For too long Jack Smith and the Radical Left have been doing everything they can to oppose Trump. But now, they are being held in check.
Because a top official has just dealt a major legal blow to Jack Smith.
House Representative Elise Stefanik has taken a firm stand against the Department of Justice, specifically targeting Special Counsel Jack Smith with an official ethics complaint.
This move highlights a growing concern among Americans about the weaponization of the Justice System to influence electoral outcomes, particularly with regard to the 2024 presidential election.
Filed with the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Stefanik’s complaint articulates a grave concern that Smith is orchestrating an accelerated legal attack against former President Donald Trump with the distinct aim of thwarting his potential reelection.
“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 stated, arguing that Smith’s actions could be construed as a deliberate attempt to manipulate the presidential race.
🚨🚨🚨 I just filed an official ethics complaint against Jack Smith with the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility for his illegal election interference.
It’s obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election… pic.twitter.com/lNW4MUz5Oi
— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) April 30, 2024
Stefanik, who serves as the House GOP Conference chair, has accused Smith of “abusing the resources of the federal government” in an unlawful manner to disrupt the 2024 presidential election.
She asserts that Smith’s efforts to expedite the federal January 6th case against Trump not only breach explicit Justice Department policy but also flout long-standing legal norms that protect the integrity of the electoral process.
According to the Justice Department’s own guidelines, as Stefanik points out, federal prosecutors are prohibited from timing their legal actions to influence electoral outcomes or to advantage or disadvantage any candidate or political party.
This principle is designed to maintain the impartiality of the judicial process and ensure that justice is administered without political bias or intent.
Despite these clear guidelines, Stefanik argues that Smith sought a trial start date of January 2, 2024, for Trump, which would necessitate an extraordinarily rapid review of extensive evidence—a scenario that seems both impractical and strategically timed before the November election.
“The only reason to push for such an early trial date was to work to get the case tried before the November election,” Stefanik states, suggesting that such a move is indicative of a broader strategy to damage Trump’s electoral viability rather than a pursuit of impartial justice.
Further complicating matters, Stefanik highlighted Smith’s inconsistent legal maneuvers regarding presidential immunity, like an unsuccessful attempt to have the Supreme Court expedite their decision on the matter, only to later oppose a similar request by Trump.
This, according to Stefanik, exposes a tactical approach not aimed at clarifying important legal principles but rather at securing a procedural advantage against Trump.
Moreover, Stefanik accuses Smith of violating the District Court’s stay of proceedings, an order that was meant to pause further legal actions pending appeals.
She detailed instances where Smith allegedly continued to press forward, including the delivery of thousands of pages of discovery and filing motions in court despite the stay, actions she claims clearly contravene professional conduct rules and demonstrate a disregard for lawful court orders.
Through her complaint, Stefanik is not just challenging Smith but is also calling into question the broader implications of his conduct for the rule of law and the integrity of the electoral process.
Her actions reflect a significant portion of American citizens who see these legal battles as part of a larger pattern of politicization within federal agencies, perceived by many as an effort to undermine conservative leaders and influence political outcomes under the guise of legal proceedings.
We cannot allow the Left to get away with this madness any longer.
Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.
On top of all the many very questionable things Smith has done former Reagan A.G. Edwin Meese and other legal experts have petitioned the couts concerning Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel. According to Meese Merrick Garland illegally made the appointment ignoring and abusing the existing Special Counsel Appointment rules and guidelines. According to Meese, Smith is just an ordinary citizen with”no standing” in the federal courts to indict or charge anyone with anything. Smith should be dismissed and Garland charge with treason.