Rep Elise Stefanik (R-NY) filed an ethics complaint against special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday, accusing the prosecutor overseeing the federal investigations into former President Trump of trying to “unlawfully interfere with the 2024 presidential election.” Stefanik, the House GOP conference chair and a Trump ally, filed the complaint with the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, arguing that Smith is trying to “rush” Trump’s federal election subversion case. “It’s obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election and stop the American people from electing Donald Trump," Stefanik said, The Hill reports.. “At every turn, he has sought to accelerate his illegal prosecution of President Trump for the clear (if unstated) purpose of trying him before the November election.”
Smith should be censured for violating the Justice Department’s manual, she argues, citing a section that says attorneys may “never select the timing of any action…for the purpose of affecting any election.” Stefanik cites Smith’s actions in court to support her claims of political animus, including asking the Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s immunity claims before they had yet been considered by an appeals court. The complaint is unlikely to prompt any action from the Justice Department, as Smith’s case started with an August 2023 indictment, 15 months ahead of the presidential election. The Justice Department encourages prosecutors to follow the “60-day rule” — avoiding actions that might influence an election. A prosecutor on Smith’s team handling Trump’s documents case in Mar-a-Lago made clear that Smith sees the “60-day rule” as applying to investigative steps or filing a case that could influence an election, as opposed to continuing efforts in an ongoing case. Prosecutor Jay Brat, told the judge that Smith’s team had consulted the DOJ public integrity section on the section of the manual cited by Stefanik. “That provision does not apply to cases that have already been charged, that are being litigated. It doesn’t apply to setting a trial date. We are fully in compliance,” Bratt said.
Comments