Emanuel Macuixtle is a Fall 2024 content intern for AllSides. He has a Left bias.

Reviewed by Henry A. Brechter, editor-in-chief (Center bias) and Johnathon Held, News Analyst (Lean Right).

Voices from the left and right displayed different perspectives over whether Jack Smith’s court filing release amounted to election interference. Your answer to that subjective question might depend somewhat on your bias, which is why it’s important to get different perspectives.

Judge Releases Filing a Month Before 2024 Election

In early October, a court filing made public by U.S District Judge Tanya Chutkan alleged Trump’s efforts to “interfere with the election results in 2020” were carried out as a “private citizen” or “private candidate”, not as president. 

According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, presidents are typically immune from prosecution for acts performed as part of presidential duties.

Typically, the Justice Department abides by an informal rule of avoiding any actions that may influence voters during a 60-day period before an election. Trump and his allies alleged the publication of the court filing qualifies as a blatant attempt to interfere with the election, which is just one month away. 

Media on the Left: No, Not Interference

News outlets from the left tended to represent the publication of the case filing in a way that nullified the notion of election interference. 

They placed specific viewpoints throughout the piece, noting the comparison to Hillary Clinton’s email scandal near election, and the influence the Supreme Court decision on Trump v United States has had on the release of these documents. 

NBC News (Lean Left bias) wrote that when comparing the current publication of the court filing with past events such as the Hillary Clinton email scandal in 2016, “...the scenarios are starkly different”. Saying “In 2016, the director of the FBI made disparaging comments about a presidential candidate who, its investigation found, didn’t commit conduct that warranted criminal charges.” whereas the current filing, as NBC noted, was built on an “...ongoing criminal case.”

Additionally, a legal analyst for NBC revealed that “Litigating that case is an obligation of the Smith team and not a violation of Justice Department Guidelines,” disputing Trump’s claims that “They [Justice Department] disobeyed their own rule in favor of complete and total election interference.” The outlet later mentioned that “Trump’s rhetoric about the Justice Department, going back to his time in office, has also deeply offended federal prosecutors to their core” and how “...the kinds of comments that federal prosecutors have argued show a lack of remorse and disrespect for the law and therefore warrant longer sentences.” Through employing bias known as spin and viewpoint placement, NBC showed Trump as likely guilty, asserting that punishment should be strict. 

The Daily Beast (Left bias) said “Roberts constructed a world in which Presidents were completely immune for ‘core’ official acts such as conferring with their Attorney Generals. To put that in context, the Roberts-created reality would allow a President to order their Attorney General to baselessly prosecute political enemies or perhaps rob a bank—all the while safe in the knowledge that their criminal acts were immune from prosecution.” 

The Daily Beast also mentioned sarcastically how “In what must have been a true rarity in the Trump administration, White House staff even complied with the Hatch Act prohibition on engaging in partisan work using their official office by working on the event with their personal cell phones and personal messaging accounts,” using ad hominem attacks on the character of those in Trump’s administration. 

This indicates the outlet's bias towards not believing the release of the case filing was election interference. Instead, it implied that while the publication of this case filing may not sway “die-hard supporters of Trump,” it may sway “...the several thousand voters in seven swing states that will be the deciding margin in who becomes the next President.”

Media On The Right: Likely Election Interference

Outlets on the right instead framed the filing’s publication through a narrative of illegitimacy and potential election interference from the Democrats. Specifically noting the previous failed attempts of special counsel Jack Smith to indict Trump, as well as mentioning the potential detrimental effects the case filing may have on Trump’s campaign.

Fox News (Right bias) highlighted the publication of the case filing in relation to a previous case that was “...tossed out by a federal judge in Florida who ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.” Now Smith provides a narrower case after the Supreme Court ruling on Trump v United States. Fox News brought forward Trump campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, who stated that the publication of the case was due to “ ‘...Tim Walz’s disastrous debate performance…’ [as] ‘Deranged Jack Smith and Washington DC Radical Democrats are hell bent on weaponizing the Justice Department in an attempt to cling to power’.” 

The mentions of previous attempts from Smith to indict Trump helps create a narrative of weakened legitimacy to the current filing Smith has curated. Additionally, the comments provided by Steven Chueng by Fox News helps shape the bias of the news outlet towards the belief that the publication of the case filing acts as some sort of election interference. Through both statements, Fox News applies spin to indicate the potential the release of the case filing may have on Trump’s campaign, while potentially shifting blame to Democrats. 

Breitbart (Right bias) writes how the publication of “The filing gives Democrats new material to use as they campaign against Trump and offers voters a reminder of the allegations just a month from Election Day, even as voting has already begun in some states.” The outlet then mentioned that “In polling, concerns about protecting democracy have typically lagged behind concerns about issues like the economy and inflation.”

Brietbart also noted how “The issue of protecting democracy appears to be more important for Democrats and voters already backing Harris” as “Just 5% of Trump supporters said protecting democracy was their top issue.” 

This framing pushes the narrative that the average voter, who was not immediately voting for Kamala, may not actually be influenced by the publication of the case filing. This frames the publication of the case filing as having some degree of influence over the election, specifically as campaigning material for Democrats. 

Bizpac Review (Right bias) wrote how the framing of the case filing was made to present Trump as a “...bad dude who tried to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election”. Using a subjective qualifying adjective to shift the framing of the case, while indicating a pretense to oppose this framing. The outlet then stated how, regarding the 60-day rule, the “...DOJ chose to toss the rule aside and go all-in on what appears to be a concerted attempt to hurt Trump.” Thus indicating a bias towards the perspective that the publication of the case filing qualifies as some degree of election interference, as they share the conclusion that the publication may hurt Trump and his campaign in some way. 

Is It Election Interference?

Outlets on the left typically display a bias towards believing the timing of publication does not qualify as election interference. Outlets on the right indicate a bias towards the narrative conveying, publication of this case filing lends itself to election interference. 

These perspectives are revealed either through selective quotes, analysts, and/or narrative framing to either sensationalize or downplay the potential effects the timing of publication has on the election.

So, is the release of the case filing election interference? This remains a subjective question to which, as evidenced here, media bias tends to shape the response.