Jack Smith Probed Over Political Prosecution Claims against Trump/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ An independent political watchdog has launched an investigation into Special Counsel Jack Smith over alleged partisan conduct in his Trump-related prosecutions. The probe raises questions about Hatch Act violations. Smith’s cases against Trump were dropped following Trump’s 2024 election victory.
Jack Smith Investigation Quick Looks
- Special Counsel Jack Smith is under Hatch Act investigation
- Watchdog agency probing claims of political bias in Trump prosecutions
- DOJ says cases against Trump followed legal, not political, standards
- Republican Sen. Tom Cotton urged inquiry over election interference concerns
- Cases against Trump were dropped after he won the presidency
- No equivalent investigation announced into Biden-related special counsels
- White House and DOJ have declined immediate comment
- Office of Special Counsel lacks criminal powers but can impose penalties
- Office’s leadership now tied to Trump-appointed figures
- Political tension intensifies over high-profile investigations and indictments
Deep Look: Special Counsel Jack Smith Faces Political Probe Over Trump Cases
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Jack Smith, the Justice Department’s special counsel known for prosecuting two high-profile cases against Donald Trump, is now under investigation himself. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency tasked with monitoring political activity among federal employees, has launched an inquiry into whether Smith’s prosecutions violated the Hatch Act by carrying a partisan political agenda.
Smith, who was appointed special counsel in November 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, led two criminal investigations into Trump. One case charged Trump with attempting to overturn the 2020 election, while the other centered on his alleged mishandling and hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both cases were filed well before the 2024 presidential election, and Smith maintained that his efforts were based on clear violations of federal law, not political motivations.
The probe into Smith was confirmed by the Office of Special Counsel over the weekend. Though the office does not wield criminal authority, it can impose fines and sanctions for violations of the Hatch Act — a federal statute prohibiting federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) had publicly called on the agency to investigate Smith. Cotton argued that the timing and nature of the prosecutions may have been intended to benefit then-President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris — both Democrats — during a politically volatile time. The suggestion implies Smith may have acted with the intention of influencing electoral outcomes, a potential breach of the Hatch Act.
The political implications are significant. While Smith’s investigations were eventually dropped after Trump won the 2024 election, citing longstanding DOJ policy against indicting sitting presidents, the investigations had already played a substantial role in public discourse leading up to the vote. Critics of the DOJ’s handling insist the prosecution timeline may have influenced voter sentiment — a charge Garland and Smith have both denied.
Importantly, there’s no indication that the same Office of Special Counsel is looking into the conduct of other special counsels assigned by Garland, including those tasked with investigating President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. This selective scrutiny has raised concerns among legal analysts and watchdog groups who see potential politicization in how oversight is being applied.
Adding to the intrigue is the leadership situation within the Office of Special Counsel itself. Former chief Hampton Dellinger was removed from his role by the Trump administration and later dropped a legal challenge to regain his post. His interim successor, Jamieson Greer, was appointed by Trump and is currently serving as acting head. Trump has also nominated Paul Ingrassia, a former podcast host known for his far-right views and vocal admiration of controversial figures like Andrew Tate, to lead the office permanently. Ingrassia’s confirmation hearing was postponed without explanation.
The White House has not yet issued any statement regarding the investigation into Smith. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has reiterated that the cases brought forward by Smith were handled “without political influence,” emphasizing that legal standards and evidence dictated the course of action.
This development comes amid ongoing concerns about the intersection of law enforcement and politics in America’s increasingly polarized environment. With the 2024 election still fresh in the public’s memory, any perception of bias — from either side — threatens to erode public trust in the integrity of federal institutions.
As the investigation unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the allegations against Smith will hold legal weight or be dismissed as politically motivated pushback. Either way, the scrutiny reinforces the delicate balance prosecutors must strike when pursuing politically sensitive cases.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.