Jack Smith Swears He was "Unbiased"
The Final Report from Jack Smith was released with a cover letter that is nothing short of political propaganda.
Jack Smith Gets His Last Word
Tuesday, January 14th, 2025: By Walter Curt
Jack Smith’s real claim to fame has nothing to do with old cases or technical legal victories—it lies squarely in the sham prosecution he spearheaded against former President Donald J. Trump. Even though he’s no longer with the Department of Justice, Smith managed one final act of political theater by releasing a “Final Special Counsel Report” replete with a smug, self-aggrandizing cover letter. This letter—far from justifying his dubious investigative tactics—serves only to highlight the partisan zeal behind a fiasco that cost taxpayers a staggering $50 million, all for a case that never even reached trial.
Given the hollow rhetoric in Smith’s parting words, it’s no wonder his resignation looks more like a retreat than a graceful exit. The audacity of proclaiming “independence and integrity” while marshaling unprecedented legal theories to smear Trump raises serious questions about his agenda. Worse yet, the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, chose to release Smith’s “Final Report” precisely when it would cause maximum political damage—underscoring the farcical nature of a prosecution that, in the end, achieved little more than a high-profile hit job on Trump’s reputation.
The Propaganda Cover
In what can only be described as a self-serving flourish, Smith appended a lengthy, triumphant letter to the final report. He writes:
“On the day that I was appointed, I pledged that I would exercise independent judgment, follow the best traditions of the Department of Justice, and conduct my work expeditiously and thoroughly to reach whatever outcome the facts and law dictated.”
Yet that pledge rings hollow in light of what actually transpired. While Smith’s cover letter gushes about “integrity” and “impartiality,” the reality is that his investigation and subsequent report showcased obvious prosecutorial overreach and a blatant political agenda. Much as we saw in the D.C. case—where the defense was confronted with 12 million pages of discovery, ambushed by a truncated trial schedule, and denied legitimate requests for time to prepare—Smith’s final product appears less about genuine legal merits and more about scoring partisan points.
Indeed, Smith’s letter studiously avoids acknowledging the unusual and politically charged tactics underpinning his entire prosecution: novel legal theories, questionable charging decisions, and a hyper-accelerated timeline that, in other contexts, would raise alarm bells about due process. He conveniently leaves out the part where defense counsel was forced to grapple with overwhelming discovery under a hostile judge—Smith’s conduct follows the same pattern of pushing an investigation past the boundaries of fairness. His final letter is notable for omitting any mention of these hardships or the defense’s concerns about a biased jury pool, compressed legal deadlines, and minimal regard for First Amendment and executive immunity issues.
Far from the impartial legal summation he claims it to be, Smith’s “cover letter” reads like a parting shot—an attempt to enshrine his version of events while glossing over how the prosecution itself was conducted. The fact that he resigned from the DOJ before releasing it only underscores the sense that he sought to inflict maximum political damage on Donald Trump without having to defend his actions in court. Chief Justice Roberts’s prior admonition of Smith’s “broad interpretation” of the law in McDonnell v. United States serves as a stark reminder that this is not the first time Smith’s approach has courted controversy. And if the D.C. trial fiasco was any indication, it surely won’t be the last.
McDonnell v. United States (2016): A Historic Slapdown
In McDonnell v. United States, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions of Governor Bob McDonnell, which had been brought under Smith’s direction. The government’s theory stretched the statutory definition of “official acts” so far that even routine political interactions—like arranging meetings or talking with constituents—became potential felonies. Chief Justice Roberts, delivering a 9–0 rebuke, pulled no punches:
“The Government’s expansive interpretation … would raise significant constitutional concerns, threatening to criminalize the commonplace interactions between public officials and their constituents.”
— McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016)
Roberts’s decision made it crystal clear: prosecutors must not twist criminal law so broadly that garden-variety political behavior becomes criminal conduct. The Court pointedly questioned the legal intelligence behind the government’s “broad interpretation,” effectively chastising Smith’s strategy. For a Supreme Court that often divides along ideological lines, a unanimous opinion (9–0) leaves no doubt that Smith pushed the boundaries beyond acceptable limits.
A $50 Million Repeat
Despite the Supreme Court’s clear censure, Smith applied a similarly elastic approach to investigate Donald Trump. Critics argue that the laundry list of charges tied to election challenges, so-called “fraudulent electors,” and classified documents all rely on the same brand of “creative” legal theories. The investigation ballooned in cost—$50 million—while returning indictments that, in the eyes of many, never had the solid legal foundation required for successful prosecutions.
The final indignity? Smith resigned from the Justice Department, washing his hands of the entire affair, yet leaving behind this bombastic report and cover letter. These documents, greenlit for public release by Attorney General Garland and the DOJ, seem designed to tarnish Donald Trump’s reputation rather than secure any legitimate conviction. It’s hard to imagine a more textbook example of a partisan witch hunt.
The Familiar Tune: Broad Interpretation
One of the major parallels between the Trump investigation and McDonnell is the idea of criminalizing political maneuvering. In the McDonnell case, standard political favors were rebranded as bribes. Here, Smith alleged that Trump’s calls to state officials, legal challenges to vote counts, and attempts to rally his supporters constituted federal crimes—obstruction, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and beyond.
“In making decisions as Special Counsel, I considered as a first principle whether our actions would contribute to upholding the rule of law.”
— Jack Smith’s Cover Letter
Yet “upholding the rule of law” is hardly the phrase that comes to mind when charges hinge on supremely malleable interpretations of obstruction statutes. It’s glaringly obvious that, as he did before, Smith molded vague statutory language to fit a partisan narrative. Just like the McDonnell fiasco, it’s a strategy that might look impressive in press releases but fares poorly under judicial scrutiny.
Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion in McDonnell was clear: do not weaponize ambiguous laws to criminalize day-to-day politics. The Court expressed concern that Smith’s approach would chill standard interactions between officials and the public—an alarming prospect for a free society. Despite these warnings, Smith doubled down in the Trump investigation, broadening statutes to net a former president—one who just happens to be the political opponent of the current administration.
If McDonnell had not made it to the Supreme Court, Smith’s unscrupulously wide net might have successfully labeled a governor’s coffee meetings as crimes. Similarly, without scrutiny, the Trump investigation could set a precedent where every phone call or statement about election integrity is potential evidence of conspiracy. That’s not justice; that’s prosecutorial tyranny.
Timing: A Political Smear
We can’t ignore the suspicious timing of this report’s release. Coming on the heels of Trump’s latest presidential bid, the publication—complete with Smith’s sanctimonious cover letter—reads more like an opposition research dump than an impartial legal document. Once again, Smith’s refusal to heed the lessons of McDonnell adds a toxic layer of political warfare to what should be a sober legal process.
“And to all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.”
— Jack Smith’s Cover Letter
“Laughable” might be the word Smith deploys, but the Supreme Court found his legal theories more “unfathomable” when it came to bridging the gap between everyday political acts and prosecutable felonies. In fact, one might ask which is more laughable: Smith denying political influence, or him refusing to acknowledge that his “broad interpretation” remains exactly what Roberts denounced nearly a decade ago.
A Hack with a Legacy of Overreach
Jack Smith has exited the DOJ stage, but his final production—a $50 million boondoggle aimed at Donald Trump—will leave a stain on the American justice system. Once again, we’re watching an overzealous prosecutor twist statutes to settle political scores. McDonnell v. United States should have been Smith’s lesson in restraint; instead, it became the prequel to an even grander act of prosecutorial hubris.
By including his cover letter in the DOJ’s final release, Smith made sure the public saw his swan song—a sanctimonious, self-serving missive that claims “integrity” while ignoring the Supreme Court’s forceful critique of his legal acumen. In truth, Jack Smith’s legacy is that of a man who weaponized the law for politics, disregarded clear judicial boundaries, and stuck taxpayers with the tab for yet another prosecutorial fiasco.
For anyone who respects the Constitution and the sanctity of the legal process, Jack Smith will be remembered as a political hack who forgot the lessons of his own humiliating defeat. Chief Justice Roberts warned him, the American public paid for him, and Donald Trump became his latest target. As history repeats itself, we can only hope that the days of Jack Smith avoiding accountability for his misconduct are numbered.