Jim Jordan investigates Jack Smith’s latest Trump indictment, alleges it breaks ‘60-day rule’

Jordan noted that the Supreme Court issued their presidential immunity opinion on July 1 "explaining the parameters of presidential immunity and rebuking Special Counsel Jack Smith for violating this Constitutional principle in his political prosecution of President Donald J. Trump," the letter, obtained by the Daily Caller, stated.

On August 27 Smith filed the superseding indictment "in an attempt to fix the constitutional defects inherent in his initial indictment," but in doing so, "Special Counsel Smith appears to have violated longstanding Department policy intended to protect our democratic processes."

Jordan stated that across administrations on both sides of the aisle, the Department of Justice "has attempted to safeguard the sanctity of the electoral process by adhering to a ’60-day rule,’ under which federal prosecutors avoid 'the return of indictments against a candidate for office within 60 days of a primary or general election."

Jordan said that this was not formally codified, but there is a "wide acceptance that the 60-day rule is critical to protecting the integrity of the electoral process." He added that some senior DOJ officials have extended this prohibition beyond 60 days. Jordan noted that former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates had told the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General that 90 days from the election, if "you think it has a significant chance of impacting an election," would be a better timeline, with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch affirming this.

The superseding indictment was obtained by Smith 10 days before early voting began in some 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," Jordan wrote.

Noting how close to the election the superseding indictment was filed, Jordan said "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."

He wrote that there were two conclusions to the case, either Garland signed off on the superseding indictment knowing that it violated longstanding policy, or Smith acted without Garland’s approval.

"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."

Jordan demanded 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." All documents must be handed to the committee no later than September 13.