Jack Smith, Attorney General Garland's appointed special counsel to examine the possibility of pressing criminal charges against former President Donald Trump over possessing documents that were marked classified in his home in Mar-a-Lago and over his 2020 election challenges and the January 6th riot, is reportedly close to closing his investigations, according to Just the News.
Once he does, Mr. Smith will have to either press charges against Trump, recommend Garland press charges, or not press charges against Trump. Mr. Garland appointed Mr. Smith to his post in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid and after Trump announced his intent to seek the presidency once again in 2024.
Trump's legal team recently requested a meeting with the special counsel in a letter released to the public. In that letter, Trump's lawyers claimed that the investigation of their client treated him "unfairly". They further noted that "[n]o president of the United States has ever, in the history of our country, been baselessly investigated in such an outrageous and unlawful fashion." They also called the investigation an "ongoing injustice".
WILL YOU VOTE FOR TRUMP? NEW POLL SHOWS TRUMP WITH 42 POINT LEAD OVER NEAREST REPUBLICAN COMPETITOR IN KEY EARLY PRIMARY STATE
Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) has echoed the sentiments against the probe. Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, wrote, "President Trump did nothing wrong and his home was raided. Rachael Rollins, a Biden appointed U.S. Attorney, lied to investigators and may have improperly sought to influence an election, but Merrick Garland refused to prosecute. Americans are tired of the double standard."
President Trump did nothing wrong and his home was raided.— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) May 24, 2023
Rachael Rollins, a Biden appointed U.S. Attorney, lied to investigators and may have improperly sought to influence an election, but Merrick Garland refused to prosecute.
Americans are tired of the double standard.
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote an article about the Rollins case and how it could undermine the probe against Trump if charges are pressed. He wrote, "[w]hile I continue to doubt the viability of criminal charges based on Trump’s speech before the Jan. 6, 2021 riot on Capitol Hill, I have repeatedly said that the Mar-a-Lago matter could present a serious threat for Trump...Now, the Justice Department is considering charges against Trump for false statements given to investigators on classified material at Mar-a-Lago. (He also faces other possible legal action, of course, including potential state charges in Georgia for election law violations.) With Rollins, after an investigation found that she lied to investigators, the DOJ refused to file any charges at all."
"It is unclear what the DOJ felt was lacking in those findings or the underlying evidence," he observed. "However, as shown by prior declinations — in cases like the contempt referral against former Attorney General Eric Holder, or the determination that former FBI Director James Comey removed FBI material and, through a friend, leaked it to the media — the Justice Department often seems to find insurmountable problems when asked to charge a fellow prosecutor or investigator."
The Rollins case could be raised by the Trump team with other declined criminal cases as evidence of selective prosecution, if Trump is indicted. Although some in the media will cry “whataboutism,” charging decisions are made in the context of other cases to ensure consistency and to avoid selective prosecution. While state and city prosecutors like Alvin Bragg and Letitia James may run for office on promises of selectively targeting Trump, federal prosecutors usually aspire to a higher standard."