Judge’s lawfare campaign against Trump condemned as ‘bad detective fiction’

A Democrat-run lawfare campaign against President Donald Trump, which largely has been endorsed by a federal judge through her one-sided rulings, is being condemned as “bad detective fiction.”

An expert on constitutional disputes explained, “A lot of it is irrelevant and inadmissible. … It seems like deliberate election interference.”

WND has reported a federal judge in Washington, who has established her own bias by repeatedly and publicly criticizing and condemning Trump, has taken Jack Smith’s edited claims against Trump regarding the 2020 election and shoved them at voters just in time for Democrats to use them in their campaign against him.

It was Tanya Chutkan, who is hearing Smith’s claims that it was criminal for Trump to disbelieve and challenge the 2020 count, who unsealed Smith’s 165-page “immunity motion” “to do the maximum damage to Trump before the election.”

Department of Justice standards previously have been that no such case, no such motion should be made public in the immediate runup to an election, when that case could affect the election.

The players here, Chutkan and Smith, apparently have abandoned that level of nonpartisanship.

The motion came about because Chutkan, in a hurry to try make the most of the attack on Trump, ruled earlier that Trump had no immunity for his actions as president. But she didn’t establish any sort of evidence on the dispute. The Supreme Court pointed that out when it confirmed Trump does have various levels of immunity at different times, and it sent the case back to Chutkan.

Smith, appointed by Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice to carry out this arm of the lawfare that has been assembled against Trump, submitted his claims now that Trump was a “private” individual for all regards concerning his re-election.

Now the Daily Caller News Foundation notes that Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is charging that Smith is tainting the jury pool with the public release of his unproven claims.

“The point of this was to try to get this information, which has been hashed out again and again before the American people. None of this is new, but the idea was to get the evidence out in as spectacular a way as possible. And by Smith’s light, hopefully get Trump convicted in the run-up to the election in hopes of influencing the outcome of the election. And now we have the release of this book-length size recitation of Smith’s case under circumstances where there is no possibility of having this trial before November and there was no reason to have it brought out in public now,” McCarthy said.

He continued, “In fact, in most cases, a judge would be concerned about, for example, poisoning or prejudicing against the defendant a jury pool. In most cases a judge would be very concerned that evidence not be broadcast in public without the usual due process cautions that go on in a trial that the defendant be presumed innocent, the fact that allegations are not evidence of anything.

“The point of releasing this now can only be to affect the election. There is no legal need for it.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation also noted that it was Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett who likened Smith’s filing to “bad detective fiction” and using it to influence the election.

He explained,. “Yeah, he’s trying to have a damning trial of Trump without a trial in the face of the fact that he couldn’t get a trial before the election. And, you know, releasing this motion, this court filing, it sure looks like blatant election interference.”

He said, “Trump’s lawyers urged the judge, keep it sealed. It will impact the election. The judge did it anyway with almost no discussion and there’s no good reason to make it public. It’s premature. There isn’t even a trial date. So, I think this was done knowing full well media and Democrats would seize on provocative details, publicize it to affect voters and damage Trump and sure enough, as I looked at television, the internet and newspapers, that’s what’s happening.”

He said, “At times it reads like bad detective fiction. A lot of it is irrelevant and inadmissible. Conversations that other people had that are not connected to Trump directly. So, it seems like deliberate election interference and the incendiary details notwithstanding, Smith’s basic accusations are the same that we have heard all along. Nothing has changed, the theme that Trump deceived people, well, if he honestly believed he won, it’s hard to prove otherwise.”

Smith’s claims include, “The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted—a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role,” the Gateway Pundit quoted.

In fact, many of Trump’s actions and comments were, in fact, as president, not a private individual.

Article III Project founder Mike Davis explained, on Chutkan’s newest “lawfare” against Trump.

“The Biden-Harris Justice Department waited nearly three years to bring two unprecedented indictments against their bosses’ former and future chief political opponent. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, halted this unprecedented lawfare and obvious election interference.”

He added, “Undeterred by these major legal setbacks, the Biden-Harris DOJ and DC Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan are unnecessarily and shamefully releasing a one-sided political story—for the non-crime of objecting to a presidential election just like Democrats did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017—during the height of 2024 presidential election season.

“The American people—not partisan Democrat prosecutors, judges, witnesses, and other operatives in Democrat hellholes like DC—get to decide the presidential election.”

He called for Trump, if president in January 2025, to have the DOJ “fully investigate this criminal conspiracy against rights.”

BREAKING: Judge Chutkan just unsealed Jack Smith’s “immunity motion” explaining why the remainder of his J6 indictment against Donald Trump is not subjected to presidential immunity per SCOTUS ruling.

Just in time as Harris/Walz try to make J6 a top campaign issue: pic.twitter.com/8mM6QyKqRr

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) October 2, 2024

WND had reported only hours earlier on a commentary that explained there were multiple suspicious circumstances of that election:

– President Donald Trump set a record for votes, but career political hack Joe Biden got MILLIONS more? That would be millions more votes than the super-popular Barack Obama had gotten previously.

– State and local elections officials repeatedly broke their own state laws to count votes during COVID, including accepting ballots long after the legal deadline had passed.

– Mark Zuckerberg handed out some $400 million to local elections officials to help with deal with election requirements, and those officials often used the flood of cash to recruit Democrat voters, a campaign financing scandal that now is illegal in some states.

– The FBI and other federal agencies, conspiring with major media and tech corporations, falsely claimed that the details about the Biden family scandals documented in Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were disinformation, and ordered the details suppressed. The scandals were true.

– A later polling showed that had that information been available ordinarily, enough voters would have withheld their support from Joe Biden to cause him to lose the election.

– Multiple lawsuits alleging elections misbehavior simply were tossed by judges who claimed the plaintiffs had no “standing,” or valid interest in the alleged wrongdoing, so the actual claims, the merits of the lawsuits, never were addressed.

Even so, Democrats have claimed those who have doubts are “insurrectionists,” leftist judges have used those thoughts against those who trespassed at the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021, and extremists like Colorado’s secretary of state, Jena Griswold, even have campaigned to ban Trump from the ballot over the issue.

Now Julie Kelly, a Real Clear Investigations researcher and writer and self-described “insurrection denier,” explains online that those opinions are legitimate.

DOJ and federal judges have made election “denial” a crime in Washington. J6ers texts and memes about the 2020 election are used as incriminating evidence and reason for excessive sentences. Judges routinely berate J6ers for believing “lies” from a “charlatan” that the 2020…

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) October 2, 2024

She wrote, “DOJ and federal judges have made election ‘denial’ a crime in Washington. J6ers texts and memes about the 2020 election are used as incriminating evidence and reason for excessive sentences. Judges routinely berate J6ers for believing ‘lies’ from a ‘charlatan’ that the 2020 election was stolen.

“Except it’s not a crime to believe the 2020 election was illegitimate because it was. Two-thirds of Republicans still believe it was an unlawful election; independents have trended in that direction over the past 4 years.”