Special Counsel Jack Smith was put on the hot seat this week as GOP lawmakers exposed his politically motivated prosecutions of former President Donald Trump.

How Politics Came to Dominate Trump’s Prosecutions

Special Counsel Jack Smith has spent much of the past two years portrayed by legacy media as a neutral, no-nonsense prosecutor simply “following the facts.” But as GOP lawmakers and critics have increasingly pointed out, that carefully curated image collapses under even modest scrutiny. What emerges instead is a pattern of selective prosecution, aggressive legal theory, and political timing that strongly suggests Smith’s work is less about justice and more about shaping the 2024 electoral landscape.

As Republicans have placed Smith’s conduct under the microscope, uncomfortable questions have surfaced—questions that strike at the heart of public trust in the justice system. Why was Donald Trump charged under novel legal theories never before used in similar circumstances? Why were comparable actions by Democrats ignored or downplayed? And why does every major prosecutorial move seem calibrated to coincide with key moments in the political calendar?

These are not fringe concerns. They go to the core of whether the United States still operates under equal justice under the law—or whether justice has become another weapon in Washington’s political arsenal.

The Rise of the “Get Trump” Mentality

To understand Jack Smith’s role, one must first understand the broader political environment in which he operates. Since the moment Donald Trump descended the escalator in 2015, much of the political establishment has treated him not as an opponent to be defeated at the ballot box, but as an existential threat to be neutralized by any means necessary.

From the Russia collusion narrative to two impeachments, from civil lawsuits to criminal referrals, the strategy has remained consistent: overwhelm Trump with investigations, legal costs, and negative headlines until political survival becomes impossible.

Jack Smith did not invent this strategy, but he has become its most aggressive executor.

Smith was appointed as special counsel not because the legal questions surrounding Trump were newly discovered, but because Trump announced his candidacy for president. That timing alone should give pause to anyone who values prosecutorial independence. When the subject of an investigation becomes a declared political opponent of the sitting administration, the appearance of conflict is unavoidable.

Rather than step back to preserve institutional credibility, the Department of Justice leaned in—appointing a special counsel whose mandate seemed narrowly focused on a single individual.

Novel Legal Theories and Stretched Statutes

One of the most striking aspects of Smith’s prosecutions is the aggressive use of legal theories that push well beyond established precedent. Critics argue that statutes designed for organized crime, document mishandling, or obstruction are being creatively reinterpreted to fit Trump’s conduct—even when similar behavior by others has gone unpunished.

This is not how justice is supposed to work.

Prosecutors traditionally exercise discretion, especially when dealing with unprecedented situations involving former presidents. Smith, by contrast, has adopted a maximalist approach: bring as many charges as possible, in as many jurisdictions as possible, under the broadest possible interpretations of the law.

GOP lawmakers have argued that this approach is less about accountability and more about entanglement—keeping Trump tied up in courtrooms rather than on the campaign trail. Whether or not every charge survives legal challenge, the process itself becomes the punishment.

Selective Prosecution and the Double Standard Problem

Perhaps the most damaging critique of Jack Smith’s work is the appearance of selective prosecution. Americans are not blind to double standards, and they have seen plenty in recent years.

High-ranking Democrats have mishandled classified documents. Federal agencies have slow-walked investigations into politically sensitive figures. Whistleblowers have alleged interference, bias, and internal pressure within the DOJ and FBI. Yet only one former president faces an unprecedented barrage of criminal charges while actively running for office.

GOP lawmakers have seized on this disparity, arguing that Smith’s prosecutions reinforce the belief that there are two systems of justice in America: one for political insiders and another for their enemies.

Even if Smith insists his intentions are pure, the outcome is the same—erosion of public trust.

Timing Is Everything

Another issue that has drawn scrutiny is the strategic timing of key developments in Smith’s cases. Major indictments, court filings, and procedural escalations often seem to coincide with election milestones, debates, or primary contests.

Continue reading…