Anticipating disagreement from many, legal analyst and Yale Law School grad Lisa Rubin criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith‘s filing during a stay in the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump — a filing that produced a contempt of court motion from Trump’s lawyers in response.
On a legal basis, Rubin considers aloud that Smith may have misstepped by proceeding virtually as if the stay wasn’t in place, though she doesn’t believe the action rises to the contempt charge.
[NOTE: Others agree, with one legal commenter saying of Smith’s move to file: “It was an odd choice, even knowing Trump didn’t have to reply because of the stay. However, [Judge Chutkan] didn’t suspend the scheduling order, so there’s a good faith basis for filing it. Still, odd.”]
Rubin writes: “When the judge who wants a speedy trial almost as much as prosecutors imposes a stay, it might be helpful to, say, abide by its terms.”
Rubin adds that Smith would do well to “take seriously the order of the trial judge” no matter how frustrated he grows with his opponent’s tactics, implying that patience while the stay is in place is a good way for Smith to “show America that this is just about the rule of law.”
I know some will disagree with me vehemently while others will accuse me of rooting against the Special Counsel. My job is not to cheerlead, even where I think a prosecution is just; it is to analyze and explain. 4/
— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) January 4, 2024
Yet there is something in Rubin’s commentary that is antithetical to the Special Counsel’s M.O. so far, with her emphasis on an aspect of the case he seems to have purposefully neglected — that is, the optics.
Smith has proceeded from the start in a manner that presumes — rather than tries to prove — that the prosecution is “just about the rule of law.” Attempts to prove to the public what he expects to prove in court have not been demonstrably present in Smith’s calculus — and he has not tried to win any public relations battles against the Trump team.
Rubin, however, does express concern about public perception of the case — and the importance of the optics outside the courtroom — warning that Smith and his team “would be wise not to squander the nation’s confidence” by giving the opposition anything in their legal conduct to protest.
Public polling increasingly shows voters believe Trump committed serious crimes in connection with the 2020 election. Smith & co. would be wise to not squander the nation’s confidence in their case with borderline moves like their Dec. 27 motion. FIN.
— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) January 4, 2024
