Jack Attack

The NY Times, of all places, finally notices actualy election interference:

The need for an explanation is heightened because this is not the first time Mr. Smith has appeared to disregard relevant department rules. In December 2023 and February 2024, he urged the Supreme Court to hear Mr. Trump’s immunity claim on an expedited basis because of the “imperative public importance” of trying Mr. Trump as soon as possible. Mr. Smith never explained the need for speed. Many concluded, plausibly, that he wanted his trial evidence in the public realm so that the electorate could make a fully informed decision. This motivation would violate the Justice Department rule that prosecutors “may never select the timing of any action” for the purpose of “giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” Mr. Smith at a minimum created a strong appearance of impropriety without any explanation in a context where public confidence in the integrity of his decisions is vital. Some will blame the Supreme Court for Mr. Smith’s predicament. The court declined to follow Mr. Smith’s requests for expedition. And its immunity decision made a pre-election trial impossible and requires a complex analysis by Judge Chutkan to decide which charges against Mr. Trump can go forward. These considerations are irrelevant to Mr. Smith’s duty to comply (and appear to comply) with the relevant rules, which, as former Attorney General Eric Holder once explained, are designed to “maintain the public trust in the department’s ability to do its job free of political influence.”

You can't blame Russia this time...