Complaint filed against Jack Smith for lawfare
by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
Shawn Fleetwood writes for the Federalist about one Republican senator’s complaint against a roque federal government official.
Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., filed a bar complaint against former Special Counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday for his “serious misconduct” in running the Biden-era Arctic Frost lawfare against Donald Trump and other Republicans. Jack Smith is “a blatantly partisan actor and his prosecutorial misconduct damaged our constitutional order. He should never be able to practice law again,” Hagerty wrote in an X post announcing his filing. The complaint filed with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Responsibility takes aim at Smith’s use of subpoenas to obtain the phone toll records of Hagerty and other Republican members of Congress. Not only did Smith and his team seek and obtain non-disclosure orders to prevent the phone companies from notifying the GOP officials that their records were being subpoenaed, but they also reportedly did not disclose to the court approving the NDOs that the subpoenas targeted members of Congress. Hagerty alleged that Smith’s “lack of candor was a violation of federal law, and an invasion of the very constitutional privileges that ensure a fully free legislative process.” He more specifically contended that a senator’s “communications with other members of Congress ‘and staff about legislation, votes, committee assignments, and caucus affairs’ are ‘squarely “legislative acts”‘” that the First Amendment’s speech or debate clause “absolutely protects from compelled disclosure.” Nowhere in D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg’s non-disclosure order was there “mention [of] the Speech or Debate Clause … or that the records sought pertained to members of Congress,” Hagerty wrote. “How could that be, given the body of case law substantiating an argument that these very records were subject to legislative privilege? Because Smith’s motion omitted the facts and law that would lead the judge to realize what he was ruling on.” “The defects in Smith’s motion are only heightened by the fact that the order was apparently also written by Smith, and rubber-stamped by the judge,” he added.
