A recent chat with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures, former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, dished out his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s rejection of Jack Smith’s case against former President Trump.
Ratcliffe saw this rejection as a big win for Trump and a major setback for Smith, questioning not just the legal consequences but also the credibility of the prosecutor. Wrestling-Edge reported this on Monday, December 25.
Ratcliffe pointed out similarities between Smith’s situation and the infamous Mueller moment, where Special Counsel Bob Mueller faced heat for how he handled the investigation into Donald Trump.
More Read
He brought up the apparent double standards in applying legal rules, stressing the importance of treating everyone the same in the eyes of the law.
According to Ratcliffe, Smith’s credibility took a hit, much like Mueller’s, especially in how he flipped on applying laws to Trump. Initially, Smith said Trump would be treated like any other defendant, but things changed when Trump’s legal team brought up presidential immunity.
The former DNI stressed the unusual nature of Smith’s actions, saying he did a complete turnaround by asking the Supreme Court to speed up the review and set an immediate trial date.
Ratcliffe argued that this sudden change showed a partisan and overly political motive behind Smith’s actions. He compared Trump’s treatment to others, calling out the delayed consideration of charges against someone named Biden.
Ratcliffe believed the Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection, a simple petition denied, indicated they saw through the partisanship in Smith’s moves. He questioned the rush for a trial before the 2020 election, especially since the government has the right to a speedy trial, not the defendant.
In a critical analysis, Ratcliffe expressed concerns about the Justice Department’s behavior, as seen in Smith’s case, suggesting a lack of consistency in applying legal standards. He concluded that the Supreme Court’s rejection exposed the openly partisan and political nature of the case.
As the controversy around Jack Smith’s case unfolds, Ratcliffe’s insights highlight broader concerns about legal credibility and the perception of the justice system becoming political. Drawing parallels with past investigations adds fuel to the ongoing debate about the fairness of legal proceedings involving high-profile political figures.
