...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Former special counsel Jack Smith, who led two high-profile criminal cases against Donald Trump before they were dropped following the president’s reelection, has publicly defended his work and denounced what he described as growing politicization inside the Department of Justice.
Speaking in London on October 8 in an interview with former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann at University College London, Smith said it was “absolutely ludicrous” to suggest his investigations into Trump were politically motivated.
“The idea that politics would play a role in big cases like this, it’s absolutely ludicrous and it’s totally contrary to my experience as a prosecutor,” Smith said, according to CNN.
Read More on News
Newsweek contacted Peter Koski, Attorney for Smith, for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Wednesday.
Why It Matters
At the heart of the controversy surrounding former special counsel Jack Smith’s defense of his Trump investigations is a larger question about the rule of law in American democracy.
Smith’s insistence that politics played no role in his prosecutions — contrasted with Republican claims that the Justice Department was “weaponized” against the former president — underscores a widening battle over whether justice in the U.S. can remain independent from political influence.
As Congress demands Smith’s testimony and the Supreme Court’s broad immunity ruling reshapes presidential accountability, the debate now extends beyond one prosecutor or one president to the integrity of the institutions charged with holding power to account.
...
What To Know
Jack Smith, former Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland (who left the position in January this year) on November 18, 2022, to oversee two federal criminal investigations involving then-former President Donald Trump.
One was the classified documents case — concerning Trump’s retention of government and classified records at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office. The other was the 2020 election interference case — examining Trump’s actions related to efforts to overturn the presidential election results and the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
He emphasized that his team had acted independently. “These are team players who don’t want to do anything but good in the world. They’re not interested in politics,” he said.
Congressional Scrutiny And Political Fallout
Smith’s remarks come as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has called for him to testify behind closed doors by October 28.
In a letter sent Tuesday, Jordan wrote that Smith’s testimony was necessary to determine “the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.” Jordan accused Smith of overseeing “politically motivated investigations,” citing reports that FBI agents under Smith’s direction had obtained limited phone toll records of nine Republican lawmakers during the January 6 probe.
According to Senate Republicans, those records — covering call times and durations but not content — were acquired through a grand jury subpoena in 2023. At the time, Smith’s team was examining communications surrounding efforts to block certification of the 2020 election results.
There is no indication the lawmakers were targets of the investigation.
Smith’s Defense And DOJ Critiques
Smith, who rarely spoke publicly during his tenure, used his London appearance to criticize the current Justice Department’s actions under Trump, particularly its prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey and its decision to drop a federal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
“Nothing like what we see now has ever gone on,” Smith said. “Process shouldn’t be a political issue, right? Like if there’s rules in the department about how to bring a case, follow those rules. You can’t say, ‘I want this outcome, let me throw the rules out.’”
Comey was indicted in September for allegedly making false statements to Congress in 2020, a case brought by Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former personal attorney and now a top federal prosecutor in Virginia.
“This latest prosecution of the former director of the FBI… just reeks of lack of process,” Smith said.
He also criticized the Justice Department’s directive to drop the Adams case after the mayor agreed to cooperate with Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, calling it “unprecedented.”
Smith also weighed in on the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling that granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
While acknowledging his disagreement with the decision, Smith said he and his office “followed it” without question. “While I didn’t agree… we followed it. There was never a question that we were going to follow the law as the Supreme Court said the law now was,” he said.
He warned that the ruling could be interpreted as “tantamount to saying you can never prosecute powerful, high officials.”
Discussing his former classified documents case, Smith said there was “tons of evidence” that Trump had willfully retained sensitive materials, unlike in a parallel probe into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents.
“The difference is the facts,” Smith explained. “The evidence to not give the documents back when the government even tried to get them back before there was a criminal investigation… and then after the investigation started, still refusing to give them back, and then trying to obstruct the investigation—that helps prove willfulness,” he added.
Smith also expressed concern about career prosecutors leaving the Justice Department due to political pressure. “Career prosecutors are being asked to do things that they think are wrong and because they’re not political people, they’re not going to do them,” he said. “That explains why you’ve seen the resignations.”
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to Jordan’s demand for Smith’s testimony by calling it “an unexpected and welcome twist,” saying the letter “clearly demands the release of Smith’s full report” on Trump’s classified documents case, which the Justice Department has not made public.
Aftermath And Ongoing Investigations
The Justice Department dropped both of Smith’s cases against Trump after his reelection, citing a longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing in both matters, calling Smith’s work “a political witch hunt.”
As congressional Republicans press for answers, Smith remains under scrutiny himself.
The independent Office of Special Counsel has opened an inquiry into whether his actions as special counsel violated the Hatch Act, a law that restricts political activity by federal employees.
The office has rarely, if ever, investigated a former prosecutor.
What People Are Saying
Jack Smith from a September 25, 2025, interview: “Where the rule of law is eroding, friends of the president do not have to worry about following the same laws that the rest of us follow.”
The joint statement by Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Jim Jordan October 2, 2025: “Political infection has saturated the DOJ and FBI in recent years … Our oversight work will continue at full speed to ensure that the blindfold is put back on Lady Justice.”
What Happens Next
In the weeks ahead, former special counsel Jack Smith faces mounting political and legal scrutiny as House Republicans press him to testify about his Trump investigations and the Office of Special Counsel examines whether he violated federal ethics laws.
The outcome of those inquiries could determine whether Smith is seen as a symbol of prosecutorial integrity or political overreach. Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing for the release of Smith’s full investigative reports, and debate continues over the Supreme Court’s ruling granting presidents broad immunity.
Together, these developments will test the Justice Department’s independence and shape how Americans view accountability at the highest levels of government.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines