Yes
I do.
No
I don’t.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has once again become a major subject of political debate in Washington as Republican lawmakers scrutinize his investigations of President Donald Trump and the investigative methods used by his team.
Smith was appointed special counsel during the Biden administration and brought two federal criminal cases against Trump before Trump returned to the White House. One concerned classified documents, while another focused on efforts surrounding the results of the 2020 presidential election. Neither case ultimately produced a trial verdict before Trump returned to office.
Republican lawmakers have strongly criticized Smith’s investigation and have raised questions about subpoenas, communications records and financial information collected during the federal inquiry. At a September 29, 2026 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley accused Smith’s operation of abusing its authority and questioned him about information obtained during the investigation.
The criticism is particularly focused on investigative steps involving lawmakers and other Republicans. Some GOP senators argue those actions went beyond legitimate law enforcement and intruded on constitutional protections and political activity.
Smith strongly disputes that characterization.
During his Senate testimony, the former special counsel defended his investigations and said his team acted based on evidence and federal law rather than partisan considerations. Smith maintained that he would have pursued the same cases regardless of the political party of the person under investigation. Democrats on the committee largely defended the investigation, while Republicans challenged both its scope and methods.
That disagreement goes to the heart of a larger national argument about the Justice Department, presidential accountability and the proper limits of federal investigative authority.
Supporters of the investigations say no president or former president should be beyond the reach of federal law. Critics argue that prosecutors must exercise extraordinary caution when investigating a leading political opponent, particularly when intrusive investigative techniques could affect elected officials or political organizations.
Americans are now being asked to judge those competing arguments for themselves.