Jack Smith is still targeting Donald Trump

| 12:01 pm EDT September 26, 2024
Dear Palmer Report readers, we all understand the difficult era we're heading into. Major media outlets are caving to Trump already. Even the internet itself and publishing platforms may be at risk. But Palmer Report is nonetheless going to lead the fight. We're funding our 2025 operating expenses now, so we can keep publishing no matter what happens. I'm asking you to contribute if you can, because the stakes are just so high. You can donate here.

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith remains hot on the trail of former criminal president Donald Trump for his 2020 election interference. He objected to Trump’s “inappropriate” filing, which was supposed to address discovery. Instead, he used it to “air his grievances,” which are not at all related to Smith’s filing. Because of that, Smith would like to file another document, which is referred to as a sur-reply.

Once a party files a reply, the other side must seek permission to reply to his reply (or sur-reply). In his request filing, Smith wrote: “The defendant further attempts to use his reply as a vehicle to seek other inappropriate relief, such as dismissal on grounds not previously argued and reconsideration of the Court’s prior order denying dismissal on an unsupported claim of selective and vindictive prosecution.” In other words, Trump attorneys were trying to do something on the sly, but Smith is far too savvy for that. Smith further wrote: “The additional arguments asserted by the defendant in his reply—as well as the requests for relief that are improperly embedded in a filing that should be limited to discovery issues—warrant a further, tailored response.” With that, he asked permission to file an “outsized brief.” Briefs are typically confined to a 45-page limit; however, Smith asked for permission to file an up to 200-page sur-reply to quash Trump’s inappropriate arguments and fully lay out his case.

Trump’s attorneys objected, which former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance called “ridiculous.” Trump’s attorneys even used Trump’s favorite word, “unfair,” in attempting to block Smith’s brief. This case was already complex, but given SCOTUS’s ruling, it has now become even more complex. Smith is determined to show that Trump broke federal law, and he did so not as “president” Trump but as “candidate” Trump. Smith’s brief is expected to reveal evidence to the public that has not been released. In fact, according to Salon, some legal experts said that Smith “is about to drop a bomb on Trump.” Good.

Ty Cobb, former White House attorney under Trump, spoke with Salon about recent events with this case. He said the large filing is “appropriate and necessary” because of SCOTUS’s ruling. Cobb is already anticipating that the evidence “will be powerful, undeniable and persuasive.” Judge Chutkan has a difficult decision to make, and Smith is trying to make it simple for her. James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, agreed with Cobb. Sample said: “An oversized, highly detailed legal brief, detailing with as much factual specificity as is possible, is not only appropriate but necessary.” He went on to call SCOTUS “nakedly partisan,” and they are. They no longer rely on the rule of law, especially where Donald Trump is concerned. Sample said that Smith’s filing could turn out to be “a service to the nation.”

If Smith’s evidence is that powerful and Trump loses the election, Smith will be doing a great service to us by convicting Trump. Trump’s actions were not done under the color of the office of the presidency. Trump, mad that he lost, decided he would take matters into his own hands. He should not have done so, and this prosecution needs to move forward.