Jack Smith’s J6 Case Against Trump Could Backfire Big Time, Says Former DOJ Official

In what could be a major twist in the legal battle against former President Donald Trump, a former high-ranking Justice Department official is warning that Special Counsel Jack Smith may have made a huge mistake in his January 6th case. Jim Trusty, who used to head up the DOJ’s organized crime and gangs division, believes that Smith unknowingly planted a “land mine” that could blow up in his face and derail the case against Trump.

Here’s what’s going down: Trusty pointed out that the Supreme Court recently made a ruling on presidential immunity for “official acts.” This ruling is key because it says that if a prosecutor uses “immunized” evidence—information that should be protected—it could taint the entire case. And that’s exactly what Trump’s lawyers are arguing. They claim that both Smith and the Washington, D.C. federal judge Tanya Chutkan have already laid out evidence that never should have been allowed in the first place.

Trusty explained it like this: “The opinion says not just that immunized information is not proper before the court at trial, but that it contaminates the grand jury process if you include that information in pursuing an indictment.” In other words, if Smith has already used this kind of evidence, it could make a fair trial impossible. “That’s a huge landmine,” Trusty said. If Smith guesses wrong on any of these points, he might have to go back to the grand jury and re-indict Trump for the third time—talk about a mess!

WATCH:

The issue here is bigger than just this case. Trusty emphasized that the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear: we don’t want our presidents constantly looking over their shoulders, worried about being prosecuted for actions they took while in office. “The Constitution seems to suggest… that we don’t want to have our presidents hobbled with constant fear or prosecution by state and federal prosecutors,” Trusty noted.

And get this—Smith recently filed a second, revised indictment against Trump, claiming that Trump directed Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the 2020 election results. But in an interesting twist, Smith started referring to Pence as “President of the Senate” instead of vice president. Why? It looks like he’s trying to sidestep the broad immunity that presidents have for their official acts. But even with this change, the case has been effectively frozen since December, thanks to Trump’s appeal for immunity that’s winding its way through the courts.

Now, here’s where it gets really juicy. With the case likely stuck in legal limbo until after the November election, there’s a real chance it won’t be resolved before voters head to the polls. And if Trump wins in 2024? He’s expected to order the DOJ to fire Smith and shut down the case altogether.

This situation is heating up fast, and it could have massive implications not just for Trump, but for how future presidents are treated under the law. One thing’s for sure—this battle is far from over, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Stay tuned, because this one’s going to be a wild ride!