During a recent interview with Fox News, legal analyst Gregg Jarrett slammed Special Counsel Jack Smith's filing of charges against former president Trump and compared it to "bad detective fiction."
Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District of Columbia decided to release the brief submitted by Special Counsel Jack Smith on Thursday regarding federal election interference allegations against former President Trump. The brief aimed to address the Supreme Court's ruling of presidential immunity but Jarrett asserted that this release was the definition of "blatant election interference."
“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,” Jarrett claimed. “And, you know, releasing this motion, this court filing, it sure looks like blatant election interference.”
WATCH:
“Lawrence, you know, 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,” he said. “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.”
Jarrett claims that Special Counsel Jack Smith is rehashing his previous accusations that the Supreme Court already ruled on.
“At times it reads like bad detective fiction. A lot of it is irrelevant and inadmissible,” Jarrett said. “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.”
Fox & Friends Co-Host Ainsley Earhardt asked Jarrett if this was simply an end-run around the Supreme Court ruling.
“His great challenge is to somehow circumvent the immunity decision here,” he answered. “That’s what this motion is all about. The problem for Smith is a lot of his evidence and testimony comes from public officials and their conversations with Trump, including the vice president. Under the Supreme Court decision, that may well be protected information and thus inadmissible. In the filing, Smith asserts nothing’s protected and then all of the sudden he concedes well, some of it is protected and immune but I can rebut the presumption of immunity.”