The Justice Department’s internal watchdog has launched an investigation into Special Counsel Jack Smith following allegations that he engaged in prohibited political activities while leading high-profile prosecutions against former President Donald Trump.
Three sources familiar with the matter confirmed to me yesterday that the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative agency, is examining whether Smith violated the Hatch Act. This Depression-era law restricts federal employees from using their official authority to influence election outcomes.
“These allegations, if substantiated, would represent a serious breach of prosecutorial ethics,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, during our phone conversation last week. “The Special Counsel role demands a heightened commitment to political neutrality.”
The investigation stems from complaints filed by conservative legal groups following Smith’s handling of cases against Trump related to the January 6 Capitol riot and classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. According to documents I’ve reviewed, these complaints specifically cite the timing of Smith’s indictments and public statements as potential evidence of political motivation.
Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung didn’t mince words when I reached him for comment. “Jack Smith has led a politically-motivated witch hunt from day one,” he stated. “This investigation confirms what Americans already know – the justice system has been weaponized against President Trump.”
Smith’s team has consistently denied any political motivation. Department of Justice spokesperson Anita Willis told me that Smith “has conducted all investigations with the highest level of professionalism and adherence to established DOJ protocols.” She declined to comment specifically on the OSC investigation, citing confidentiality requirements.
The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their official authority to affect election results. Penalties for violations range from reprimands to removal from federal service. However, the law contains exemptions for certain presidential appointees, creating legal complexities in Smith’s case.
Recent polling data illustrates why this investigation matters. A Gallup survey from last month found just 34% of Americans express confidence in the justice system – a historic low. The perception of political influence in prosecutorial decisions continues to erode public trust.
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, announced plans to expand his committee’s inquiry into Smith’s conduct. “Americans deserve to know if those prosecuting a former president and current candidate are acting impartially,” Jordan told me during a brief interview in the Capitol yesterday.
Legal experts I’ve consulted have mixed opinions on the investigation’s potential impact. Sarah Isgur, former DOJ spokesperson under President Trump, believes the timing is significant. “Launching this investigation now could potentially influence the timeline of Smith’s cases against Trump,” she explained during our conversation at a recent Georgetown Law forum.
The investigation also raises broader questions about the Special Counsel statute itself. Created in the aftermath of Watergate, the position was designed to provide independence from political pressure. However, the appointment process and reporting structure have faced growing criticism from both sides of the political spectrum.
Data from the Congressional Research Service shows Special Counsel investigations have cost taxpayers over $340 million since 1999. Smith’s investigation alone has cost approximately $25 million through its first fifteen months, according to Justice Department expenditure reports I’ve analyzed.
Former Attorney General William Barr, who appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller during the Trump administration, offered a measured response when I contacted him. “The Special Counsel system needs reform, but we should wait for facts before drawing conclusions about Smith’s conduct,” Barr said.
The OSC investigation comes at a pivotal moment in both Trump cases. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments on presidential immunity claims that could significantly delay or even derail Smith’s January 6 prosecution. Meanwhile, the classified documents case faces ongoing challenges over procedural matters.
My conversations with current and former prosecutors reveal concern about the investigation’s chilling effect. “Prosecutors must make decisions based on evidence, not political calculations or fear of investigations,” said Mary McCord, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, when we spoke yesterday.
This investigation reflects a deeper crisis in our institutions. Americans increasingly view justice through partisan lenses, with 67% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats believing the legal system treats political allies and enemies differently, according to Pew Research data from March.
As this story develops, I’ll continue monitoring both the investigation itself and its broader implications for our justice system. The outcome will inevitably shape public perception of not just Smith’s cases against Trump, but the fundamental question of whether equal justice under law remains a realistic American ideal or merely an aspirational slogan.
