Yes
He should.
No
He shouldn’t.
Former special counsel Jack Smith is back at the center of a major political and legal battle in Washington, as Republican lawmakers continue scrutinizing the investigations he previously led into President Donald Trump.
Smith oversaw two federal criminal investigations involving Trump before Trump returned to the White House. Those cases concerned Trump’s handling of classified documents and his conduct surrounding the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. The federal cases were ultimately dropped or ended after Trump’s 2024 election victory, and Smith left the Justice Department in early 2025.
The controversy, however, did not disappear.
Republican lawmakers have since investigated Smith’s conduct, including investigative steps involving telephone records connected to Republican members of Congress. In July 2026, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan referred Smith to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, alleging that Smith gave false testimony to Congress. Smith’s attorneys dispute accusations of wrongdoing and argue that Republicans have mischaracterized his testimony.
Smith appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee again on September 29 and defended his investigations. He said his decisions were based on evidence and the law rather than Trump’s political affiliation. Republican senators strongly challenged that explanation, while Democratic senators defended Smith and argued that the investigations were legitimate.
That distinction is important: Smith has not been convicted of a crime. In the American justice system, a president cannot simply order a political opponent sent to prison. Criminal punishment requires an investigation, charges where warranted, due process, and ultimately a conviction or guilty plea before imprisonment can be imposed.
Still, many Trump supporters believe Smith’s conduct deserves much greater scrutiny. They argue that investigators who potentially abuse government authority must face the same standards as ordinary Americans. Smith and his defenders counter that prosecuting officials simply because they investigated a president would create a dangerous precedent and could undermine independent law enforcement.
The debate therefore extends beyond Trump and Smith. It concerns one of America’s most fundamental principles: How should the country hold powerful government officials accountable without turning the justice system into a political weapon?