Jack Smith's 'October Surprise' on Donald Trump Turns Out to Be Recycled 'Fake Electors' Claims

In recent weeks, there has been speculation that Special Counsel Jack Smith was preparing an 'October surprise' against Donald Trump that could potentially disrupt the 2024 election. However, the 165-page 'oversized' brief filed by Smith on Wednesday appears to be a reiteration of his previous 'fake elector' allegations against Trump. This comes after the Supreme Court ruled in July that Trump has "absolute immunity" for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," and "at least presumptive immunity" for all "official acts."

Smith's Brief and its Implications

The filing is one of the initial steps for Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine the remaining elements of the superseding indictment Smith filed following the Supreme Court's decision. The brief suggests that Trump's scheme was fundamentally a private one, involving a team of private co-conspirators. Smith alleges that Trump, in his capacity as a candidate, pursued multiple criminal methods to disrupt the government function of vote collection and counting, a function in which Trump, as President, had no official role. Smith's brief accuses Trump of engaging in criminal activity by “manufacturing fraudulent electoral votes in the targeted states.” This plan, according to Smith, was designed to cause Trump electors in these states to falsely represent themselves as legitimate electors who had cast electoral votes for Trump.

Counter Arguments and Historical Precedents

However, The Federalist notes that there is nothing illegal about naming contingent electors. This process has historical precedents, such as the 1960 presidential contest between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon. Furthermore, Democrats reportedly used the same tactic in 2016 as part of their efforts to prevent Trump from taking office.

Trump's Response

Trump described Smith's filing as "falsehood-ridden" on Truth Social. His legal team has asked to file a similarly comprehensive response and has requested an extension for the filing deadline.

Legal Implications

Smith's superseding indictment removed sections of the original indictment related to Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department. Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, suggested that Judge Chutkan could dismiss the superseding indictment for not complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Smith’s motion requests that the court determine that Trump must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen. It argues that under D.C. circuit precedent, Trump didn’t enjoy immunity in his capacity as someone seeking office. However, the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling set up multiple levels of criminal immunity, with some ambiguity over how the lower court should handle allegations related to former Vice President Mike Pence.

Allegations of Deceit

The filing comes approximately a month before the 2024 presidential election and provides details about communications between Trump, Pence, and his campaign staff. Smith’s filing alleges that Trump repeatedly made false statements, including allegedly fabricating information about noncitizens voting.

Bottom Line

The 'October surprise' from Special Counsel Jack Smith appears to be a reiteration of previous allegations against Donald Trump. While the brief presents a detailed account of alleged criminal conduct, it remains to be seen how the court will interpret these allegations in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do share this article with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.