Abrams: Trump attacking special counsel may say a lot

Dan Abrams Live

(NewsNation) — Former President Donald Trump was raging at newly appointed special counsel Jack Smith this weekend, calling the veteran federal prosecutor “totally compromised” and a “political hitman.” Except he doesn’t offer any evidence to back up either of those statements, and the reason for that, I think, is that there isn’t any evidence.

Trump also went off on the Justice Department, the FBI, calling them “highly weaponized and corrupt” who are “stuffed with and listening to the radical left monsters who will cause difficulties for our country, the likes of which we have not seen before.” And for good measure, he went after Obama and pivoted to the Bidens.

Of course, Hunter Biden is currently under federal investigation by the very prosecutor Trump appointed. But considering how corrupt Trump claims the DOJ is, the former president should appreciate it hasn’t yet indicted him, as Attorney General Merrick Garland has been under enormous pressure from the left to do.

Instead, he’s appointed Jack Smith, a registered Independent, known for going after high profile targets of both parties. And now, the former president is just making things up about Smith.

Monday afternoon, Trump posted again: “This fully weaponized monster Jack Smith shouldn’t be let anywhere near the political persecution of President Donald J. Trump.”

And he’s been doing this since the moment that Smith was appointed.

“I thought that put the final nail in the coffin, only to find out that the corrupt and highly political Justice Department just appointed a super radical left Special Counsel, better referred to as a special prosecutor to start the process all over again. We thought it was just about dead,” Trump recently told a crowd.

No matter what you think of the investigation, no one thought the investigation is anywhere near dead.

I’m an evidence guy. I like facts. So what are the facts about Smith allegedly being a super left wing radical? Trump shared a video montage slamming Smith on social media.

First, there’s no evidence Smith’s a Democrat, so we’ll put that one away. But if you look at that video in a vacuum, you might think, well, maybe they have a point. But that would ignore, of course, the high level Democrats he went after in that same role as head of the Public Integrity section in the DOJ that they’re referring to, leading a team of 30 prosecutors. He led the team that prosecuted former vice presidential candidate and Democratic Senator John Edwards for allegedly participating in a scheme to violate federal campaign finance laws. He moved forward with that over the objections of some in his office.

Smith also led the investigation into Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who was eventually indicted for conspiracy, bribery and fraud.

Look, the appointment of a special counsel is not good news for Donald Trump. Fair enough. But the DOJ could indict him themselves with no special counsel.

And if there’s any doubt about whether the former president is making things up about investigations into himself, just look at what he said Sunday about the Manhattan DA investigation into the Trump Organization and alleged tax fraud.

Remember that in March of this year, the two lead prosecutors on that case resigned after the new DA in Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, refused to indict Mr. Trump. One of them wrote in a resignation letter that he believed Trump was guilty of “numerous felonies.” The DA disagreed.

Trump posted Sunday, “Supposedly a number of prosecutors in Manhattan DA’s office quit their jobs, because they thought I was being treated so badly. The case was not fair or good, especially in light of the record, setting violent crime taking place in New York City, which the office is unable to prosecute too much time on Trump.”

I happen to agree on some of the issues about New York City. They resigned, yes, but no, not because he was being treated unfairly. They resigned because he wasn’t prosecuted.

We shall see what happens with Smith’s investigation. Maybe he will decide not to indict. But if he does indict, we will be able to see the evidence and weigh it, and presumably, a jury will be able to weigh it.

But for now, just attacking the new referee, so to speak, with nothing to back up the allegations, may say a lot in and of itself.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not of NewsNation.

© 1998 - 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.

Trending on NewsNation