How Jack Smith Sabotaged His Own Case Against Trump

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s forthcoming report is set to be released, excluding sections related to the Florida documents case, where other defendants remain under prosecution.

However, what will likely stand out is the absence of a trial or substantive results after years of investigations and over $50 million spent. Smith, once equipped with significant resources and a strong legal position, finds himself without a single conviction or witness testimony to his name.

Smith’s tenure as special counsel has been marked by grand displays in the court of public opinion rather than substantial courtroom victories. The report, centered on allegations involving January 6 and the 2020 election, highlights Smith’s overreach into constitutional and statutory boundaries.

His initial opportunity to prosecute Donald Trump for retaining presidential materials presented a relatively straightforward case. Yet, his appetite for high-profile charges led to delays and complications.

Smith’s Florida case, which began with allegations of conspiracy and false statements over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, was burdened by the addition of charges related to the retention of classified materials.

This decision slowed the process to a halt, as legal complexities regarding classified information became significant obstacles. Predictions that the case would not reach a jury before the 2024 election proved accurate, and by then, Smith’s ability to proceed diminished.

Compounding these failures, Smith pursued charges in Washington, D.C., regarding Trump’s role in the Capitol riots and alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

This case, assigned to Judge Tanya Chutkan, faced immediate scrutiny. Chutkan, known for her critical remarks about Trump during sentencing hearings for January 6 rioters, was perceived as biased by many. Her comments about Trump’s ongoing freedom prior to the trial raised questions about impartiality.

Smith pushed aggressively for expedited proceedings, often at the expense of legal protocols. Chutkan, refusing to recuse herself, enabled Smith’s approach but faced resistance from higher courts, including the Supreme Court, which emphasized the need for substantive reviews over hasty timelines.

As both cases unraveled, Smith made a controversial request to publicly release a 165-page summary of his findings against Trump before the election, aiming to sway public opinion.

Despite the Justice Department’s rules barring election interference, Chutkan allowed the release, acknowledging its procedural irregularity. However, the effort failed to alter public sentiment, and Trump’s election victory effectively ended the cases.

Smith’s overzealous approach echoes his previous misstep in the prosecution of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, where his conviction was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court. In Trump’s case, Smith similarly overreached, crafting charges that were unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny.

The failure to secure convictions has turned Smith’s investigation into a cautionary tale for prosecutors. It underscores the dangers of arrogance and overreach, even when armed with significant resources. Future prosecutors may study Smith’s actions as an example of what not to do in high-profile cases.

Adding to the irony, Special Counsel David Weiss, who has been criticized for leniency in the Hunter Biden case, will soon release his own report. Unlike Smith, Weiss secured a conviction, albeit on lesser charges, before President Biden pardoned his son.

While Weiss faced criticism for minimizing charges, his cautious approach stands in stark contrast to Smith’s aggressive tactics, which yielded no tangible results.

Ultimately, Smith’s report will attempt to justify an investigation that resulted in neither trial nor conviction. At over $50 million, the endeavor stands as one of the most expensive prosecutorial failures in modern history.

While reports can sometimes offer value to the public, Smith’s effort seems destined to be remembered as a costly and ineffective venture.