Is Jack Smith About to Get a Taste of His Own Medicine?

| Published July 30, 2025

📌 What’s Actually Happened

Jack Smith’s Timeline

• Jack Smith was appointed as special counsel on November 18, 2022 by then‑Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee investigations into Trump on January 6 and classified documents cases

• In June 2023, Trump was indicted on criminal charges. Those cases were later dropped:

  • The classified documents case was dismissed on July 15, 2024, due to an appointment‑clause ruling

  • The election interference case was dropped November 25, 2024, following DOJ policy forbidding prosecution of a sitting president after Trump won reelection

• Smith formally submitted his final report to DOJ on January 7, 2025, and resigned days later. A public version of the election interference volume was released on January 14, 2025

DOJ Personnel Fallout

• Since Trump took office on January 20, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi has fired at least 37 DOJ staffers connected to Smith’s investigations, including prosecutors and support staff

• Trump also revoked security clearances for members of Covington & Burling who worked with Smith and initiated broader scrutiny of that law firm

• Bondi established a “Weaponization Working Group” in February 2025 to review alleged politicized prosecutions, led by Ed Martin

🧭 Does Cotton’s Request Signal a New Investigation?

• Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of what Cotton’s request means and where it could lead:

  1. The Referral

     • Senator Tom Cotton submitted a formal letter to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC).

     • The letter alleges that Jack Smith may have violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from using their official authority to influence elections.

  2. Allegations Against Jack Smith

     • Cotton points to specific actions by Smith during the 2024 election season:

       • Filing an unusually long, 165-page motion shortly before the election.

       • Requesting expedited court schedules to advance the Trump prosecution during the campaign.

     • These moves, Cotton argues, suggest partisan intent, not standard legal procedure.

  3. What the OSC Can Do

     • The OSC has several options after receiving the referral:

       • Dismiss it outright if it lacks merit.

       • Open a preliminary review to determine if there’s enough to investigate.

       • Launch a full administrative investigation into possible Hatch Act violations.

  4. Possible Outcomes

     • If Smith is found to have violated the Hatch Act, OSC may:

       • Recommend disciplinary action (such as removal from federal service—though Smith has already resigned).

       • Refer the findings to the Department of Justice or other oversight bodies.

       • Publicly release a report outlining its conclusions, depending on the nature of the violation.

  5. Not a Criminal Investigation—Yet

     • This is not a criminal referral.

     • The OSC does not bring criminal charges but can highlight misconduct that may trigger further legal or congressional scrutiny.

  6. The Political Context

     • Cotton’s referral comes amid broader efforts by the current DOJ leadership to:

       • Review actions taken during Trump-era investigations.

       • Dismiss or reassign DOJ personnel involved with politically sensitive prosecutions.

     • This adds political weight and visibility to Cotton’s move.

✅ Verdict: Is Smith Facing “His Own Medicine”?

While Jack Smith is not currently under formal investigation, there’s growing evidence that he may soon be subjected to the same type of scrutiny he once directed at others—particularly Donald Trump.

Here’s how the tables appear to be turning:

1. Referral for Possible Election Interference

• Senator Tom Cotton’s referral to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) accuses Smith of engaging in political activity during his time as special counsel—an alleged Hatch Act violation.

• This referral parallels the accusations Smith leveled against Trump: attempting to interfere in a presidential election.

• If OSC pursues an investigation, Smith could be facing the same kind of formal process—fact-finding, legal interpretation, and public exposure—that he once oversaw.

2. Professional Fallout Mirrors Smith’s Past Targets

• Since the new administration took over in January 2025, the Department of Justice has dismissed dozens of employees tied to Smith’s investigations.

• These include prosecutors, legal researchers, and analysts—some of whom were reportedly forced out for “political bias” or “lack of impartiality.”

• This resembles the treatment Trump loyalists once received under previous DOJ leadership during investigations into the former president.

3. Public Accusations of Weaponization

• Smith built his case against Trump on the claim that the former president used power to undermine democracy.

• Now, Smith himself is being accused of weaponizing legal authority to alter the outcome of an election.

• Whether those accusations hold up in legal terms remains to be seen—but the political framing is unmistakable.

4. Ongoing Investigative Climate

• The DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi has established a “Weaponization Working Group” to examine past politically motivated prosecutions.

• Smith’s decisions—especially his timing, filing strategies, and public statements—are reportedly being reviewed within that effort.

• This adds an informal layer of investigative pressure, even if it isn’t yet a formal criminal probe.

5. Symbolic Reversal

• • Jack Smith spent over a year conducting aggressive legal action against a former president, garnering headlines and shaping political narratives.

  • Now, with Trump back in power, Smith’s own professional conduct is being dissected—on Capitol Hill, inside the DOJ, and in public debate.

  • Whether or not he’s formally charged or sanctioned, Smith is facing the same tactics of legal and reputational scrutiny that defined his role as special counsel.

Implications: What This Means Going Forward

If Jack Smith becomes the subject of a formal investigation or even prolonged scrutiny, the consequences could ripple far beyond his own career. Here’s how:

1. Chilling Effect on Future Prosecutors

• Prosecutors may become more hesitant to take on politically sensitive cases—especially those involving high-profile political figures—out of fear they’ll be targeted later.

• This could lead to a reluctance to investigate powerful individuals, weakening public trust in impartial justice.

2. Normalization of Political Retaliation

• If Smith is investigated largely because he prosecuted a former (and now current) president, it could signal a dangerous precedent:

  Prosecute the wrong person, and you may face payback later.

• This erodes the traditional firewall between law enforcement and politics, potentially leading to a cycle of vengeance with every new administration.

3. Erosion of DOJ Independence

• While oversight of the Justice Department is essential, highly politicized purges or retaliatory investigations may damage its long-standing reputation for impartiality.

• If public perception shifts and DOJ is viewed as just another political tool, it weakens the rule of law and empowers bad actors on both sides.

4. Potential Fallout for DOJ Alumni and Legal Allies

• Smith’s former colleagues and legal collaborators may also face inquiries, audits, or pressure.

• Law firms, advocacy groups, and even judges involved in prior Trump-related cases may be subject to investigation or harassment.

• This could create a chilling climate for legal dissent or civic oversight in politically charged matters.

5. Strengthening of Trump’s Political Narrative

• Trump and his allies have long claimed that the justice system was “weaponized” against him.

• A probe into Smith—even if symbolic—validates that narrative for many supporters and reinforces the idea that Trump is reversing the abuse of power.

• Politically, this energizes Trump’s base and adds weight to his argument that he was the true victim of election interference.

6. Legal Exposure for Smith

• While administrative penalties may be the most likely outcome of an OSC probe, it’s not impossible for further consequences to follow:

  • Congressional hearings or subpoenas.

  • DOJ or Inspector General inquiries.

  • Bar complaints or professional sanctions.

• In an aggressive political environment, even former special counsels aren’t immune to legal risk.

 Overall Takeaway:

Jack Smith, once the face of high-profile prosecutions against a former president, now finds himself under the spotlight in a stark role reversal. While no formal investigation has been launched yet, Senator Tom Cotton’s referral to the Office of Special Counsel sets the wheels in motion for potential accountability—legal, professional, and reputational.

This unfolding chapter highlights more than just one man’s fate; it reflects a broader shift in Washington where legal power is increasingly entangled with political rivalry. If the system begins to punish prosecutors for controversial cases once political tides shift, it could reshape how justice is pursued in America—potentially for the worse.

Whether Jack Smith is ultimately cleared, sanctioned, or investigated further, one thing is clear: the era of one-sided accountability is over. Those who once held power to prosecute may now be forced to defend their own decisions in the same system they once commanded.

SOURCES: TOWNHALL – Is Jack Smith About to Get a Taste of His Own Medicine?