Jack Smith’s Latest Move Against Trump Gets Shredded By CBS News Legal Analyst [WATCH]

Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by the Biden-Harris Justice Department, may be jeopardizing former President Donald Trump’s right to a fair trial with his latest filing related to the January 6 case, according to legal experts.

The 165-page document submitted by Smith on Wednesday includes new allegations, which some argue could impact the impartiality of any future trial for Trump.

The document contains detailed accusations, including a claim that Trump reacted with indifference when informed that a mob was ransacking the Capitol while former Vice President Mike Pence was inside, allegedly saying, “So what?”

Patriotic beachwear for freedom lovers! Shop now and get 10% off with code RB10. Vet & LEO-founded.

Rebecca Roiphe, a legal analyst and former Manhattan federal prosecutor, commented on the unusual level of detail in the filing during a CBS News segment.

Roiphe explained that while it’s not uncommon for motions to contain factual allegations, the specificity in this case stood out. “This is an important case,” she said. “It’s responding to a ruling from the Supreme Court that was fairly vague. But there is a level of detail that one doesn’t normally see in motion filings.”

Trump’s legal team responded swiftly, accusing Smith of undermining their client’s right to a fair trial by presenting what they described as “innuendo” as fact.

They argued that Smith’s detailed filing was an attempt to sway public opinion just weeks before the 2024 presidential election.

Trump’s attorneys also claimed that Smith’s previous requests to keep witness testimony confidential, for the sake of protecting their identities, contradicted the current push for publicizing evidence.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, disagreed with Trump’s legal team’s assertion that Smith’s actions reflected partisan bias.

She ordered the release of a partially redacted transcript of Smith’s filing and noted that the former president’s claims of interference with his constitutional right to a fair trial were not without merit, given the level of detail in the case. “It’s not a far-fetched argument to make,” Roiphe commented regarding Trump’s defense team’s concerns.

In response to Smith’s filing, Trump’s lawyers also pointed to the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity for “official acts.” They argued that some of the evidence Smith has introduced may taint the jury’s perception of the former president, making a fair trial difficult. The legal team also accused Smith of presenting “immunized evidence,” which could jeopardize the fairness of the proceedings.

Jim Trusty, the former chief of the DOJ’s organized crime and gang division, echoed these concerns. He explained that the Supreme Court ruling specifies that using “immunized” information in a case can undermine the grand jury process.

Trusty emphasized that if any of the evidence presented by Smith was improperly used, it could lead to significant legal challenges. “That’s a huge landmine,” Trusty said, adding that Smith could face complications if he presented inadmissible evidence in the case.

If Smith missteps in the case, he could be forced to go back to the grand jury and potentially re-indict Trump for a third time.

This latest development adds to the legal challenges Trump is facing ahead of the 2024 election.

While the case related to the storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago has been dismissed by Florida U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the January 6 case continues under Judge Chutkan’s jurisdiction.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the various cases against him, and his legal team is preparing to defend him against the allegations.

As Trump campaigns for a return to the White House, the legal battles continue to unfold, with many legal experts and political observers watching closely to see how these cases will impact both the courtroom and the upcoming election.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.