The Left has proven that they will not rest until Donald Trump is locked up. But things aren’t going so well for them.
And now Jack Smith has suffered a massive legal blow after a recent Trump decision.
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan has once again stepped up to defend not only former President Donald Trump but also the integrity of the American electoral process.
On Friday, Jordan sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding transparency and accountability regarding the superseding indictment filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump on August 27.
The letter is a powerful rebuke of what Jordan describes as a politically motivated prosecution, designed to undermine Trump’s presidential campaign and manipulate the upcoming election.
The superseding indictment filed by Jack Smith is the latest in a long line of legal attacks against Donald Trump, all of which have raised serious concerns about the politicization of the Department of Justice under the Biden administration.
Smith’s indictment comes in the wake of a Supreme Court opinion issued on July 1, which firmly established the boundaries of presidential immunity and criticized Smith for violating this constitutional principle in his relentless pursuit of Trump.
Jordan’s letter makes it clear that Smith’s actions are not only constitutionally dubious but also politically motivated. The superseding indictment was filed just ten days before early voting began in several states—a move that Jordan argues is a blatant violation of the Department of Justice’s long-standing policy to avoid any prosecutorial actions that could influence an election.
One of the cornerstones of the Department of Justice’s commitment to fair elections is the so-called “60-day rule,” an informal but widely accepted guideline that federal prosecutors should refrain from taking significant legal actions against a candidate within 60 days of an election.
This rule is designed to protect the sanctity of the electoral process and ensure that the American people, not the courts, decide who should lead the country.
Jordan’s letter highlights that across administrations, both Republican and Democrat, the DOJ has adhered to this principle.
In fact, some senior DOJ officials have argued that the prohibition should extend even beyond 60 days. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates suggested a 90-day period to avoid any actions that could significantly impact an election, a sentiment echoed by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Yet, in blatant disregard for this policy, Jack Smith pushed forward with a superseding indictment against Trump, just as the 2024 election is heating up. Jordan rightly points out that this timing cannot be a coincidence. The intent seems clear: to sabotage Trump’s campaign and tilt the election in favor of the Biden-Harris ticket.
Jordan’s letter leaves no room for ambiguity when it comes to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s role in this debacle. According to Jordan, there are only two possibilities: either Garland personally approved the superseding indictment, fully aware that it violated the DOJ’s policy and could unduly influence the election, or he allowed Smith to proceed without proper oversight.
Neither scenario reflects well on Garland or the Biden administration’s commitment to the rule of law. If Garland approved the indictment, it would be a clear indication that the DOJ is being weaponized against Trump, using the full force of the federal government to eliminate a political rival.
On the other hand, if Garland did not approve the indictment, it raises serious questions about his ability to manage the DOJ and ensure that its actions are consistent with the Constitution and longstanding policies.
Jim Jordan has long been a stalwart defender of conservative values and the rule of law. His demand for transparency from the DOJ is not only a defense of Trump but also a defense of the American electoral process.
Jordan’s letter demands that Garland provide all relevant documents and communications related to the superseding indictment by September 13, a deadline that will test whether the DOJ is truly committed to accountability.
Jordan’s actions stand in stark contrast to the partisan machinations of Jack Smith and the Biden DOJ. While the Democrats continue to use every tool at their disposal to undermine Trump, Jordan is fighting to ensure that the American people have the opportunity to decide the outcome of the 2024 election, free from the influence of politically motivated prosecutions.
The actions of the Biden DOJ under Merrick Garland have raised serious concerns about the politicization of law enforcement in America. From the moment Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2024, the DOJ has been relentless in its pursuit of legal actions designed to derail his campaign.
These efforts have included investigations, indictments, and now, a superseding indictment that comes suspiciously close to the election.
It is clear that the Biden administration is more interested in eliminating Trump as a political rival than in upholding the rule of law. The DOJ’s actions are not only unconstitutional but also a direct threat to the democratic process. By using the power of the federal government to target a political opponent, the Biden administration is engaging in the kind of behavior that is typically associated with authoritarian regimes, not with the United States of America.
Jim Jordan’s demand for transparency and accountability from the DOJ is a crucial step in protecting the integrity of the 2024 election and defending the rule of law.
As the Biden administration continues its politically motivated prosecution of Donald Trump, it is more important than ever that conservative leaders like Jordan stand up to defend the principles that make America great.
The American people deserve to know whether the DOJ is being used as a political weapon, and they deserve to have confidence that the upcoming election will be free and fair. By demanding answers from Merrick Garland, Jim Jordan is not only defending Trump but also defending the very foundation of American democracy.
Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.
