House Republicans Resort To Threatening Jack Smith With Legal Action


In a sign of perhaps glaring desperation, House Republicans are now threatening Special Counsel Jack Smith at the federal Justice Department with legal action amid his two criminal cases targeting former President Donald Trump.

Specifically, they’re threatening a subpoena, which could take Republicans and the Justice Department’s currently leading Trump prosecutor to the courts as Smith also works to deal with the charges naming Trump. GOP Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.) have demanded from Smith an array of materials related to his investigations, including the broad category of all “documents and communications between or among the Office of Special Counsel, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Office of the Deputy Attorney General referring or relating to the investigation and prosecution of President Donald Trump,” and if Smith doesn’t comply by a stated deadline of early in the upcoming new year, they’re threatening to subpoena him.

Biggs made it clear on X, formerly called Twitter. “We have significant concerns about Special Counsel Jack Smith’s targeting and hatred of conservatives. He can either comply with @Jim_Jordan and me or face a subpoena,” a post from Biggs asserts. Their letter contains similar language.

These Republicans’ missive also suggests legislative action that could outright restrict criminal prosecutions of former presidents in direct response to Trump’s hurdles, though these ambitions would remain unrealized without a filibuster-passing majority also in favor in the Senate. Biggs and Jordan mentioned “possible reforms regarding politically motivated prosecutions of current and former Presidents by federal prosecutors,” and both in the letter itself and elsewhere, Trump’s circles have made clear that they hold the cases from Smith to be allegedly based in politics, which the evidence doesn’t support. Smith has instead operated, in general terms, per the established rules of judicial procedure, and there’s no indication of direct involvement by the president or the White House.