Headline: Former Prosecutor Jack Smith Faces Probe for Alleged Hatch Act Violations in Trump Cases
The latest news centers on an official investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who prosecuted Donald Trump in two major federal cases. The investigation, launched by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in early August 2025, examines whether Smith violated the Hatch Act by politically motivating his prosecutions to influence the 2024 presidential election[1][2].Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, initiated the complaint that led to the OSC probe. Cotton alleges that Smith accelerated the prosecutions of Trump through unusual legal maneuvers, such as pushing trial dates and filing briefs unusually close to the election, all allegedly to secure a verdict before Election Day. Cotton claims these actions were improperly partisan and violated the Hatch Act, a civil statute that bars federal employees from engaging in political activity while performing their official duties[1][2].Smith served as a special counsel appointed in late 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. He oversaw two criminal investigations into Trump: one concerning attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and another related to Trump's handling of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency. Smith secured indictments in both cases but later moved to dismiss them after Trump was reelected in 2024, citing constitutional protections against prosecuting a sitting president. Smith resigned in January 2025, just before Trump’s inauguration, and many of his prosecutorial staff were subsequently dismissed by the new administration[1][3][4].Legal experts and former prosecutors have expressed skepticism that Smith’s actions constitute a Hatch Act violation or any criminal wrongdoing. The Hatch Act typically does not apply directly to criminal investigations, and the OSC’s probe is seen by some as largely symbolic or performatory, especially since Smith has already left government service. One former federal prosecutor pointed out that any criminal charges against Smith would be counterproductive and unlikely, as Trump has historically avoided public trials and prosecutions tend to be closely scrutinized in courts[1][3].Trump himself has repeatedly accused Smith of corruption and claimed, without evidence, that Smith coordinated with the Biden administration to weaponize the Department of Justice against him for political reasons. The OSC investigation could clarify whether any laws were actually broken in Smith’s conduct, but so far, it appears focused on possible civil statute violations rather than criminal charges[1][2][3].In summary, Jack Smith faces an OSC investigation over allegations of using his prosecutorial role for political ends in the Trump cases, with significant debate over the legal merits and motivations behind this inquiry.
--------
3:15
--------
3:15
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith Faces Probe Over Alleged Election Interference
Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw two major criminal investigations into President Donald Trump, is currently under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). This marks the first official legal probe into Smith's conduct by the federal watchdog, specifically through the Hatch Act Unit, which enforces rules restricting political activities by government employees. The investigation follows allegations made by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, who accuses Smith of using his public office to interfere in the 2024 presidential election to the benefit of the Biden-Harris campaign[1][2][4][6].Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland during the Biden administration to lead inquiries into Trump's handling of classified documents and whether Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election results, including actions related to January 6th, 2021. Both cases ended with dismissal after Trump won the 2024 election and Smith resigned in January 2025[1][2][6].Senator Cotton has publicly charged Smith with unethical and potentially illegal campaign activity, claiming Smith manipulated the timing and publicity of the legal proceedings to harm Trump politically. Cotton highlighted that Smith pushed for an unusually expedited trial schedule, demanding that jury selection begin in early January 2024—weeks before the influential Iowa caucuses—and filed a 165-page brief shortly before the 2024 election that revealed secret grand jury testimony, which Cotton argued was intended to damage Trump's campaign while aiding his Democratic opponents[1][2][5].Smith has not responded publicly to these allegations but has previously stated that his investigations followed legal protocols and were free from political influence[2].This investigation into Smith reflects heightened partisan tensions around legal actions involving Trump, with critics on the right alleging politicization of the justice system, while institutional authorities continue inquiries into government conduct during a politically volatile period. The outcomes of the OSC probe into Smith’s actions could have significant repercussions for perceptions of the justice system's impartiality in politically sensitive cases[1][2][5].
--------
2:29
--------
2:29
"Clash of Powers: GOP Chair Subpoenas Ex-Prosecutor in Trump Probe"
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has subpoenaed Thomas Windom, a former Justice Department prosecutor who worked on special counsel Jack Smith's team investigating President Donald Trump. Windom had declined to answer several questions during a voluntary transcribed interview in June without DOJ authorization, which Jordan rejected as an illegitimate excuse. Jordan's subpoena orders Windom to testify before the committee on September 30, 2025, to provide information deemed vital to congressional oversight of the investigations into Trump, including those related to the 2020 election and classified documents held at Mar-a-Lago[1][2][3].Jack Smith was appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland to lead DOJ investigations into Trump’s alleged retention of classified materials and actions aimed at subverting the 2020 election results. However, after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Smith moved to dismiss these cases citing DOJ policies that bar prosecuting a sitting president[1][2]. This dismissal has become a focal point in the political struggle between congressional Republicans and the Biden administration, with the former seeking to restrict the Justice Department’s prosecutorial discretion over current and former elected officials through proposed changes to special counsel regulations[2].Meanwhile, Trump’s aides and allies have continued to attempt to counter moves by Smith’s team, including efforts to critique or challenge DOJ investigations under Biden’s administration. One example includes a failed attempt by Trump to enforce an executive order criminalizing cooperation with international legal bodies such as the International Criminal Court, although that order was struck down[4]. While Trump’s recent activities have included broader political and policy moves, such as signing an executive order delaying tariffs on multiple countries in early July 2025, the ongoing battles over DOJ investigations and congressional oversight remain highly significant. These developments represent a continuing clash over legal accountability and political influence in the post-2024 election environment[5].In summary, the latest news centers on congressional Republicans, led by Jim Jordan, intensifying oversight and demanding testimony from key members of Jack Smith’s former prosecutorial team in connection with investigations into Donald Trump. Smith’s withdrawal from prosecuting Trump after the 2024 election remains a critical issue fueling legislative efforts aimed at limiting future special counsel actions against politicians[1][2][3].
--------
3:07
--------
3:07
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith's Probes Stoke Ongoing Legal, Political Turmoil
Recent weeks have brought fresh attention to former Special Counsel Jack Smith and the ongoing legal and political fallout from his investigations into Donald Trump. Central to the latest developments is a subpoena issued by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan to Thomas Windom, a former senior assistant special counsel under Smith, compelling him to testify about the Justice Department’s actions during Trump’s presidency[1][2][7].Windom played a significant role in the investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and his conduct surrounding the 2020 presidential election[1][2][7]. He previously appeared before the Judiciary Committee on June 12, 2025, but declined to answer several questions, citing lack of authorization from the Justice Department and citing grand jury secrecy rules under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)[2]. Jordan rejected those explanations and ordered Windom to appear again on September 30, 2025, threatening contempt if he refuses to cooperate[1][2]. This move is part of a broader effort by Republicans in the House to investigate what they call the “weaponization” of federal agencies during the Biden administration, particularly focusing on the prosecution of Trump[1][2].This new round of hearings and subpoenas reflects continued tensions between congressional Republicans and the Justice Department, as well as unresolved questions about the independence and scope of special counsel investigations[1][2]. The inquiry is intertwined with previous legal maneuvers: after Trump won the 2024 election, Jack Smith moved to dismiss cases against him, citing Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president[1]. This decision ended pending federal charges, but not the political controversy surrounding the investigations.Meanwhile, Trump continues to grapple with lawsuits and policy decisions. He has initiated a $20 billion defamation suit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, over a report linking him to Jeffrey Epstein—a case that could draw Trump into sworn testimony about his associations with the late financier[5]. This latest legal action is seen by some as a diversionary tactic amid ongoing political scrutiny, though it demonstrates Trump’s willingness to litigate aggressively in both civil and media spheres[5].On the policy front, the Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Trump to dismantle the Department of Education—a move that could lead to layoffs of 1,400 federal workers—without congressional approval[3]. The Court’s liberal justices issued strong dissents, warning of the implications for educational equity and civil rights enforcement[3]. At the same time, multiple states are suing the Trump administration over withheld education grants, and immigration policies are tightening, with expanded detention capacity and new restrictions on bond hearings for non-citizens[3].These developments underscore that the legacy of Jack Smith’s investigations remains a flashpoint in Washington, reflecting both ongoing legal challenges and the enduring political divisions that have defined Trump’s presidency and post-presidency[1][2][7]. The subpoena to Windom and the broader inquiries by House Republicans are likely to keep questions about the DOJ’s conduct—and its investigations of Trump—alive well into the fall, as both parties position themselves ahead of the 2026 midterms and the next presidential contest.
--------
3:51
--------
3:51
Headline: Purge Continues: Trump's Justice Department Fires Dozens Tied to Investigations
Recent developments involving former Special Counsel Jack Smith and President Donald Trump have been marked by significant firings within the Justice Department. The Trump administration has continued to purge employees who worked on investigations related to the president and his allies. Notably, over 20 employees who were part of Jack Smith's team, which investigated Trump for handling classified documents and attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, have been let go. This includes prosecutors and support staff who contributed to these high-profile cases[1][2].The firings are part of a broader wave of terminations that have targeted staff involved in Trump-related investigations. In previous months, the Justice Department had already fired more than a dozen prosecutors working on Trump cases, and at least three prosecutors involved in January 6 riot cases were fired in June[1][2]. These actions have been tied to the "weaponization working group" established by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The group aims to review law enforcement policies from the Biden administration and examine cases involving Trump and his supporters[1].Jack Smith's investigations against Trump included two major cases: one related to the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and another concerning efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. However, both cases were ultimately withdrawn after Trump's second inauguration, following a legal opinion protecting sitting presidents from federal prosecution[2][3].In related news, President Trump has decided not to recommend a special counsel for the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, a case that has been closely watched by his supporters. Despite expectations of significant revelations, the White House has clarified that Trump will not pursue a special counsel investigation into Epstein's allegations[3][7]. This decision reflects the administration's stance on handling sensitive cases and follows a broader trend of reshaping the Justice Department's priorities under Trump's leadership.The ongoing firings and policy shifts within the Justice Department have raised concerns about political interference and the erosion of institutional independence. Critics argue that these actions represent retaliation against those who have been involved in investigations that target Trump and his associates. The situation highlights the complex and often contentious relationship between the Trump administration and the Justice Department, with implications for the rule of law and political accountability.
Jack Smith vs. Donald Trump: A High-Stakes Showdown for American DemocracyOn the one side, you have Jack Smith, a seasoned prosecutor known for his meticulousness and tenacity. On the other, Donald Trump, the former president whose fiery rhetoric and unconventional methods continue to captivate and divide the nation. Their impending legal clash promises to be a historic spectacle, with the stakes reaching far beyond the courtroom walls.The central battleground is Trump's alleged interference in the 2020 election. As special counsel, Smith is tasked with investigating and potentially prosecuting any crimes related to these claims, which include pressuring state officials to overturn the results and potentially inciting the January 6th Capitol riot.Trump, meanwhile, is not known for taking legal challenges lying down. He has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and is mounting a vigorous defense, asserting presidential immunity and questioning the legitimacy of the investigation. His supporters remain fiercely loyal, ready to paint him as the victim of political persecution.Beyond the specific charges, this case carries immense symbolic weight. A successful prosecution of Trump, especially on accusations related to undermining democracy, would send a powerful message about the rule of law and accountability for powerful individuals. Conversely, a Trump victory could be seen as validation of his tactics and embolden further challenges to democratic norms.The legal journey ahead is likely to be long and winding. Trump's lawyers have already filed numerous motions to dismiss the case, and the Supreme Court may be called upon to rule on critical questions regarding presidential immunity. Public opinion and political pressure will undoubtedly play a role, making the case a hotbed of partisan scrutiny and media firestorm.However, amidst the noise, Smith's quiet competence and meticulous approach may prove decisive. His career is marked by successful prosecutions of major financial crimes and organized crime figures, showcasing his ability to navigate complex legal challenges and build airtight cases.Ultimately, the Jack Smith vs. Donald Trump case transcends a mere legal battle. It's a clash of ideologies, a test of democratic principles, and a defining moment for American political history. While the outcome remains uncertain, the mere existence of this high-stakes showdown reveals a nation grappling with deep divisions and searching for a path forward.
España