Jack Smith Is Known to Take On Tough Cases. But He Doesn’t Always Win.
By: By Sadie Gurman and James Fanelli
We shall see how the statute stretcher performs.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought historic, back-to-back indictments of a former president, has developed a reputation as an aggressive prosecutor known for trying high-stakes, politically explosive cases.
But he hasn’t always prevailed.
Smith led the Justice Department’s public corruption unit more than a decade ago , when it brought several cases against lawmakers and politicians that legal experts say were based on far-reaching interpretations of federal law that sometimes backfired before juries and courts.
Now he faces the most consequential case of his extensive career, the prosecution of Donald Trump on charges that he conspired to undo his 2020 election loss. In doing so, Smith is relying on theories that present legal questions that some experts say could go either way in court.
Smith and some of his prosecutors were present Thursday when Trump pleaded not guilty to four crimes, including conspiring to defraud the U.S., obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring against the rights of voters. A lawyer who worked with Smith called it a “classic Jack case”—streamlined, compelling and easy to follow.
While some defense attorneys viewed the indictment as strong and straightforward, others said the case pushes the envelope.
“This case is clearly on the frontier of American jurisprudence: using general and broad conspiracy and fraud theories to convict a politician for transgressions against the state,” said Stan Brand, a defense lawyer who has represented several Trump associates.
Some former prosecutors said the indictment doesn’t clearly define which specific moments Trump’s actions became criminal. It notes, for example, that it isn’t a crime to falsely claim he won an election, but that Trump also “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.” Where the line stands between the former and the latter isn’t clearly spelled out in the indictment, some former prosecutors said.
Other experts say if the theories are novel, it is because so are the facts: Never before has a defeated president been accused of trying to block the peaceful transfer of power to his successor.
The latest indictment follows separate charges Smith brought in June alleging Trump retained classified documents after he left the White House and tried to obstruct their recovery, the first-ever federal criminal case against a former president. Trump has pleaded not guilty to those charges.
Smith, a registered independent, brings to the Trump cases a wide-ranging prosecutorial career on the local, national and international levels. He has handled a range of complex investigations that involved some of the most serious offenses committed by government officials, including corruption and war crimes.
Attorney General Merrick Garland had no relationship with Smith when another senior official recommended him in November for the fraught role of special counsel, pointing to his reputation as a mission-driven prosecutor. Attorneys who know Smith have said he would feel like he failed if he didn’t find charges to bring against a target.
After Tuesday’s indictment, Garland praised Smith and his team as “experienced and principled, agents and prosecutors” and said they have “followed the facts and the law wherever they lead.”
A spokesman for Smith declined to comment.
Trump’s supporters have attacked him as partisan, even though he pursued both Republicans and Democrats.
Smith took over the Public Integrity Section in 2010, as it was reeling from the implosion of its case against the late Republican Sen. Ted Stevens after prosecutors failed to turn over evidence that would have helped the defense. Shortly after his arrival, Smith reviewed some long-running investigations into members of Congress and recommended closing several of them without charges. But the section’s court work began to pick up, as he worked to improve the team’s trial skills. The section tried 17 cases in 2011, and 12 the next year.
Alongside successes were some setbacks. Prosecutors charged former Democratic Sen. John Edwards in 2011 on a novel legal theory that funds paid from an Edwards benefactor to the senator’s mistress were campaign expenses.
Former Sen. John Edwards, right, leaving the Federal Courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., with his attorney in 2011. PHOTO: CHUCK LIDDY/RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER/TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE/GETTY IMAGES
At trial, the jury deadlocked on most of the charges and acquitted Edwards on one charge .
“I felt like the evidence just wasn’t there. It could have been more,” a juror told reporters at the time . The Justice Department dropped the case in 2012.
The same year, a jury for a second time acquitted a casino owner and several state lawmakers in a prosecution brought by Smith’s unit alleging the lawmakers were being bribed to legalize gambling in the state. The case centered on whether the conduct was criminal or just a seamy part of the legislative process. Jurors found the latter .
No personal insults
No death wishes of any individual
All of NT's rules apply
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
This explains the opinion of many ...............
I do not believe the Honorable Mr. Smith is going to lose this one!
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your track record on this isn't that great.
What statute is the Honorable Mr. Smith stretching?
Read the article. It is his history.
So he lost two cases?
The article used only two as an example. Read between the lines FFS
[✘]
So what current cases has the Honorable Mr. Smith lost versus when he led the Justice Department's Public Corruption Unit MORE THAN A DECADE AGO?
Read tha article and opinions of all the pros. Save Face
'All the pros' - how many?
Again, read the article.
'Stan Brand - a defense attorney who has represented several associates of the former 'president' is one of the alleged many'
and
'some former prosecutors' 'other experts' doesn't equate to 'all the pros' and doesn't equate to 'this explains the opinions of many'
All the pros in the article. Sheesh
The former 'president's' actions became criminal (prior to 1/6 when his team of co-conspirators planned all this after he lost bigly) and then during his 'speech' during 1/6 when he knowingly lied about election fraud - didn't you read the indictment? - every lie about more votes than voters, thousands upon thousands of dead voters, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. for every state he lied about fraud - were listed in the indictment.
Again, didn't you read the indictment?
Yes I read the indictment. Seems some didn't and are just parroting what they are told. Obviously you didn't read the article. See comment 4 below.
Greg is wrong. The crime wasn't falsely saying he lost the election. See comment 1.5.
It sure doesn't seem like you read the indictment.
That's one of them.................
[✘]
So, you got nothin'?
It would be impossible to lose this one. Of course the [DELETED] may stage a huge rebellion over it, but for Trump to prevail where any other person would be convicted would be a glaring miscarriage of justice.
Trump's crimes were committed in plain sight. Only MAGA driven denial prevents every single in person in America from admitting it.
And yet, after 7 years of investigating, NONE have bore even a trial let alone any kind of conviction. Seems evidence is running short for these investigators.
Keep your pants on.
[DELETED]
[meta and no value borderline taunt]
That's what Adam Schiff falsely and repeatedly claimed at every microphone. That didn't work out very well for him!
Are these "plain sights" the same as the hundreds of "I hate Trump" and "we got him now" seeds?
All with no proof.
Pardon me, I meant to say Trump enthusiasts.
Which would bring Smith's integrity into question for some.
Not would, but rather SHOULD. The old Beria schtick. "“Show me the man and I'll show you the crime”
And for the left, as we've seen in the past, "I'll show you the crime" means they will make one up if there isn't evidence of one.
In their defense, they don't do their own research (or know how to do their own research) and rely solely on what somebody else tells them.
"Some former prosecutors said the indictment doesn’t clearly define which specific moments Trump’s actions became criminal. It notes, for example, that it isn’t a crime to falsely claim he won an election...."
The evidence in this case is very flimsy.
It also sets some very bad precedent in that the party in power can use the precedents to charge any political enemy based on what the person had said. It criminalizes political speech that politicians have used for many many years. It's gonna be interesting watching this all unfold.
Make no mistake, ultra-left Garland is still grinding that failed 2016 SCOTUS nomination axe and that's why he's weaponized the DoJ and FBI ... and now praised Smith. George Soros must be very proud of them.
The Honorable Merrick Garland is neither left nor ultra-left.
You misspelled worthless piece of shit. He was so incompetent the republicans didn't even give him a hearing when Obama tried to nominate him for the SC, saving Obama the embarrassment of having to withdraw the nomination.
It's hilarious how you're trying to re-write/whitewash history regarding his nomination.
The United States of America dodged a toxic bullet with that one!
Agree.
It's amazing how liberals don't see that mitch McConnel kept Obama from making more of a fool of himself.