In every modern presidential election, there is what has become known as the “October Surprise.” It has become such a regular part of the late election season that it is only a surprise if there is not one.
In years gone by, the surprise was some unanticipated and unplanned event – such as the economic crash that catapulted Barack Obama into the presidency over John McCain. Sometimes the surprise is the result of a dubious action by a person or agency with an arguably partisan perspective – such as FBI Director Comey’s reopening the Hillary Clinton case on the eve of the 2016 election, only to abruptly close it again.
Now we have the unsealing of the 190-page prosecutorial brief against President Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith. There is only one reason Smith asked the brief to be unsealed in October – and Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to do so – and that is to influence the outcome of the presidential race to Trump’s detriment.
There are many reasons why this action at this time was inappropriate and outrageous. But there can be no question as to its political motivation. That is clear because there is no compelling reason for the one-sided prosecutorial brief to be made public.
This is not a verdict on the issues. Under the American system of justice, the defendant – in this case Trump — is perceived to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That essential part of the process will not take place until after the election. Trump will have no opportunity to defend himself against the charges before the election.
The document does not establish guilt – and many of the allegations are highly disputable. There is even a question as to whether this revised brief will pass muster with the Supreme Court, which has recognized a level of immunity for presidents acting in an official capacity. Whether the actions cited in Smith’s brief are private or presidential is still debatable even as crafted in this latest revision.
In fact, it is unprecedented for the prosecutor to reveal their case before the defense has asked for – and have adjudicated – a dismissal request. Smith was running over rules and tradition to get this brief into the public sector.
In addition, the Department of Justice has a policy against taking action in matters close to an election. It is Rule 9-85.500 states (highlight added):
“Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
Smith is attempting to influence public opinion ahead of the election in violation of the DOJ’s own rules … period.
Smith well knows that political operatives and biased media will use the information as campaign fodder. Democrats and the left-leaning media will not remind voters that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. They will not offer up the defense arguments.
MSNBC radical left-winger Lawrence O’Donnell has already played judge and jury, declaring that the prosecutorial brief proves Trump to be criminally guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That arrogance (from a guy who personifies arrogance) is not only a lie, but a contemptuous disregard for the entire American judicial system.
Trump can get into hyperbole in his criticism of the Justice Department as an agency driven by political influences, but he is not always wrong – and certainly not wrong in this case.
Those in charge of the Justice system are not only supposed to avoid political bias, but even the appearance of political motivations. In this instance, the DOJ and the courts have gone far beyond a mere appearance – and have waded into the murky waters of politicized justice – or more accurately injustice.
While the action is intended to hurt Trump, it is the Department of Justice that loses credibility. It makes a mockery of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s recent proclamation that the DOJ operates only on law and evidence – immune to political influences and other considerations. (I will pause while you regain your composure.)
I do not always agree with Trump’s accusations against all of the various prosecutorial offices that have gone after him – but in this case, he is spot on. This is nothing less than an effort to use (abuse) the justice system for political purposes – to influence an election.
Is this the October Surprise – or is there more to come?
So, there ‘tis.