Elise Stefanik files ethics complaint against Jack Smith alleging election interference, violations of DOJ conduct

"It’s obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election and stop the American people from electing Donald Trump," Stefanik, the House GOP Conference chair, wrote on X. "At every turn, he has sought to accelerate his illegal prosecution of President Trump for the clear (if unstated) purpose of trying him before the November election."

In the complaint, Stefanik wrote that Smith has been "abusing the resources of the federal government to unlawfully interfere with the 2024 presidential election," and that his "multiple attempts to rush to trial the federal January 6th case against President Trump violated long-standing, explicit Justice Department policy."

Smith’s attempts to "expedite the trial in order to influence the general election in November" violates the department’s Justice Manual, she said, with a section in question stating that federal prosecutors "may never select the timing of any action ... for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party."

Smith first violated this section in August 2023 when he petitioned the District Court for a January 2, 2024 trial start date despite there being around 13 million pages of discovery and thousands of hours of video footage for Trump and his team to review.

"Prosecutors bringing a case of this complexity–with so many consequential and novel legal issues to sort out–would normally never seek to bring it to trial within five months. The only reason to push for such an early trial date was to work to get the case tried before the November election, and the Justice Department Manual clearly forbids Jack Smith from taking any action on that basis," Stefanik wrote.

Smith next violated the section, Stefanik said, when he petitioned in December for the Supreme Court to rule on presidential immunity before the appellate court. The Supreme Court denied his request. But in February, when Trump petitioned for certiorari on the issue of presidential criminal immunity for official acts, Smith opposed.

Stefanik wrote, "if the case were so important that Jack Smith believed the Supreme Court should take the extraordinary step of granting certiorari before the Court of Appeals could weigh in, how could he now argue that the case was not important enough for even a normal grant of certiorari?"

"The only way to reconcile Jack Smith’s filings is to recognize that his obvious goal was not to seek justice and the neutral application of the law, but rather to get President Trump– and get him before November."

Stefanik also called into question Smith "repeatedly and deliberately violated the District Court’s stay of proceedings in violation of D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct."

The District Court issued a stay on the case, which stayed "any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant."

"But Jack Smith repeatedly flouted the District Court’s order," she wrote, adding that Smith "served nearly 4,000 pages of discovery on President Trump," filed a "motion in limine in District Court" after the Supreme Court rejected Smith’s request to rule on presidential immunity.

The DC Rule of Professional Conduct prohibits counsel from “[k]nowingly disobey[ing] an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.”

"Jack Smith’s refusal to abide by the District Court’s stay violates this rule. Moreover, Jack Smith’s assertions to the Supreme Court that the lower court matters were frozen pending the D.C. Circuit’s disposition of President Trump’s appeal serve as compelling evidence that Jack Smith knew his District Court filings violated the stay order."

"Jack Smith emphatically said that 'no one in this country . . . is above the law.' If that is true, then he should be open to, and welcome, an ethics investigation into conduct that, on its face, implicates potential violations of DOJ policy and multiple rules of professional conduct.