Expert Warns of Major Weakness in Jack Smith’s Latest Indictment

A former high-level Justice Department official expressed concern on Tuesday regarding Jack Smith’s handling of the J6 case against former President Donald Trump, suggesting that he has inadvertently placed a “land mine” in his legal strategy that could backfire.

Jim Trusty, who previously served as the chief of the DOJ’s organized crime and gangs section, highlighted the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity concerning “official acts.” He noted how the introduction of “immunized” evidence could significantly influence a jury’s perspective of a defendant. Given arguments from Trump’s legal team asserting that Smith and Judge Tanya Chutkan of the Washington, D.C. federal court have improperly outlined evidence that should not be permissible, Trusty articulated the stakes involved. “The opinion indicates that not only is immunized information inappropriate in court, but its inclusion can taint the grand jury’s process leading to an indictment,” he stated.

Trusty expanded on the ramifications of prosecutors disclosing evidence related to President Trump, asserting it complicates the pursuit of a fair trial. “That’s a monumental concern,” he warned. “Smith is attempting to preemptively manage these issues before Judge Chutkan rules on what evidence is permissible. If he missteps, even once—such as incorrectly referring to the president’s consultation with Mike Pence, titling him as the president of the Senate instead of the vice president—he risks the necessity to re-indict based on the Supreme Court ruling.”

When discussing the complexities of prosecuting a current or former president, Trusty emphasized the intent behind the U.S. Constitution. “The founding document is clear in its aim to prevent presidents from being burdened by the constant threat of prosecution by state and federal authorities,” Trusty articulated. This underscores a broader concern about the legal frameworks governing the actions of elected officials during and after their time in power.

WATCH:

On the same day, Smith introduced a second, amended indictment against Trump, asserting that he directed Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results. A key objection in this indictment is the wording change, referring to Pence as the “President of the Senate,” which has raised eyebrows among legal observers who believe this effort is designed to evade the broad protections traditionally afforded to presidential conduct during their time in office.

Despite potential legal maneuvering, Smith’s amended indictment may prove futile; the case has been stalled since December while Trump’s immunity appeal wended through the court system, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. The likelihood of reaching a judgment before the November elections appears slim, and should Trump secure the presidency again, it is anticipated that he would direct the DOJ to terminate Smith’s case entirely.

(FREE RED HAT: “Impeached. Arrested. Convicted. Shot. Still Standing”)