Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has ignited a critical conversation about the integrity of the Justice Department, vehemently criticizing its actions under the Trump administration. In a rare and candid interview, Smith laid bare his concerns over politically driven prosecutions, questionable case dismissals, and alarming failures to investigate national security risks, painting a picture of a department driven by outcomes rather than impartial justice.
In a striking interview with former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissman at University College London, former Special Counsel Jack Smith delivered an impassioned and detailed condemnation of the Justice Department’s operations during the Trump administration. Smith, known for his rigorous investigations and prosecutions, particularly those involving President Trump, expressed profound concern that the department had become increasingly politicized, deviating from its fundamental principles of impartial justice. His remarks have resonated deeply within legal circles and among those who champion the non-partisan application of the rule of law.
Smith’s critique centered on several high-profile cases, which he cited as examples of a “lack of process” and a clear indication of a department “driven to achieve certain outcomes, no matter what.” His insights offer a critical lens into the inner workings of the DOJ during a contentious political period, prompting a broader discussion about accountability and the preservation of democratic institutions.
The Comey Indictment: A ‘Lack of Process’?
At the forefront of Smith’s criticisms was the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, who was accused of lying to Congress. Smith characterized this action as reeking of a fundamental failure in established legal procedures. He highlighted that career, apolitical prosecutors had previously determined there was no case against Comey. However, an individual with no prior criminal prosecution experience was reportedly brought in on short notice to secure an indictment just one day before the statute of limitations expired.
This unusual sequence of events, according to Smith, starkly contradicted the standard prosecutorial process he had upheld throughout his career. The U.S. Attorney’s office that indicted Comey also notably brought charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud, further fueling questions about the timing and motivations behind these legal actions, as reported by CBS News.
The Adams Case: Unprecedented Political Quid Pro Quo?
Another point of grave concern for Smith was the Justice Department’s decision to drop a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. This dismissal, he argued, was directly linked to Adams’s cooperation with the administration’s immigration policies. Smith asserted that such a maneuver was entirely unprecedented in his extensive experience. “Nothing like it has ever happened that I’ve ever heard of,” Smith stated during his interview, underscoring the extraordinary nature of this alleged political exchange.
This decision, where a corruption investigation was seemingly traded for political support, raised serious questions about the independence of the Justice Department and its susceptibility to political influence. Critics suggested that this incident represented a dangerous precedent, where legal outcomes could be manipulated to align with specific administrative agendas, eroding public trust in the fair application of justice. Details surrounding this case and other actions by the department were extensively covered by CBS News.
Signal-Gate: A National Security Blind Spot
Smith also lambasted the Justice Department for its failure to investigate the “Signal-gate” scandal. This incident involved then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz using the encrypted messaging app Signal to discuss planned military strikes in Yemen with other top national security officials. Such discussions, by their very nature, would involve highly classified information, and their transmission over an unsecured channel posed significant national security risks, potentially endangering the lives of servicemen.
Smith unequivocally stated that any administration, regardless of political affiliation, would typically launch an investigation into such a serious breach. “There is no administration, Republican or Democrat, that does not open an investigation in that situation,” he emphasized. The apparent inaction by the Justice Department in this instance, according to Smith, highlighted a selective enforcement of the law, where critical security protocols were seemingly overlooked or ignored. The full interview, where Smith discusses these points, was posted online, though recorded earlier in October, and can be viewed via the YouTube recording.
Smith’s Defense and the Future of Justice
Beyond his criticisms, Jack Smith also staunchly defended his own high-profile investigations into President Trump, including probes related to his conduct after the 2020 election and his handling of classified records. These investigations led to criminal charges, to which Trump pleaded not guilty. Smith categorically denied any suggestion that his investigations were politically motivated, calling such claims “ludicrous.” He pointed out that his entire team of investigators and staff had been fired by the Trump administration, and hundreds of Justice Department attorneys and staff had resigned due to discomfort with being “asked to do things that they think are wrong.”
Smith’s own cases against Trump were ultimately closed after Trump won re-election, in line with Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Smith subsequently resigned from the department. The Office of the Special Counsel, a separate entity, later launched an ethics probe into Smith’s handling of these investigations, a move his attorneys have dismissed as baseless. Smith’s powerful statements serve as a stark warning about the potential perils of politicizing the nation’s legal system, advocating for a return to the foundational principles of “no fear, no favor” in the pursuit of justice.
