When Jack Smith was appointed as special counsel to investigate multiple cases against former President Donald Trump, the media quickly painted him as an impartial figure, citing his past work in The Hague and New York prosecuting state and federal crimes.
What wasn’t revealed until later, however, were Smith’s associations with infamous Obama-era figures and his wife’s connection to Michelle Obama. This raises serious questions about the objectivity of this investigation into Trump.
Smith had been chosen by then-Attorney General Eric Holder to lead the Department of Justice’s public integrity unit in 2010 after a trial involving former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was overturned due to exculpatory evidence being withheld from the Republican lawmaker’s legal team.
Since then, more has been discovered about Smith – including multiple overturned guilty verdicts against Republican lawmakers he had prosecuted during his five-year tenure at the head of that unit.
He also had ties to one infamous Obama-era figure in particular – Lois Lerner – who resigned following a scandal concerning her role in slowing down Tea Party-affiliated groups before the 2012 election season began.
Upon Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland last November, Jonathan Turley (a constitutional law scholar who has often sided with Trump) called it “an extremely damning indictment” from “a serious prosecutor,” which is a far cry from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s charges against Trump.
In response, Trump referred to Smith as a “deranged lunatic” on social media platform Truth Social. While this might be a harsh assessment of Smith himself, that doesn’t change the fact that there are political implications here that call into question whether or not there can be any true impartiality in this investigation given all we know now about Smith’s past involvement with Democrats and their causes since 2010 when he took over at DOJ public integrity unit.
This includes working directly with Lerner on criminal enforcement of campaign finance laws pre-Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court decision lifting prohibitions on corporate expenditures during elections – something Democrats had fought for years prior to its passage only weeks before Lerner made her controversial remarks at Duke University about needing “to fix” problems created by it before midterms occurred later that same year.
According to a report on the Gateway Pundit:
Citizens United v. FEC was a landmark Supreme Court case which held that prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations or private groups in elections was an unconstitutional breach of the First Amendment’s right to free expression. The IRS targeting scandal was, in large part, triggered by the lifting of those prohibitions, with Lerner telling an audience at Duke University the IRS was under pressure to “fix the problem” the decision created before the 2010 midterms.
Just days before the speech, Issa and Jordan said in the letter, “the Justice Department convened a meeting with former IRS official Lois Lerner in October 2010 to discuss how the IRS could assist in the criminal enforcement of campaign-finance laws against politically active nonprofits. This meeting was arranged at the direction of Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith.”
The implications here are clear: Jack Smith may be a competent prosecutor but is he truly impartial? Is he really capable of conducting an objective investigation into Donald Trump considering what we know now about his past involvement with prominent Democrats?