Former Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Counsel to do his share of the Biden administration’s dirty work in the January 6 and Mar-a-Lago documents cases. The appointment document is posted online on Smith’s page in the Department of Justice online archives here.
Thanks to the relentless digging of Senator Chuck Grassley, yesterday it was revealed that the FBI spied on eight GOP senators during its sweeping anti-Trump probe related to the January 6 Capitol riot. Brooke Singman broke the story for Fox News Digital. NR’s James Lynch provides useful background here.
The Republican senators identified in the September 2023 FBI document were Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Marsha Blackburn, Bill Hagerty, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson, and Cynthia Lummis. The document also identified Rep. Mike Kelly. As James Lynch explains at Nr, It was part of the FBI’s sweeping “Arctic Frost” investigation into President Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The anti-Trump probe was part of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s D.C. case against Trump.
That FBI document was not meant to be discovered. It was stashed in the FBI Prohibited Access file.
What is to be done? If it turned out that Smith was acting without probable cause to perform the work of “a partisan zealot,” as Senator Tom Cotton describes the man I call Krazee-Eyez Killa, I wonder if Smith can be prosecuted for violating the civil rights of the congressmen.
As a general matter, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity. In the Mar-a-Lago documents case, Judge Aileen Cannon held that Smith lacked the legal authority he was wielding as Special Counsel and therefore dismissed the case under the Constitution’s appointments clause. NR’s Andrew McCarthy wrote about her ruling in “Sayonara Trump Documents Case as Biden DOJ Appeals Invalidation of Smith Appointment and Dismissal of Indictment” (behind NR’s paywall). I excerpted the column in “Let’s go Krazee.”
Does Judge Cannon’s analysis apply to the investigation of the senators in the January 6 case or had Smith jumped through the hoops necessary to legalize it? If not, is Smith deprived of the immunity he would otherwise enjoy? I can’t help wondering.
