The letter, dispatched on Friday, calls for the release of documents, communications, and other relevant information concerning the superseding indictment filed against Donald Trump by special counsel Jack Smith on August 27. The letter also questions whether Garland personally sanctioned the indictment.
According to The Post Millennial, Jordan's letter highlights the Supreme Court's presidential immunity opinion issued on July 1. The opinion outlines the boundaries of presidential immunity and criticizes Special Counsel Jack Smith for infringing upon this Constitutional principle in his political prosecution of President Donald J. Trump. The letter, which was obtained by the Daily Caller, states, "Special Counsel Smith appears to have violated longstanding Department policy intended to protect our democratic processes."
WE KNEW JAMES CARVILLE WAS NUTS BUT THIS ONE TAKES THE CAKE!
On August 27, Smith filed the superseding indictment to rectify the constitutional defects inherent in his initial indictment. Jordan's letter points out that the Department of Justice, across different administrations, has strived to uphold the sanctity of the electoral process by adhering to a '60-day rule.' This rule discourages federal prosecutors from returning indictments against a candidate for office within 60 days of a primary or general election.
BIDEN’S BIG TELEWORK PLAY: WHY FEDERAL WORKERS ARE CELEBRATING AND TRUMP’S TEAM IS FUMING!
While this rule is not formally codified, Jordan emphasizes its wide acceptance as a critical measure for safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process. He also mentions that some senior DOJ officials have extended this prohibition beyond 60 days. Jordan cites former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who suggested a 90-day timeline to the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General, if the indictment has a significant chance of impacting an election. This view was also affirmed by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’S BIZARRE DEFENSE OF CHILD GENDER TREATMENTS SPARKS UPROAR!
September 01, 2024
The superseding indictment was secured by Smith a mere 10 days before early voting commenced in some states. Jordan's letter states, "There can be little question that the superseding indictment has some effect on the election, especially coming after the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity cast significant doubt on Special Counsel Smith’s ability to prosecute the initial indictment."
MAYOR MELTDOWN: WACKADOODLE TIFFANY HEYNARD HAS A BIG PILL TO SWALLOW!
Given the timing of the superseding indictment, Jordan expresses skepticism about its purpose, stating, "it is therefore difficult to believe that the superseding indictment was filed now for any other purpose other than to affect the outcome of the election."
Jordan's letter presents two possible conclusions: either Garland knowingly approved the superseding indictment, thereby violating longstanding policy, or Smith proceeded without Garland’s approval. Jordan writes, "In other words, either you are personally weaponizing the Department of Justice against President Trump or Special Counsel Smith is continuing his unconstitutional prosecution against President Trump—but either does not reflect well upon you or your commitment to the rule of law in the United States."
WATCH: DESANTIS SENDS MESSAGE TO REPUBLICANS LOOKING TO VOTE AGAINST KASH PATEL
The letter concludes with a demand for documents and communications between Main Justice and Smith’s office referring to the superseding indictment, whether Garland had personally approved of the superseding indictment, and whether Garland had evaluated the superseding indictment "in the context of the Department’s longstanding policy counseling against prosecutorial action so near an election." Jordan has set a deadline of no later than September 13 for all documents to be submitted to the committee.
