One Fox News star exposed the bad mistake Jack Smith just made

Jack Smith found a way to reinsert himself into the 2024 Election.

But his latest gambit may turn out to be another dud.

And one Fox News star exposed the bad mistake Jack Smith just made.

Jack Smith files superseding indictment against Donald Trump

The Supreme Court eviscerated Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against former President Donald Trump for challenging the 2020 Election with its ruling on Presidential immunity.

Smith faced a decision on how to proceed.

And true to his nature, he staked out the most aggressive posture possible.

Smith filed a superseding indictment against Donald Trump on the same four counts a majority on the Supreme Court already looked skeptically at.

Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley mocked Smith’s indictment as the “shrinkflation” of indictments as all he did was take out some references to Trump’s communication with Department of Justice officials – which the court said can’t be entered into evidence – and resubmitted his original indictment.

“It’s the shrinkflation indictment. It’s the same packaging, just less product inside. What they did was keep the four charges, and they just took out any evidence that clearly would have contradicted the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity. It does not hold together, in my view, very well. I don’t even think it solves the problem,” Turley began.

Jack Smith is trying to claim that Trump’s communication with former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress on contesting the election aren’t official actions because they involve the January 6 Joint Session of Congress.

“For example, he is keeping in, as one of the four main allegations, Trump’s communications with and to Pence. That’s still presumptively protected under the Supreme Court decision. He also includes communications with members of Congress that could also trip a wire,” Turley stated.

The Supreme Court gave broad protection of presumptive immunity to actions considered in the outer perimeter of official acts, and a President speaking with his Vice President and members of Congress likely will fall under that.

Jack Smith’s other problem

Smith still included his obstructing an official proceeding charge against Trump for submitting alternate slates of electors to challenge the results in multiple states.

Turley found this charge problematic as well.

 “The first two main theories deal with state officials and the slates, the alternative slates that Trump’s team was pushing. So he doesn’t really get out of the problem that many still see with this,” Turley added.

In the Fischer case, the Supreme Court ruled that obstructing an official proceeding didn’t apply in cases where protestors entered the Capitol because the law in question pertained to the destruction of documents.

Smith argued because the alternate electors were manufactured false evidence it passed the test.

Turley said Smith stepped on a rake once again.

“What’s also interesting, Bret, is he keeps the charges of obstruction of official proceedings. There was a second case, the Fischer case, that dramatically narrowed how prosecutors can bring that charge,” Turley continued. “They have to essentially allege tampering of evidence or destruction of evidence. It’s not clear how he’s going to thread that needle on those charges.”

Jack Smith is daring the Supreme Court to toss his rehashed indictment.

They may very well take him up on it.