In a rare and pointed public critique, Jack Smith, former special counsel, sharply criticized the Department of Justice’s recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, saying the move “reeks of lack of process.” He drew attention to what he perceives as procedural irregularities and political meddling in the charging decision.
Smith, speaking in an interview, defended his previous prosecutions of Donald Trump as rigorous and insulated from politics. He contrasted them with the DOJ under Trump’s post-2025 administration, citing actions he saw as unprecedented. One of the most striking cases he referenced was the Comey indictment, which Smith at least implicitly framed as diverging from norms of prosecutorial discipline.
In his critique, Smith noted how the Eastern District of Virginia replaced a U.S. Attorney who resisted bringing the Comey charges, and inserted Lindsey Halligan, a relatively inexperienced prosecutor, at the eleventh hour—just days before the statute of limitations would expire. He painted that sequence as lacking the deliberative care he expects from DOJ leadership.
Smith also accused the current DOJ of dismissing cases for political convenience (e.g., a corruption case involving New York’s mayor) while leveling retaliatory charges against former government officials. He warned that purging experienced, nonpartisan public servants for ideological alignment is a threat to national security and institutional capacity, saying the cost is “incalculable.”
His remarks add an unusual voice of internal criticism: someone who led high-stakes prosecutions accusing his successors of deviating from norms. Observers see his public stance as another sign of fractures inside the DOJ and growing tension over how prosecutorial discretion is being exercised.
Why It Matters
-
Internal check on prosecutorial conduct
— Criticism from a former special counsel lends credibility to claims that the DOJ’s current actions diverge from accepted norms. -
Signal to career prosecutors
— When a figure like Smith warns about politicization, it may embolden DOJ staff to resist questionable directives or resign. -
Public legitimacy of indictments challenged
— Smith’s framing invites courts, Congress, and the public to question whether recent prosecutions are fair and independent. -
Precedent for oversight & norms
— His intervention could influence future oversight, internal policy reforms, or standards governing prosecutors’ behavior. -
Alignment with defense strategies
— Comey’s defense and others facing politically charged indictments may lean on Smith’s critique to bolster arguments of prosecutorial abuse.
Key Legal Outcomes
-
Support for motions challenging prosecutorial legitimacy
— Smith’s public stance may back arguments by Comey’s lawyers demanding dismissal or suppression based on undue influence or process defects. -
Increased pressure for DOJ internal reviews
— The critique may drive investigations by the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General into recent prosecutorial decisions and staffing moves. -
Judicial scrutiny on staffing decisions
— Courts may more closely examine whether the appointment of Halligan or removal of prior prosecutors was lawful or procedurally proper. -
Potential discovery into DOJ deliberations
— Judges might grant discovery into internal DOJ memos, emails, and deliberative documents to determine if political preferences tainted charging decisions. -
Refinement of doctrine on prosecutorial independence
— The dispute could contribute to future precedents defining how much deference courts give the executive in criminal charging decisions, especially for high-profile defendants.
