House GOP Majority Chair accuses him of trying to rush the case to ‘interfere with the 2024 election and stop the American people from electing Donald Trump.’
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) lodged an ethics complaint against special counsel Jack Smith on April 30, alleging that he is attempting to “unlawfully interfere with the 2024 presidential election.”
Mr. Smith is the prosecutor in charge of the federal investigations of former President Donald Trump.
A close Trump ally and House GOP conference chair, Ms. Stefanik filed the complaint with the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Justice Department, alleging that Smith is attempting to “rush” Donald 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,” Ms. Stefanik said in a statement.
“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.”
She argues that attorneys ought to be disciplined for violating a provision of the Justice Department’s manual which states that attorneys may “never select the timing of any action … for the purpose of affecting any election.”
“Smith’s conduct has brought disrepute to the Department of Justice and the entire federal government, and the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility should impose the discipline that such conduct warrants,” Stefanik said in her statement.
The New York Republican cites Mr. Smith’s courtroom conduct, which included petitioning the Supreme Court to consider President Trump’s immunity claims before their evaluation by an appeals court.
Ms. Stefanik’s complaint echoes a series of arguments presented in court by President Trump’s attorneys, namely that the volume of evidence they are required to examine is overwhelming the legal team.
She also scrutinizes Mr. Smith’s Supreme Court filings. Mr. Smith once implored the high court to bypass the appeals court and consider President Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution on account of his status as a former president. This was an atypical move that, had it been granted, would have expedited the resolution of the matter, she said.
“Aside from the upcoming election, what ‘compelling interest’ does the public have in the prompt resolution of this case?” Ms. Stefanik wrote.
Near the end of her letter, Ms. Stefanik said, “Jack Smith emphatically said that ‘no one in this country . . . is above the law.’ If that is true, then he should be open to, and welcome, an ethics investigation into conduct that, on its face, implicates potential violations of DOJ policy and multiple rules of professional conduct.”
This follows Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent question of President Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, on whether his client contested Mr. Smith’s jurisdictional authority to file charges against President Trump. Mr. Smith was appointed to his position as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Mr. Sauer stated that such concerns have not been “directly” raised by President Trump’s attorneys in the ongoing Supreme Court case. Mr. Sauer stated, however, that “it points to a very important issue here, because one of [the prosecution’s] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity,” Mr. Sauer stated.
“That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time,” he said.
“We hadn’t raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal.”
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times’s request for comment.
Naveen Athrappully contributed to this report. Please rewrite the following sentence to make it more concise:
Original sentence: “In my opinion, I believe that the new policy will be beneficial for our company.”
Revised sentence: “I believe the new policy will benefit our company.”
Source link
