Special Counsel Jack Smith's decision to pursue the trial against former President Donald Trump in the days leading up to the 2024 presidential election has ignited a heated debate regarding the Department of Justice's (DOJ) policy on avoiding actions that could influence the electoral process. While Smith's lead prosecutor asserted that the trial would not violate the DOJ's "60-day rule," legal experts and former officials have raised concerns about the potential conflict with the DOJ's longstanding position.

During a recent court hearing, Assistant Special Counsel Jay Bratt responded to inquiries from Federal Judge Aileen Cannon about whether the trial's timing would breach the DOJ's policy. Bratt clarified that the "60-day rule" referenced by the judge pertained to bringing indictments shortly before an election, whereas Trump was already indicted in June of the previous year for the classified documents case. Bratt insisted that the government's position was fully compliant with the "Justice Manual," which contains the DOJ's rules and policies.

However, the "60-day rule" discussed in this context is not explicitly outlined in the Justice Manual itself. A comprehensive explanation of the rule can be found in a 2018 report by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, where it was described as a general practice rather than a specific time frame outlined in department policies or regulations. Former officials and FBI Director James Comey have referred to it as a principle to avoid interfering in elections. The purpose of the rule is to prevent executive branch interference and ensure a fair electoral process.

Notably, the "60-day rule" mainly pertains to investigative steps and prosecutorial decisions, rather than the handling of cases involving already indicted candidates, according to Horowitz's report. Former federal judge Jeremy Fogel emphasized that once a case has been indicted and is in the system, federal judges are responsible for managing it in accordance with relevant legislation and court rules, suggesting that the rule has limited applicability in the judicial process.

Apart from the "60-day rule," there is widespread debate within the legal community over whether Special Counsel Smith's efforts to expedite both cases against Trump before the 2024 election conflict with the DOJ's broader stance on avoiding actions that could influence elections. Various attorneys general, including current Attorney General Merrick Garland, have issued memos emphasizing the need to keep partisan politics out of investigations and criminal charges, particularly during election years.

Former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith has argued that Smith's rush to trial appears to violate the DOJ's guidelines outlined by Garland. Goldsmith points out that the limited time for Trump's defense to prepare adequately raises concerns of unfairness, suggesting that the timing of the trial could influence the course of the election.

While Smith's team has avoided explicitly mentioning the November election as a factor in their decision-making, they have highlighted the public's interest in promptly resolving the charges against Trump. They argue that charging a former president with conspiring to subvert the electoral process to remain in office warrants a speedy trial.

As the trial proceedings unfold, legal experts will closely watch whether Special Counsel Smith's decision to move forward with the trial so close to the 2024 election will have any implications for the DOJ's election impact policy. The potential clash between expeditious justice and the need to maintain a fair and impartial electoral process continues to fuel the ongoing debate surrounding the high-profile case.