In an ironic turn of events, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting former President Donald Trump for alleged interference in the 2020 election, now seeks to interfere himself in the upcoming 2024 election.

Smith is preparing to file a massive and unprecedented legal brief with the D.C. District Court just weeks before the general election that would outline his unproven criminal allegations against Trump in a way that Trump would be unable to effectively or even legally respond to, according to the Washington Examiner.

The former president and his attorneys have vehemently objected to Smith's plan and it is now up to D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is no fan of Trump and routinely rules in favor of Smith, to decide whether to allow it or not.

Smith plans to file a 180-page brief outlining allegations against Trump

At issue here is the Supreme Court's ruling in July on the extent and limits of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, which ordered the district court to establish a record of which of former President Trump's alleged criminal acts were "official," and therefore presumptively immune, or "unofficial" and open to be prosecuted.

Special Counsel Smith was previously ordered by Judge Chutkan to file a brief in that regard by Thursday, but in a 3-page filing on Saturday, Smith sought the judge's permission to file an "oversize motion" numbering approximately 180 pages -- far above the standard 45-page limit for filed motions.

The request revealed that around 30 of the 180 pages would be footnote citations and an exhibit appendix, while roughly half of the remaining pages would "consist of a detailed factual proffer."

Further, Smith revealed that the motion would contain a "substantial amount" of sensitive and classified material, and as such would be filed unredacted under seal, with a proposed partially redacted version included with the submission for the judge to post on the public docket.

Trump opposed to Smith's proposed filing

Unsurprisingly, according to NBC News, former President Trump's attorneys cried foul and registered their fervent opposition to Special Counsel Smith's plan, which they asserted was tantamount to deliberate election interference on the part of the federal prosecutor.

In a 9-page filing on Monday, Trump's attorneys called out the "unprecedented and irregular nature" of Smith's request to file a massively oversized motion that would "quadruple the standard page limits" and be "fundamentally unfair" in that Trump would not be able to counter the motion with a filed response.

Smith's impending brief is also "particularly improper" because the standard discovery process for exculpatory evidence has not yet been completed or fully complied with by Smith's office. Furthermore, the proposed "monstrosity" of a filing from Smith would likely "impact potential witnesses and taint the jury pool."

On top of that, Smith's filing would be "tantamount to a premature and improper Special Counsel report" -- premature in that the case is still pending and hasn't yet concluded, and improper in that, per federal statute, such reports are only to be filed confidentially with the attorney general, who has the final say over whether or not to publicly release said report.

Election interference that Trump won't be able to respond to

As if all of that wasn't bad enough, Trump remains bound by a court-imposed gag order, and his attorneys wrote, "False, public allegations by the Special Counsel’s Office, presented through a document that has no basis in the traditional criminal justice process, will undoubtedly enter the dialogue around the election. The Gag Order prevents President Trump from explaining in detail why the Office’s selective and biased account is inaccurate without risking contempt penalties."

"The Office cannot be permitted to issue a massive and misleading public statement that is not responsive to a defense motion, and risks adverse impacts to the integrity of these proceedings, while simultaneously insisting on an unconstitutional prior restraint on President Trump’s ability to respond to their inaccurate assertions while he is campaigning," the defense argued.

They concluded by noting the Justice Department's longstanding rules against taking actions that could be perceived as interfering in impending elections, and said, "Departures from these practices should never be countenanced because they risk allowing prosecutors to impact national elections, but the situation is even worse here where the Special Counsel’s Office is seeking to do so by turning criminal procedure on its head in order to file a
180-page false hit piece."