Rep. Stefanik Ethics Charge: Election Interference by Smith

(Getty Images)

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., on Tuesday filed an ethics complaint with the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility against special counsel Jack Smith, accusing him of trying to “unlawfully interfere with the 2024 presidential election” with his rush to bring former President Donald Trump to trial in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 incidents at the Capitol.

“It’s obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election and stop the American people from electing Donald Trump,” the New York Republican said in a statement announcing the complaint. “At every turn, he has sought to accelerate his illegal prosecution of President Trump for the clear (if unstated) purpose of trying him before the November election.”

Stefanik further argued that Smith, through his push to bring court cases against Trump, is in violation of a section of the DOJ’s manual that says attorneys may “never select the timing of any action…for the purpose of affecting any election.”

“Smith’s conduct has brought disrepute to the Department of Justice and the entire federal government, and the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility should impose the discipline that such conduct warrants,” she said.

“At every turn, he has sought to accelerate his illegal prosecution of President Trump for the clear (if unstated) purpose of trying him before the November election. The Justice Department’s own policies clearly prohibit Smith from doing so, and as a DOJ employee he is bound by those policies.”

Stefanik said in the complaint that Smith first violated the policies in August 2023 when he petitioned the court for a January 2, 2024, trial date.

“There exist approximately thirteen million pages of discovery for President Trump to review, plus thousands of hours of camera footage,” she said. “Prosecutors bringing a case of this complexity – with so many consequential and novel legal issues to sort out – would normally never seek to bring it to trial within five months. The only reason to push for such an early trial date was to work to get the case tried before the November election.”

She added that Smith further violated the DOJ provision in December by petitioning the Supreme Court to fast-track Trump’s immunity arguments, which the court denied.

But two months later, when Trump petitioned on the issue of presidential immunity, Smith opposed the move, saying the nation had a “‘compelling interest’ in the ‘prompt resolution of this case,’” Stefanik wrote.

“Aside from the upcoming election, what ‘compelling interest’ does the public have in the prompt resolution of this case,” she argued in her letter to the DOJ’s ethics office. “Why should this interest — based on an unstated reason — override the due process rights of a criminal defendant?”