordan began by reminding, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Trump v. United States decision on July 1, which found that the office of the president has immunity from criminal prosecution. The Court issued such an opinion "explaining the parameters of presidential immunity and rebuking Special Counsel Jack Smith for violating this Constitutional principle in his political prosecution of President Donald J. Trump," as Jordan put it.
Referring to Smith's superseding indictment from August 27, Jordan went on to raise concerns that "Special Counsel Smith appears to have violated longstanding Department policy intended to protect our democratic processes. The Committee must therefore understand whether you approved Special Counsel Smith’s indictment in advance or whether Special Counsel Smith continues to exercise prosecutorial authority without your 'meaningful direction or supervision,'" his letter continued, again citing the Trump v. United States decision.
#NEWS: @Jim_Jordan blasts Jack Smith’s latest sham indictment. pic.twitter.com/lECFsuFF2z
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) August 30, 2024
Jordan's letter specifically references a 60-day rule when it comes to avoiding indictments before a primary or general election. "Although not formally codified, there is wide acceptance that the 60-day rule is critical to protecting the integrity of the electoral process," Jordan wrote, referencing an op-ed in The Washington Post from former Attorney General Eric Holder.
"Special Counsel Smith obtained the superseding indictment against President Trump just 10 days before early voting begins in some states," Jordan's letter continued, going on to comment on how this could affect the upcoming presidential election. "There can be little question that the superseding indictment has some effect on the election, especially coming after the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity cast significant doubt on Special Counsel Smith’s ability to prosecute the initial indictment."
The letter further attacks the timing as it applies to the Trump v. United States decision. "In light of the Court’s opinion, Smith’s superseding indictment amounts to the initiation of a prosecutorial action by the Biden-Harris Administration against its opponent in the upcoming election. There is no persuasive argument why Special Counsel Smith could not wait until after the election to file this superseding indictment. It is therefore difficult to believe that the superseding indictment was filed now for any purpose other than to affect the outcome of the election," Jordan continued.
The chairman brings Garland into it when he warns about how Smith's "superseding indictment presents two stark conclusions." As Jordan sees it, Garland either approved the indictment, knowingly violating the Department’s policy counseling against such a prosecutorial action and doing so to harm the electoral opponent of your political bosses," or Smith "acted without your approval."
Jordan's concern with such election interference becomes even more pronounced from there. "In other words, either you are personally weaponizing the Department of Justice against President Trump or Special Counsel Smith is continuing his unconstitutional prosecution against President Trump—but either option does not reflect well upon you or your commitment to the rule of law in the United States," he makes clear.
The letter asks for the following documents and information, dating from January 1, 2024 to the present, with such information expected by September 13:
1. All documents and communications between Main Justice, including but not limited to the Office of the Attorney General, and Special Counsel Smith’s office referring or relating to the superseding indictment filed against President Trump on August 27, 2024.
2. Did you personally approve the superseding indictment filed against President Trump on August 27, 2024? If so, please provide documentation sufficient to reflect your approval.3. Did you evaluate the superseding indictment against President Trump in the context of the Department’s longstanding policy counseling against prosecutorial action so near an election? If so, please provide documentation sufficient to reflect your evaluation of these issues.
That same day that Smith filed the superseding indictment, Trump himself reacted over Truth Social with concerns that "election interference" as well as a "direct assault on Democracy" and "an unprecedented abuse of the Criminal Justice System" were taking place.
Jordan's letter also mentioned Judge Aileen Cannon, who in July tossed out Smith's classified documents case against Trump. Also last week, just the day before filing the superseding indictment, Smith appealed Cannon's move to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.