Special counsel Jack Smith is under fire for allegedly abusing his position and improperly interfering in the 2024 election by filing a detailed court memorandum outlining what he says is evidence of Donald Trump's criminal behavior.

Smith submitted an unusually lengthy 165-page memorandum to Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., doing so within the 60-day window before the 2024 Election Day, a period designated by the DOJ as a time to avoid influencing the electoral process, and Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, writing in the New York Times, has now blasted the move, as Breitbart reports.

Goldsmith articulated his concerns by arguing that Smith went against legal norms with his memorandum. Smith's attempt to speed up Trump's trial without explaining the necessity for urgency was one of the issues also highlighted by Goldsmith.

Smith's Submission Draws Critique

The special counsel's memorandum was notably four times the length of an average legal brief permitted in cases such as this. Smith's materials were submitted to Chutkan despite the close proximity to Election Day, which raised eyebrows and questions of propriety among some legal experts.

According to Goldsmith, Smith's actions created an appearance of impropriety. This was exacerbated by the timing of the submission, which came as the Department of Justice's guidelines were aimed at ensuring neutrality in political contests.

Smith had previously sought to expedite Trump's immunity case, approaching the U.S. Supreme Court on two occasions in December 2023 and February 2024. He argued that the case was of "imperative public importance," but the high court turned down his requests for expedition.

Potential Impact and Perception of Motives

Critics have suggested that Smith might have been motivated to present trial evidence to affect public opinion before the election, which would be a contravention of Justice Department practices. These informal rules are in place to prevent federal prosecutors from taking actions that could influence the electoral fortunes of candidates.

The Supreme Court's refusal to fast-track the case made a pre-election trial for Trump unfeasible. Consequently, Judge Chutkan faced the task of a thorough analysis to determine which, if any, charges might proceed to trial.

Goldsmith cited former Attorney General Eric Holder in his attempt to emphasize the importance of Justice Department rules that are designed to safeguard the public's trust in judicial processes free from political influence.

Public Criticism from Prominent Legal Scholar

Goldsmith also pointed a finger at President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, admonishing them for publicly commenting on the Trump case and potentially compounding its political ramifications. Such remarks were seen as breaches of protocol aimed at influencing the judicial process.

In his op-ed, Goldsmith highlighted the necessity for an explanation from Smith, particularly because this was not Smith’s first instance of overlooking relevant department regulations. Smith "never explained the need for speed," according to Goldsmith, casting doubt on his intentions.

Goldsmith added that observers reasonably concluded that Smith's actions were intended to place evidence in the public domain before voters cast their ballots. By doing so, Smith was perceived as possibly trying to sway the electorate's decisions.

Breaking Department Protocols and Trust

Smith’s memorandum and actions have raised concerns about maintaining public faith in the DOJ's integrity and neutrality. The guidelines Smith purportedly violated are critical to sustaining the electorate's confidence in the department's impartiality, as reiterated by Eric Holder.

Goldsmith's criticisms extend beyond Smith to include President Biden and Vice President Harris, suggesting they too contributed to the politicization of legal proceedings. This involvement risks undermining long-standing norms of respecting judicial independence.

The allegations against Smith underscore the tension and scrutiny facing high-profile legal actions amid a politically charged environment. Navigating these waters is essential to uphold principles of fairness and justice.

Controversial Actions Spur Continued Debate

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding special counsel Jack Smith's memorandum highlights significant legal and ethical implications as the 2024 election approaches.

Professor Jack Goldsmith's critiques have brought attention to procedural norms and potential political influence, emphasizing the importance of impartiality in legal proceedings.

This situation illustrates ongoing challenges in maintaining judicial independence and public trust amidst political dynamics.