Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett made striking allegations against Special Counsel Jack Smith, labeling him as “partisan” and asserting that Smith had already formed a definitive opinion on whether to indict former President Donald Trump.
These claims emerged on Thursday, fueling further debate surrounding the ongoing probe into the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol building. Former President Trump himself disclosed on July 18 that he had received a letter from the Justice Department, notifying him that he was a target of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
In a noteworthy development, a federal grand jury has now issued an indictment against Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago, which is the Florida estate owned by former President Trump. This adds to the existing indictment that Special Counsel Smith had already secured against Trump back in June.
With such allegations of partisanship and prejudgment swirling around the investigation, the case continues to draw attention and scrutiny from all sides. As the legal proceedings unfold, the public awaits further insights into the investigation and its potential ramifications.
“I think Jack Smith has made up his mind. He is a partisan. He has brought other politically-driven cases and been roundly spanked by the U.S. Supreme Court for contorting the law and twisting the facts, unanimously reversed in the Bob McDonald case,” Jarrett told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow, a former Trump administration official.
“I think that he knows he can’t bring a case based on the president’s speech, incitement of violence or a seditious conspiracy, so he’s grabbing a couple of very broad statutes, one of which is conspiracy to defraud the government,” Jarrett continued.
Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis announced in April that a probe into his efforts to contest that state’s results in the 2020 presidential election could lead to the indictment of Trump.
“If Donald Trump truly believed that he won the election and decided he was going to employ the Electoral Count Act to challenge the certification of electors exactly as Democrats did four years earlier, that’s not a conspiracy to defraud the government because it requires deceit, craft, trickery and dishonestly, and if he truly believes something and you think you’re acting lawfully, that ain’t fraud,” Jarrett said.
