Close Menu

Jack Smith Could Face ‘Severe Consequences’ For Targeting Trump: Report

By CORRUPTION

Special Counsel Jack Smith may still face scrutiny despite dropping all charges against President-elect Donald Trump. Smith’s decision on Monday to dismiss the cases has sparked renewed calls for an investigation into his actions. While it remains uncertain whether examining Smith is a top priority for Trump, some are unwilling to let the months-long investigation fade into the background, even now that the charges have been dropped, the Daily Caller reported.

Investigating the federal prosecutions against Trump is important “because of the huge cost and ultimate failure,” former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky told the outlet. “Whether that yields findings of criminality is unlikely. However, I think it will find that Smith’s novel legal approach was fraught with issues that should have led a reasonable prosecutor to decline prosecution,” Cherkasky added. “Smith is already leaving his special counsel post, but I anticipate some of the lawyers working under him will also be forced out of the [Department of Justice] DOJ for engaging in a legally unsound prosecution.”



According to DOJ reports, Smith’s prosecution of Trump cost a staggering $50 million. “There is a lot of evidence that the congressional Jan. 6 committee intentionally avoided evidence beneficial to Trump’s position, and if Smith did the same, his conduct could be grounds for more severe consequences,” Cherkasky noted.

The Heritage Oversight Project announced on X Monday that it is drafting a “model indictment” against Smith. Executive Director Mike Howell indicated that Smith could potentially face charges under federal law prohibiting conspiracy to violate an individual’s civil rights but noted to the DCNF that there are “other potential avenues” for legal action as well. “Jack Smith and his office must face severe legal, political, and financial consequences for their blatant lawfare and election interference,” Article III Project President Mike Davis like wrote Monday on X. “This includes a federal criminal probe for conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241.” One of Smith’s charges against Trump was brought under the same conspiracy against rights statute.

Charles Stimson, deputy director of the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, noted that during his first term, Trump did not pursue legal actions against Hillary Clinton or those involved in the Russia collusion narrative. “Past is prologue here,” he told the DCNF. Stimson added that Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, will likely prioritize other pressing issues, such as addressing crimes committed by illegal migrants in the U.S. and safeguarding free speech.

He suggested that Bondi probably won’t focus on revisiting past controversies, particularly given that government employees, including prosecutors like Smith, typically have immunity for actions performed as part of their official duties. “I don’t think they’re going to spend a tremendous amount of time deciding whether Jack Smith, who will not be employed by the Justice Department, should be prosecuted,” Stimson said.

Congress may also pursue an investigation into Jack Smith’s actions. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan and Republican Representative Barry Loudermilk of Georgia directed Smith’s team in a November 8 letter to preserve all records related to the Trump prosecutions. Similarly, Republican Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin issued a letter warning Smith to retain all relevant records.

“Due to the apparent political bias of FBI officials that were involved in the genesis of a case against former President Trump, preservation of Special Counsel Smith’s records is more important than ever,” Grassley and Johnson wrote in the Nov. 13 letter. “If a politically-charged case is to be opened, it must be done the right way and free from political bias.”





Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.