Special Counsel Jack Smith scored a victory earlier this month when federal Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed a 165-page court filing which contains numerous allegations against former President Donald Trump.

While the move may damage Trump politically, some legal observers say it has also destroyed the special counsel's credibility. 

CNN legal analyst: There's "no defending Smith's conduct"

According to Newsweek, one of those observers is former prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, who made his case against Smith in a New York magazine column.

Honig alleged in the piece that Smith "has essentially abandoned any pretense" and will "bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump's electoral prospects."

"At this point, there's simply no defending Smith's conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis," the former prosecutor declared.

As evidence for this, Honig pointed to the Justice Manual, a document which he describes as being the Department of Justice's "internal bible."

It states that "[f]ederal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election."

"Criticism coming from across the political spectrum"

Newsweek noted how George Washington University Law School professor and Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley reached a similar conclusion in a blog post.

Titled a “Motion for Immunity Determination,” it seems more like a “Motion for an Election Determination.” Yet, the most disturbing part of Smith’s October Surprise was that it was not in the least bit surprising... https://t.co/HjlVMXTI8C

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) October 7, 2024

Turley maintained that Smith's "timing" is politically motivated since "any trial would occur in 2025" and thus "there was no reason to release this filing shortly before an election."

The law professor made clear that he is not alone in reaching this conclusion as there "is criticism coming from across the political spectrum."

Pollster doubts that Smith's actions will impact race

"Smith made it clear that he did not feel bound by that policy, and whether or not that's a binding policy or not, most prosecutors and judges would seek to avoid the appearance of interference," Turley complained.

"Particularly in a case like this one...where the release before the election was entirely gratuitous," the legal scholar went on to insist.

However, pollster Lee Miringoff told Newsweek that Smith's actions are unlikely to have a major electoral impact as the new allegations are more or less in line with what many voters already suspect of Trump.