Telegram is where we really talk. Don't miss out!
Just three days after President Donald Trump launched his 2024 presidential bid, Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed prosecutor Jack Smith as special counsel to lead two criminal investigations into Trump. Critics argue that the appointment itself was unlawful.
The Department of Justice launched one investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, and another into what it claimed were attempts by Trump to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump immediately labeled Smith “a political hit man who is totally compromised.” Over time, critics found growing reasons to believe Trump’s instincts were accurate.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Glenn Beck on Blaze Media last year that the DOJ’s prosecution of Trump was “not designed to obtain a legally valid conviction. It’s designed to take anyone running against Joe Biden — in other words, President Donald Trump — off the campaign trail.”
Although Trump faced numerous charges, neither case advanced. The classified documents case was dismissed in July 2024 due to Smith’s unlawful appointment, while the January 6 case was dropped in November following Trump’s re-election.
Now, while Trump is politically vindicated, Smith is under the microscope.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel confirmed to Reuters on Saturday that it has opened an investigation into whether Smith violated the Hatch Act — a law that prohibits federal employees from using their official roles to interfere in elections or from engaging in partisan activity while on duty.
This probe follows a formal request by Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who accused Smith of attempting to interfere in the 2024 election.
“President Trump’s astounding victory doesn’t excuse Smith of responsibility for his unlawful election interference,” said Cotton.
Cotton wrote that “Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn’t just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office.”
In a July 30 letter to Acting Special Counsel Jamieson Greer, Cotton cited several examples where Smith allegedly fast-tracked legal proceedings and disclosed sensitive information “with no legitimate purpose.”
One instance involved Smith pushing for a January 2, 2024 trial start date in the election-related case — less than five months after filing the indictment, and just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Cotton also pointed to a 165-page legal brief Smith submitted in Trump’s immunity case, quadruple the typical limit, and including grand jury testimony usually kept confidential.
“This action appears to be a deliberate and underhanded effort to disclose unsubstantiated and extensive allegations timed to maximize electoral impact,” Cotton wrote.
“These actions were not standard, necessary, or justified — unless Smith’s real purpose was to influence the election,” he continued. “President Trump of course vanquished Joe Biden, Jack Smith, every Democrat who weaponized the law against him, but President Trump’s astounding victory doesn’t excuse Smith of responsibility for his unlawful election interference.”
The OSC’s findings could be referred to the DOJ, which is already reviewing Smith’s conduct — along with actions by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and New York AG Letitia James — through its Weaponization Working Group.
Smith’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to Politico. Blaze News also reached out to the White House.
Over $47 million in taxpayer funds were spent on Smith’s investigations. In his final report, Smith wrote, “While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters.”
Smith resigned ten days before the presidential inauguration.
