Jim Jordan opens inquiry into Jack Smith's "Latest sham indictment"

As summer came to an unofficial end on Labor Day, and the November presidential election looms large, the left is freaking out over their fear that Democrat candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris is a garbage candidate and will somehow blow the election [no pun intended]. 

Last week Special Counsel Jack Smith filed yet a new indictment against former and possibly future President Trump regarding the Nancy Pelosi-botched January 6th clusterfrack [sic]. Several days after the filing, House Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan (R-OH) fired off a letter to the pencil-neck Attorney General Merrick Garland. Jordan was rightfully angry over the "latest sham indictment" and called Smith's move "Election interference." [H/T  Daily Wire]

If not that, then what is it?

As Jordan began by reminding, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered the Trump v. United States decision on July 1. The ruling established that the office of the president is immune from criminal prosecution. The Court's opinion explained the scope of presidential immunity and criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith for violating this Constitutional principle in his political prosecution of President Donald J. Trump, as Jordan noted.

Referring to Smith's updated indictment from August 27, Jordan expressed concerns that "Special Counsel Smith seems to have breached longstanding Department policy designed to safeguard our democratic processes. Consequently, the Committee needs to know whether you endorsed Special Counsel Smith’s indictment beforehand or if he is continuing to act with prosecutorial authority without your 'meaningful direction or supervision,'" his letter stated, once more referencing the Trump v. United States decision.

Jordan's letter specifically mentions a 60-day rule that advises against filing indictments immediately before a primary or general election. "Even though it isn't formally written into law, there is a broad consensus that the 60-day rule is essential for preserving the integrity of the electoral process," Jordan wrote, citing an op-ed from The Washington Post by Barack Obama's wingman, 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 criticizes the timing in relation to the Trump v. United States decision. Jordan continued. "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.

Jordan's letter asks for the following information and documents by September 13, going back from January 1, 2024 to the present:

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.

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. [H/T Townhall.com]

There does not seem to be any doubt that Smith's move is desperate and politically motivated to prevent Donald Trump from seeking reelection. Allowing this to happen and by extension, jailing the former president, is nothing more than a banana republic type of move and the nation cannot allow this to happen.

Tweet