Report documents 5 schemes for which Jack Smith could be investigated

Jack Smith was pulled out of private practice, given vast governmental power and tens of millions of tax dollars to be a key player in the Democrats’ lawfare campaign against President-elect Donald Trump between his first term in office, and his coming second, which will launch Jan. 20.

He assembled two criminal cases against Trump. One essentially was over his opinions about the 2020 election; the other about having government documents from his presidency at his home.

Curiously, Joe Biden also was found about the same time to have had government documents at his home, but instead of filing charges like the federal government did against Trump, officials gave him a pass.

Of course both of Smith’s cases against Trump collapsed and were dismissed when he was elected in November.

But GOP warnings that those orchestrating the lawfare against Trump eventually would face accountability are about to become real, according to a new Washington Examiner report.

It detailed five focal points should investigators and prosecutors wish to review the Democrats’ actions against Trump.

The report pointed out that Trump several times has promised to pursue justice against Smith, and others, for bringing cases that were highly partisan, and considered by Republicans to be unfair..

In fact, members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees already have dispatched notices to Smith, demanding he save all records of his cases, a sign “lawmakers intend to summon testimony and documents…”

The report said one focal point for an investigation could be Smith’s courtroom antics during the final weeks of the campaign.

He filed a massive motion in court in October, just days before the election, to promote his case.

“The document contained details that Smith was deprived of presenting in a trial (since the case never moved to a trial stage), including damning and unflattering grand jury material about how Trump went about objecting to the 2020 election results,” the report explained.

Experts called it a “cheap shot” and pointed out it defied a DOJ practice that requires delaying action if it could affect an election.

Then also facing possible review are the actions of Smith’s prosecutors, Jay Bratt and J.P. Cooney, the report said.

“A misconduct allegation against Bratt was first raised in court by an attorney representing Walt Nauta, one of the co-defendants in the classified documents case against Trump. The attorney, Stanley Woodward, said that during a closed-door meeting, Bratt violated ethics rules by bringing up Woodward’s application to become a judge while Bratt was trying to goad Woodward into complying with him in the Trump case. Smith has disputed the accusation,” the report explained.

Concerns about Cooney’s actions relate to his prosecution of Trump ally Roger Stone, and came up when, according to a DOJ inspector general report, Cooney wanted an unusually harsh penalty.

When he did not get his way, he claimed the Trump administration at the time was giving Stone preferential treatment.

Third was Smith’s decision to use a grand jury in Washington, D.C., where voters overwhelmingly opposed Trump, in the Florida case involving government documents.

“He was almost certain to have greater success [in Washington] in trying to evade attorney-client privilege claims, to conduct the investigation into the classified documents case that almost certainly was going to be venued in Florida,” an expert decided.

That topic even was ordered to be explained by the documents case judge.

Mike Davis, the founder of Article III Project which focuses on America’s judiciary, said there also is a federal law known as conspiracy against rights that could be used against Smith.

He said Smith “must face severe legal, political, and financial consequences for their blatant lawfare and election interference.”

Finally, the report said, there are the political motivations in the cases.

“Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has long raised concerns about politically driven investigators in authoritative roles at the FBI, including one who Grassley said helped Smith in the early stages of his investigations into Trump,” the report said.

One agent, in fact, was “forced” to retire because of his “extreme anti-Trump political bias,” yet had a role in starting the anti-Trump cases.

Grassley charged the case was politicized and “reeks of undeniable partisan tactics.”