Jack Smith, who was appointed by the Justice Department to investigate and subsequently run against President Joe Biden’s biggest rival for the presidency in 2024, had a severe altercation with a high-ranking federal judge.
This federal justice is Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts.
According to The Washington Times, Smith, who oversaw the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Public Integrity Section during Obama’s presidency, “relies on ethically dubious tactics, including media leaks and enticing witnesses,” according to those who have fallen into his trap.
During his tenure, he led a team of thirty federal prosecutors investigating allegations of public corruption, according to the New York Times, which added that Smith and a handful of others, some of whom are currently working with former President Donald Trump on his classified documents case, “have followed a familiar playbook.”
The Washington Times added; “The script earned Mr. Smith a reputation as a hard-driving, intense prosecutor, but a string of mistrials and overturned convictions led to sharp rebukes from federal judges, including U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.”
Former Arizona Republican representative Rick Renzi, who was convicted of corruption and fraud charges by Smith and his team in 2013, stated to the Times, “These are no white knights. They are very dangerous and will use any tactics to win at all costs.”
Renzi maintained his innocence, but he still served nearly two years in prison before being pardoned by Trump in 2021. His legal team submitted to the Justice Department a 190-page white paper about the successful pardon that he authored. The Times reported that this document detailed allegations of “repeated, concealed, and corrosive” malfeasance by the prosecutors involved in his case.
Renzi expressed surprise at the similarities between his case and Donald Trump’s prosecution.
The Times writes:
Mr. Trump was charged with 37 felony counts, including willful retention of national defense information, obstruction and false statements. Walt Nauta, an aide to the former president, has also been indicted in the investigation.
A review found that Mr. Smith’s team followed the same playbook in the Trump case as in other high-stakes political prosecutions of both Republicans and Democrats. That playbook has resulted in a spotty record.
The Supreme Court withdrew the conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnel, another Republican who had been accused of welcoming payments and gifts despite the violation of federal public corruption laws. This was a landmark decision.
In said decision, John Roberts stated that in the high courts collective decision “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”
The trial of former North Carolina Democratic Senator John Edwards, who ran for president but was accused of illegally using campaign funds to conceal his affair and illegitimate child, ended in a hung jury and was declared a mistrial, just as the trial of Senator Robert Mendez, who was accused of accepting bribes, did.
Roberts maintained a firm grasp on the court’s controls while all of these significant decisions were being made. This may have been because he regretted his decision last term to assign Justice Clarence Thomas to write the court’s monumental gun-control case. This resulted in such a hostile and widespread stance against gun regulation that the state was left in the lurch, unsure of what it could do to combat the enormous increase in gun violence in all areas of the state. Having delegated this opinion to Clarence Thomas, Roberts presumably felt he had no way out of this situation.
This current term, however, he assigned himself four out of seven significant opinions so as to avoid a repeat of the previous term. These opinions included affirmative action, and he went on to achieve additional conservative victories with the assistance of Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barret, or both.