Jack Smith’s evidence dump isn’t driven by a pursuit of justice, but rather by a personal vendetta against Trump.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a substantial motion arguing that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision should not hinder his DC election case against Donald Trump.

His filing, which comes at a time when the case is already on indefinite hold until after the election, appears to be more political than legal, demonstrating Smith’s focus on “getting Trump” by any means rather than seeking justice.

The timing of this filing also contradicts the Department of Justice’s self-imposed “60-day Rule,” which aims to prevent any prosecutorial actions that could sway the election so close to the voting date.

Smith could have agreed to a defense proposal to suspend the case and all filings until after the election without facing any legal repercussions. However, he chose not to.

Tall order

It is evident that Smith has abandoned his neutrality as a prosecutor and taken on a more aggressive stance.

Despite facing setbacks in his legal pursuits against Trump, with his Florida case being dismissed entirely and the Supreme Court rejecting his claims of presidential immunity absence, Smith is persistently trying to portray Trump as a criminal in the eyes of the public.

If the case proceeds for review, it is expected that the Supreme Court will likely invalidate most of Smith’s charges and the sensational details included in his motion in light of the immunity ruling.

Proving that Trump’s actions were unofficial and not protected by presidential immunity will be a formidable challenge for Smith.

In trying to distinguish Trump’s campaign activities as unofficial acts, Smith may face skepticism from the Court.

Trump’s assertions about election fairness are within a president’s jurisdiction to communicate and have implications on foreign perceptions of the American democratic system, emphasizing the president’s discretion in such matters.

Joe Biden as a lame-duck president could similarly express opinions on election fairness without legal consequences, paralleling Trump’s actions.

Big problem

If the case proceeds to trial, Smith will confront challenges in proving Trump’s criminal intent, specifically his belief in the election loss, a critical aspect of the case.

>The contention over whether Trump accepted election defeat is complex and doesn’t align with a straightforward narrative.

While Trump has not openly acknowledged losing the 2020 election, he demonstrated compliance after the election results, although he harbors doubts about the fairness of the outcome.

Despite his actions like transferring presidency peacefully and attempting to deter rioters, Trump remains steadfast in his belief of election impropriety.

Irrespective of personal views, Trump’s skepticism of election fairness is deeply rooted and could pose a significant hurdle for Smith in the case.

Smith should reevaluate his approach to ensure a fair trial, respecting Trump’s presumption of innocence and avoiding potential election interference with his contentious arguments.

Andrew Cherkasky (@CherkaskyLaw) and Katie Cherkasky (@CherkaskyKatie) are military veterans, former federal prosecutors, and current criminal defense attorneys. They authored the book “Woke Warriors.”