###

The Department of Justice (DOJ) finds itself in the spotlight once again as its actions concerning former President Donald Trump face scrutiny. While some argue that the DOJ has handled Trump's prosecution with excessive caution, recent allegations asserting the department's overzealous approach are unfounded.

Special Counsel Jack Smith recently came under fire for allegedly violating DOJ policy when he filed a brief related to the January 6 election interference case. District Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed this brief and further ordered the unsealing of exhibits attached to it. Critics, including former DOJ official Jack Goldsmith and ex-federal prosecutor Elie Honig, contend that Smith breached procedural norms to target Trump. However, seasoned DOJ officials vehemently disagree.

The controversy stems from a DOJ policy, reiterated in a June memo by Attorney General Merrick Garland, which discourages prosecutorial actions that could influence elections. Additionally, the unwritten "60-day rule" advises against public disclosures of investigative steps close to elections. Critics argue Smith's actions were politically motivated. However, DOJ experts believe Smith's filing adhered to both the policy and the 60-day norm.

The legal journey began with Trump's motion to dismiss the case on presidential immunity grounds, which eventually led to a Supreme Court ruling on July 1. The ruling clarified the conditions under which a former president can claim immunity from prosecution. Subsequently, Smith approached a new grand jury for a superseding indictment, ensuring the case remained untainted by earlier allegations deemed immune by the Supreme Court.

Judge Chutkan, following the Supreme Court's guidance, sought input from both sides and scheduled briefings. Smith's motion for immunity determinations complied with this schedule and was initially filed under seal to allow Trump to contest its public release. The court, prioritizing transparency, ultimately dismissed Trump's claims of governmental bias.

Comparisons have been drawn between Smith's filing and FBI Director Jim Comey's 2016 disclosure about Hillary Clinton's email investigation. However, unlike Comey's discretionary and controversial move, Smith acted within judicial directives in an ongoing criminal case. Trump's defense suggests that his candidacy grants him immunity from prosecution, a stance that, if accepted, could encourage candidates to exploit legal safeguards to delay judicial proceedings.

Attorney General Garland emphasized that the case's progress lies with the judicial system. It would have been unusual for Smith to request a post-election pause or for the court to delay briefings for months, as it would oppose the public's right to a speedy trial.

Ultimately, the debate continues on whether the DOJ has exercised too much caution. However, claims that the DOJ timed its actions to affect the election remain unsubstantiated.