Jack Smith, the Biden Justice Department special counsel who on Wednesday released new J6 allegations against former President Donald Trump, may be jeopardizing Trump’s right to a “fair trial,” according to one CBS analyst.
Rebecca Roiphe, a legal contributor with the network and former Manhattan federal prosecutor, commented on the “unusual” level of details submitted by Smith in his filing. Among the most notable was an alleged story that President Trump, upon learning that a mob was ransacking the Capitol building while former Vice President Mike Pence was inside, replied “So what?” The host asked Roiphe how a jury may view the evidence presented by Smith.
“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, the Daily Caller reported. “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.”
Lawyers for President Trump quickly responded, telling U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that Smith was violating their client’s right to a fair trial by introducing innuendo as facts. Chutkan disagreed that Smith exhibited a “bad-faith partisan bias” as the defense framed it, and ordered the release of a partially redacted transcript of Smith’s filing. “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.
Shortly before the 165-page document was filed by Smith, Trump’s attorneys countered with a filing of their own, arguing the prosecutor is pursuing the court of public opinion by publicizing witness testimony just a month before the election. Furthermore, they wrote, Smith’s sudden interest in publicizing testimony flies in the face of his earlier requests to keep witness statements confidential in order to protect their identities.
Most legal observers expect that if President Trump wins, he will immediately move to dismiss Smith’s last remaining case as soon as he takes office. A second related to the storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago has already been dismissed after Florida U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Smith was improperly appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Judge Chutkan, an Obama appointee, has allowed Smith’s J6 case to continue even though it is certain to remain unresolved before Election Day. Other observers believe Smith may already have spelled the end of his case by introducing “immunized evidence” that jeopardizes Trump’s right to a fair trial.
Jim Trusty, the former chief of the DOJ’s arm to combat organized crime and gangs, said the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity for “official acts” specifically refers to how the introduction of “immunized” evidence can play a role in tainting a jury’s perception of a defendant. This is especially important considering arguments by lawyers for Trump that Smith and Judge Chutkan have already outlined evidence against the former president that should have been inadmissible. Speaking about the high court, Trusty said, “The opinion says not just that immunized information is not proper before the court at trial, but that it contaminates the grand jury process if you include that information in pursuing an indictment.”
In other words, the Biden prosecutor has already disclosed evidence against President Trump that will make a fair trial impossible. “That’s a huge landmine,” Trusty continued. “He’s trying to get in front of it before Judge Chutkan has to rule on all of these acts to decide which stuff is fair game or which stuff isn’t. But the problem is, if he guesses wrong in one instance – if he says ‘Oh, the president was consulting Mike Pence, the president of the Senate, not the vice president’ as part of this new indictment – then if he gets it wrong once, he’s got the same problem. He’s gotta go back to the grand jury, re-indict for the third time, based on this ruling from the Supreme Court.”
Smith’s strategy has sparked debate among legal experts, with some questioning whether his approach might backfire, complicating the prosecution’s efforts to secure a conviction. Critics argue that by revealing too much information prematurely, Smith may inadvertently provide Trump’s defense team with the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of the proceedings, potentially citing prejudicial pre-trial publicity and violations of due process.
Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team is preparing to challenge the admissibility of the evidence introduced by Smith, especially the testimony they claim is “immunized” under executive privilege. They argue that Smith’s reliance on this type of evidence not only violates Trump’s constitutional rights but also risks setting a dangerous precedent for how former presidents are prosecuted in the future. If the judge sides with Trump’s attorneys, it could lead to portions of Smith’s case being dismissed or delayed.
Additionally, some Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators have seized upon the controversy to argue that the case is politically motivated. They assert that the timing of the new allegations, so close to the 2024 election, is a deliberate attempt to undermine Trump’s candidacy. Smith and his team, however, have maintained that the timing is purely coincidental and that their actions are driven solely by the need for justice and accountability.
