In a potentially explosive turn of events, Jim Jordan, poised to clinch the role of House Speaker, now finds himself in the crosshairs of legal scrutiny. A former federal prosecutor is raising eyebrows, branding Jordan as an “accessory after the fact” in the alleged election-rigging attempts of ex-President Donald Trump.
As the political landscape shifts, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s sudden withdrawal from the House race propels Jordan into a formidable position. Yet, controversy swirls around his involvement in the 2020 election, with legal experts underscoring the need to establish a broader conspiracy linked to Jordan’s claims.
Facing potential legal backlash, Jordan may wield the shield of the First Amendment, asserting his right to free speech. However, legal scholars caution that not all falsehoods are protected, leaving the door ajar for legal consequences if his statements are deemed part of a larger criminal act.
“Laws against fraud, perjury, and defamation, for example, are not unconstitutional,” said Peter Shane, adjunct professor of law at New York University.
“If it could be shown that Jordan was part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States of the sort charged against Trump in his D.C. indictment, and his false statements were made in furtherance of that conspiracy, the First Amendment would not preclude using his statements as evidence,” Shane added.
Echoing past strategies, prosecutors could leverage Trump’s indictment as precedent, using words against Jordan if they can establish his role in a conspiracy to defraud the United States. The fine line between protected political speech and criminal intent hangs in the balance.
Stephen Gillers, an NYU School of Law professor, adds a layer to the unfolding drama, emphasizing the robust protection of political speech under the First Amendment. However, he notes the criminal angle could only materialize if Jordan actively participated in a conspiracy with criminal objectives.
A recent CNN investigation delves into Jordan’s pre- and post-election rhetoric, revealing a prolific promotion of debunked stolen-election claims. From urging Trump not to concede to supporting lawsuits, Jordan’s actions come under intense scrutiny.
Insiders from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack at the U.S. Capitol accuse Jordan of being deeply entwined in antidemocratic efforts. Thomas Joscelyn asserts that Jordan’s maneuvers were not rooted in genuine objections but aimed at keeping Trump in power, contrary to the people’s will.
Calls for “Scorched Earth” Investigation:
Former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner raises the stakes, calling for a comprehensive investigation into Jordan’s role. Kirschner contends that Jordan, by covering up and preventing accountability for Trump’s alleged crimes, has functioned as an “accessory after the fact.”
As this legal storm brews around one of the key figures in American politics, all eyes are on Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team, tasked with determining whether there’s enough evidence to bring formal charges against Jim Jordan.
