Former Special Counsel Jack Smith Responds to Investigation into Trump Prosecutions

Former special counsel Jack Smith has responded through his lawyers to news that a government watchdog has opened an investigation into his two prosecutions of President Donald Trump. Smith, represented by attorneys at Covington & Burling, called the inquiry baseless and maintained that he followed all Department of Justice rules and principles in his work.

“Mr. Smith’s actions as Special Counsel were consistent with the decisions of a prosecutor who has devoted his career to following the facts and the law, without fear or favor and without regard for the political consequences, not because of them,” his attorneys wrote.

Office of Special Counsel Investigation

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent agency that handles complaints from government whistleblowers and investigates Hatch Act violations by federal employees. The OSC can impose administrative punishments for wrongdoing, including fines or termination from government work. The investigation into Smith came after Sen. Tom Cotton demanded in a letter to the OSC that it look into instances of Smith seeking to expedite Trump’s prosecutions.

Smith spent about two years investigating and prosecuting Trump during the Biden administration, bringing two indictments against him. He dismissed both cases after Trump won the 2024 election, aligning with DOJ policy about prosecuting sitting presidents.

Response to Allegations

Smith’s attorneys defended his actions, stating that the actions cited in Senator Cotton’s letter were standard for a prosecutor and subject to court approval. They criticized the investigation as “premised on a partisan complaint” and urged the acting head of the OSC to reach out before taking further steps.

Conclusion

The investigation into Jack Smith’s prosecutions of President Trump continues to draw scrutiny, with Smith and his legal team pushing back against the allegations. As the OSC conducts its inquiry, the legal and political implications of the case remain under intense debate.