“As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant, Donald J. Trump, will be inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025,” Smith’s motion said.

NBC News just broke in to announce "Special Counsel Jack Smith just filed a motion to dismiss the federal criminal case against the president-elect."

This is a MASSIVE WIN for the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/2lkzsE2v1t

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) November 25, 2024

“It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President. But the Department and the country have never faced the circumstance here, where a federal indictment against a private citizen has been returned by a grand jury and a criminal prosecution is already underway when the defendant is elected President.”

Smith first secured a grand jury indictment in the election interference case 16 months ago.

A federal court in Florida previously ruled that Smith lacked standing to bring the classified documents case against Trump

Special counsel Jack Smith moved to dismiss charges against Trump over his efforts to contest the 2020 election and his handling of classified material Monday. Lofgren bemoaned the fact that Trump was not indicted until 2023, asserting the Select January 6 Committee uncovered evidence of wrongdoing during an appearance on “Chris Jansing Reports.”

“Well, it was a huge mistake. Certainly, the committee found, you know, a lot of evidence without the tools that the Justice Department has that made it clear that Trump was at the center of this wide-ranging conspiracy,” Lofgren told MSNBC host Chris Jansing. “Why the Justice Department delayed until basically our report was done is something I’ve never understood. However, Trump and his lawyers are the masters of delay. So, even had the efforts begun in advance, who knows whether they wouldn’t have been able to drag them out. Justice delayed is, of course, justice denied.”

Smith secured a superseding indictment against Trump almost two months after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s claims of immunity in a case stemming from a previous indictment of the former president over his efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election. Lofgren also took aim at Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who had opposed impeaching Trump over the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol building.

“When Mr. Trump was elected president, I think it became clear that this prosecution could not go forward,” Lofgren said. “You know, it’s ironic that the top Republican in the Senate pointed out in the impeachment that he should be prosecuted, that what he did was criminal and that the court should take care of it.”

“Of course, now there is no accountability either using the constitutional method of impeachment or the courts as Mitch McConnell suggested should be the case,” Lofgren claimed. “So, there is no accountability. The conduct was criminal, and we already knew that we had elected somebody who was a criminal because he was convicted multiple times in another case. So that’s where we are in America.”

A Manhattan jury of seven men and five women convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsification of business records on May 30 in the case which centered around a $130,000 payout to porn star Stormy Daniels as part of a confidentiality agreement.

A grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia handed down indictments Aug. 14, charging Trump and other associates over Trump’s efforts to contest the 2020 election results in that state. Attorneys for former Trump campaign aide Michael Roman filed a motion for Willis’s disqualification on Jan. 8 alleging that Willis, who hired Nathan Wade as a special prosecutor to help probe and prosecute the former president, was in a romantic relationship with him, with a judge later ruling that Wade had to withdraw from the case.

An appeals court cancelled oral arguments on whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified due to the relationship with Wade Nov. 18.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

On Oct. 17, she issued an order and opinion arguing that delaying its release would be a form of election interference.

“If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute—or appear to be—election interference,” she said in her five-page order.

“The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests.”

On Oct. 10, Chutkan had authorized the release of the evidence—the appendix to Smith’s immunity motion—in an order on Oct. 10 but delayed its effects for seven days to give Trump an opportunity to evaluate his next steps. In her recent order, she added that the court would issue an order on the following day directing the release of the redacted appendix.

Trump’s attorneys had requested an extension on the delay Judge Chutkan imposed, suggesting instead in an Oct. 17 motion that she should concurrently release both Smith’s appendix and one from Trump’s team.

Trump’s attorneys said that “if the appendices are released simultaneously, at least some press outlets will attempt to report both sides of this case, reducing (although, again, not eliminating) the potential for irreversible prejudice.”

“Similarly, the risk to witnesses will be somewhat reduced, as the public will have a more balanced picture of their testimony and how it connects to this case,” the filing to the judge read.

Chutkan’s motion also said Trump’s team’s justification for delaying the release to help the public gain a better understanding of the issue is “oxymoronic.”

“Setting aside the oxymoronic proposition that the public’s understanding of this case will be enhanced by withholding information about it, any public debate about the issues in this case has no bearing on the court’s resolution of those issues,” she said.

The judge also pushed back on his attorneys’ concerns about tainting the jury pool, saying instead that concerns like that could be addressed in the jury selection process.

Discovery Requests

The filings represented an ongoing back and forth between Judge Chutkan and Trump over the release of evidence—both to Trump and the public.

Chutkan issued an order on Oct. 16 rejecting most of Trump’s requests to compel discovery from Smith’s team. Out of the 14 categories of evidence he requested, Judge Chutkan only granted him three particular sets of information.

To compel discovery means to submit a request to gain access to relevant evidence, including documents or information, held by the other party before a trial begins.

Her 50-page order accused Trump’s legal team of using speculative reasoning to justify the discovery of various items. It also repeatedly argued that Trump had failed to show their relevance to his state of mind during the acts alleged in Smith’s indictment.

“Defendant has only carried his burden with respect to a small portion of the information he seeks. For most of it, he has proffered only speculation that a search will yield material, noncumulative information,” Chutkan said.

The judge added that while Trump “purports to seek much of this information to show his state of mind at the time of his indicted conduct … he does not indicate that he was aware of the requested information such that it could have affected his state of mind.”

Among the requests she denied were those for information that undercut a statement in which the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency described the 2020 election as the most secure in American history. Another included four types of records related to the Intelligence Community’s (IC) assessment of the 2020 election, which outlined its conclusions about foreign actors’ attempts to influence the election.

The discovery she granted included information the director of national intelligence (DNI) said he reviewed prior to his interview with the special counsel’s office. Chutkan noted how Smith’s original indictment alleged that the DNI “disabused [Trump] of the notion that the Intelligence Community’s findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.”

She also acquiesced to Trump’s demand for discovery of “evidence relating to the unauthorized retention of classified documents by Vice President Mike Pence,” which she said could be material for impeaching the former vice president as a witness.

Other evidence included information about Trump’s meeting with Gen. Mark Milley and Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller just days before Jan. 6, 2021. More specifically, Trump sought records of information about security measures that were conveyed to him.

Trump’s motion to compel was filed in November of last year and argued for releasing various forms of evidence in order to, among other things, impeach prosecution witnesses and reveal purported political bias among officials in law enforcement and the intelligence community.

“The [Special Counsel’s] Office cannot rely on selected guidance and judgments by officials it favors from the Intelligence Community and law enforcement while ignoring evidence of political bias in those officials’ decision-making as well as cyberattacks and other interference, both actual and attempted, that targeted critical infrastructure and election facilities before, during, and after the 2020 election,” his attorneys said.

Trump has been given until Oct. 30 to file any additional motions to compel discovery related to the presidential immunity issue. Judge Chutkan also granted discovery requests related to the prosecution team and gave Smith until Oct. 26 to provide those materials to Trump.

United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District of Columbia released Smith’s brief, which sought to address the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling regarding presidential immunity in the election interference case, Wednesday evening over the objection of Trump’s attorneys. McCarthy said that most judges would have expressed concerns over the effects the release of the brief would have on potential jurors.

“The point of this was to try to get this information, which has been hashed out again and again before the American people. None of this is new, but the idea was to get the evidence out in as spectacular a way as possible. And by Smith’s light, hopefully get Trump convicted in the run-up to the election in hopes of influencing the outcome of the election. And now we have the release of this book-length size recitation of Smith’s case under circumstances where there is no possibility of having this trial before November and there was no reason to have it brought out in public now.”

WATCH:

“In fact, in most cases, a judge would be concerned about, for example, poisoning or prejudicing against the defendant a jury pool. In most cases a judge would be very concerned that evidence not be broadcast in public without the usual due process cautions that go on in a trial that the defendant be presumed innocent, the fact that allegations are not evidence of anything,” McCarthy continued. “The point of releasing this now can only be to affect the election. There is no legal need for it.”

Smith secured a superseding indictment against Trump on Aug. 27, after the Supreme Court ruled former president had immunity for official acts. McCarthy noted the release of the brief was in contrast to how the Justice Department addressed allegations surrounding Hunter Biden.

“That’s kind of an unwritten rule of common sense you don’t do anything that you don’t have to do publicly for purposes of being perceived trying to put your thumb on the scale of the election, but there is no hard and fast rule about that,” McCarthy told “America’s Newsroom” co-anchor Dana Perino, referencing Trump’s Truth Social post accusing Smith of violating a Justice Department policy not to take actions that could affect an election in the 60 days before voters head to the polls.

Smith’s brief focused on conversations Trump had with then-Vice President Mike Pence, including a Dec. 21, 2020 lunch in which Pence reportedly urged Trump to view the results of the election as “an intermission.”

“I think he does have a point that the rules have been slanted against him and for example, all deference was given to President Biden and Hunter Biden to keep the Hunter Biden stuff under wraps in the run-up to the 2020 election,” McCarthy continued.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

During an appearance on CBS News, the former Manhattan prosecutor discussed the “unusual” level of detail in the recent filings by Smith that could interfere with Trump’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The host asked Roiphe to delve into the evidentiary value of the documents now released to the public and explain how this might play out in a jury trial.

“When there are motions, those motions become public. and those motions contain certain factual allegations. I think what is unusual here is the level of detail. Now, of course, this is an important case,” Roiphe explained. “This is responding to a ruling from the Supreme Court that was fairly vague. And so it’s not that the level of detail is inappropriate, but there is a level of detail that one doesn’t normally see in motion filings.”

WATCH:

The conversation highlighted the former president’s concerns about the potential interference with his constitutional rights.

“And so, you know, I think that’s worth pausing and mentioning that the former president’s argument that this was interfering with his constitutional right to a fair trial, you know, it’s not a far-fetched argument to make given how much detail is actually in there,” she continued.

Judge Tanya Chutkan released Wednesday a redacted version of Smith’s detailed brief on the evidence concerning former Trump’s alleged election interference. Dismissing accusations of “bad-faith partisan bias,” Chutkan ordered the 165-page document on presidential immunity to be filed publicly, countering Trump’s legal team’s objections to its release before the election.

In a Tuesday filing, Trump’s legal team accused Smith of political motives for seeking to publicize witness testimony before the election. They argued to Judge Chutkan that while prosecutors will redact names in a significant presidential immunity motion, they intend to leave quotations from sensitive materials unredacted, a reversal from Smith’s earlier stance on protecting such information to ensure justice.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

His attorneys urged Judge Tanya Chutkan, who set a schedule allowing prosecutors to file the first brief on presidential immunity Sept. 26, to reconsider her decision. Without addressing ongoing evidence issues, Smith’s filing would “amount to an improper motion for summary judgment in the court of public opinion” ahead of the election, they argued.

Trump’s attorneys noted there are “ongoing discovery violations in this case that implicate Presidential immunity and other strong defenses, including the Office’s failure to produce exculpatory evidence concerning the flaws with this prosecution and the Office’s false allegations.” They said prosecutors conducted their evidence review at a time when they “wholly denied the existence of Presidential immunity,” […]

— Read More: thelibertydaily.com