A legal expert just went on Fox News and destroyed Jack Smith’s witch hunt with these three damning words

Jack Smith is desperately trying to deliver his final attempt to interfere with the 2024 Presidential election.

But he is quickly learning that it is not going the way he had hoped.

And a legal expert just went on Fox News and destroyed Jack Smith’s witch hunt with these three damning words.

Jack Smith leans on the media for help

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s attempt to take former President Donald Trump to trial over January 6 is not going to succeed prior to the election – if at all.

His case was placed in limbo for a majority of the year as the Supreme Court deliberated Trump’s claim of Presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Presidents enjoy immunity from being sued in criminal court for official acts during their tenure.

That meant that lower court Judges were going to be required to decide which identified actions by a President were considered to be official acts.

So that left Smith only one, final option to try and interfere with the election.

He filed a 165-page brief with every last bit of evidence that he could scrape from the bottom of the barrel against Donald Trump with the court.

Judge Tanya Chutkan – a Barack Obama appointee – would then get to decide what is inadmissible due to the Presidential immunity ruling.

Chutkan ultimately decided to unseal the evidence to the public as a last second effort to damage Trump politically just before the election.

Fox News legal star destroys Jack Smith over this new scheme

Gregg Jarrett, a legal analyst at Fox News, labeled the brief submitted by Smith as “bad detective fiction” during his recent appearance on Fox & Friends.

“Yeah, he’s trying to have a damning trial of Trump without a trial, in the face of the fact that he couldn’t get a trial before the election,” Jarrett pointed out. “And, you know, releasing this motion, this court filing, it sure looks like blatant election interference.”

Chutkan is clearly a partisan, pro-Democrat hack who teamed up with Smith to try and put Trump on trial as soon as they could before the election.

“Lawrence, you know, Trump’s lawyers urged the Judge, keep it sealed,” added Harrett. “It will impact the election.”

“The Judge did it anyway with almost no discussion and there’s no good reason to make it public. It’s premature,” he explained. “There isn’t even a trial date.”

Chutkan and Smith now appear to be working on a new convoluted plan to deliver a new weapon against Trump to the Democrats and their allies in the media by unsealing evidence that would have ultimately been scrutinized and filtered in court otherwise.

“So, I think this was done knowing full well media and Democrats would seize on provocative details, publicize it to affect voters and damage Trump and sure enough, as I looked at television, the internet and newspapers, that’s what’s happening,” admitted Jarrett.

The Fox News legal expert also noted that Smith had piled in every little crumb he could fit into the brief to try and damage Trump as much as possible, despite that much of the evidence would likely be thrown out later.

“At times it reads like bad detective fiction,” Jarrett exclaimed. “A lot of it is irrelevant and inadmissible. Conversations that other people had that are not connected to Trump directly.”

“So, it seems like deliberate election interference and the incendiary details notwithstanding, Smith’s basic accusations are the same that we have heard all along,” he added.

“Nothing has changed, the theme that Trump deceived people, well, if he honestly believed he won, it’s hard to prove otherwise.”

Jarrett pointed out that, based on his expertise of law, that he doubted any of the evidence would survive in court due to Presidential immunity.

“His great challenge is to somehow circumvent the immunity decision here,” he argued. “That’s what this motion is all about.”

“The problem for Smith is a lot of his evidence and testimony comes from public officials and their conversations with Trump, including the vice president. Under the Supreme Court decision, that may well be protected information and thus inadmissible,” Jarrett concluded.

While Jack Smith may believe he scored a massive victory with his dropping of so-called “bombshell evidence,” it has yet to be seen whether voters are buying into the January 6 hysteria at this point.