CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson on Thursday expressed concern about the timing of special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against former President Donald Trump, given how “close” it is to the November election.
Judge Tanya Chutkan is holding a hearing Thursday in the case, the first since the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity and Smith’s recent superseding indictment against Trump, according to CNN. Jackson, on “CNN News Central,” told host Sara Sidner Trump’s lawyers are justified in objecting to the case proceeding because of the approaching election. (RELATED: ‘Political Judiciary’: Kamala Harris’ Antics During Nomination Hearings Indicate ‘Radical’ Judges She Would Nominate)
WATCH:
CNN Legal Analyst Says It’s ‘Troubling’ How ‘Close’ Jack Smith’s Trump Case Is ‘To The Election’ pic.twitter.com/XzntirD78s
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 5, 2024
“We want to always have a system that‘s looked about to be fair, to be just and to be really locked in on the issues. Now, to that point, this is locking in on the issues to the extent that you’re getting into the merits and arguments as to what’s official, what’s unofficial, immunity, et cetera,” Jackson said. “However, because of the backdrop of the election, you have to be careful. There are going to be those elements that say, ‘Whoa, what suspicious timing.'”
“And it’s interesting because it’s hard to have these discussions about law and make them strictly about law. There‘s a political element that comes into it, particularly this close to the election. So you really want to make sure the American public has confidence in doing that,” he continued. “The proximity is a little bit troubling.”
Smith’s superseding indictment against Trump in the case consists of the same four conspiracy and obstruction charges as the original indictment, but is a condensed version in light of the presidential immunity ruling. The Supreme Court found that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” taken in office.
“What he wanted to do was really focus an indictment to take it out of the actual presidential realm and put it into the campaign realm … I’m speaking about the notion that you want to couch and present any argument relating to the president as he was campaigning, right?” Jackson added. “This was in efforts to campaign to forward his campaign and to really elect him as president, not presidential acts.”
“And so I think the essence of it, when you look at the new indictment from the old one is the manner in which they take out issues relating to the official activities and really making it relating to the campaign. And that’s really a 101 dynamic. And I think that is what they‘re going to press forward,” he continued. “What I think the similarity is, and let’s be clear about this, is that the charges remain the same. And so there are many ways to get to the same result in terms of interfering with the election and what you’re doing. And so factually, I think the facts and the meat on the bone are there. I think the way it’s structured is still there.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
