BREAKING: Election Interference Complaint Filed Against Jack Smith with Inspector General

By Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL):

Inspector General Horowitz: 

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Trump v. Anderson, No 23-719.  In her concurrence in the unanimous per curium decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted explicitly what is readily apparent to all Americans, and legally relevant to your Department: already, we are in the “volatile season of a Presidential election.”  On May 25, 2022, Attorney General Garland issued his “Memorandum for All Department Employees,” again noting that by that time, “the 2022 election season is upon us.”

             That memo, attached, is quite clear, citing the Department’s Justice Manual, section 9-85.500, which Special Counsel regulations oblige Smith to follow: “Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department's mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution.”

 

            Quite apart from any innuendo or conjecture (and it is wildly clear to the American public that no legitimate purpose exists for Smith’s investigation), a brief of the Special Counsel, before the Supreme Court of the United States, itself tacitly concedes a violation of Departmental rules. (Brief of Jack L. Smith, Special Counsel, in Trump v. United States, No. , Dec. 2023, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211144948077_U.S.%20v.%20Donald%20J.%20Trump%20--%20final%20final.pdf ).  Specifically, that reply brief repeatedly urges “rapid” review of the federal prosecution of Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, and the incredible “public importance” of the case, without once explicitly stating why the rapidity is warranted, or what the public importance is.  Were there a legitimate, non-election related purpose for this request, these attorneys, who have filed in appeals courts many times, would have listed such.  Since charges have been filed and the defendant himself is taking a legal position on timing and lodging various appeals, that justification cannot, for example, be the rights of the defendant under the Constitution or Speedy Trial Act. 

 

So, there can be only one conclusion: Special Counsel Jack Smith sees it as of paramount importance to hold a trial before the November 2024 election, but he is unable to explicitly say so, as such a justification is in violation of Departmental policy and law.