Jack Smith, Hitman for Democratic-Lawfare Complex | News, Sports, Jobs

WASHINGTON — The modern Democratic Party operates like a mafia family. Like the mafia, Democrats have a specific organizational hierarchy. There are the big bosses who sit at the top of the entire food chain, like the Obamas and the Clintons. There are the trusted consiglieres, like Attorney General Merrick Garland and outside superlawyer Marc Elias. There are the caporegimes, like Governors Gavin Newsom and Kathy Hochul. There was even a years-long vow of silence surrounding President Joe Biden’s apparent physical and mental decline.

And then, as in any organized crime syndicate, there are the street gangs—the hitmen. The role of the foot soldier is to dutifully carry out the orders of his masters. Often, the tasks assigned to the foot soldier are not exactly respectable—intimidation, blackmail, extortion, and, yes, the elimination of those rivals who pose a real threat to the family’s territory or prestige.

In the year 2024, so-called special prosecutor Jack Smith — yes, only so-called, as Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Aileen Cannon recently concluded — is the quintessential foot soldier for the Democratic Party, and the Democratic-lawfare complex that now serves as the focal point of the party primaries.

No one should have been under any illusion that Smith was a noble lawman dedicated to upholding the rule of law. After all, Smith accused a former US president of violating the (SET ITAL) Espionage Act (END ITAL) — the controversial World War I-era law normally reserved for extreme cases like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. After this week, however, the game is truly up: Smith’s shameless politics and campaigning are on display for all to see.

But let’s take a step back. Earlier this summer, Smith was reprimanded by the court on at least three different counts.

First, a 6-3 majority in Fischer v. United States held that a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 regarding obstruction of a “official procedure,” found at 18 U.S.C. 1512, could not be used to prosecute attendees of the Jan. 6 jamboree at the U.S. Capitol. Instead, that provision of Sarbox dealt with corporate fraud and tampering with physical documents — not constitutional events like the formal counting of the Electoral College votes in Congress.

Second, in Trump v. United States, a slightly modified 6-3 Supreme Court composition emphatically rejected Smith’s argument that a former president does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution after his presidency. Instead, the court held that the president enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for all plenary constitutional acts performed while in office, and a rebuttable presumption of immunity from prosecution for all “officially” actions in a broader sense.

Third, the competing opinion of Judge Thomas in Trump v. United States, and Judge Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, suggested that Smith is not a legitimate special counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice because Congress did not properly create his office. “by law.” Judge Cannon’s ruling threw out Smith’s Espionage Act lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, which involved a high-profile dispute over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Smith is now appealing Cannon’s dismissal.

The combined effect of these rapid developments should have sent Smith an unmistakable message: (SET ITAL) Abort your mission. (END ITAL) This is doubly true given the upcoming November election, in which a certain criminal suspect will appear at the top of the ballot. After all, the DOJ’s own internal (SET ITAL) Justice Manual (END ITAL) stipulates that “Federal prosecutors … should never make a decision regarding an investigation or prosecution, or select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges, with the purpose of influencing an election, or with the purpose of favoring or disfavoring a candidate or political party.”

Come again?

Any reasonable prosecutor — or would-be prosecutor — would have conceded defeat and abandoned the lawfare madness. Instead, in his superseding indictment filed this week in Washington, D.C., Smith doubled down in every way possible.

Smith made only cosmetic changes to his original charging document, removing certain factual allegations that clearly related to a president’s plenary constitutional conduct, but retaining other alleged acts that still fall within the broader scope of the charge. “officially” presidential behavior. Astonishingly, in both of his charges against Trump, Smith invoked the Sarbox provision that the Supreme Court just ruled in Fischer, which cannot be invoked for prosecutions related to January 6 — including Smith’s anti-Trump case in Washington. And perhaps most offensively, dimwitted Smith simply didn’t get the memo: Like a jilted lover, he still thinks he’s a real “special counsel.” But he isn’t.

As a lawyer myself: Smith is not very good at this whole legal thing. He really should consider another profession. I hear the US Secret Service is hiring.

The American people can finally show Smith – and the rest of the Democratic-Lawfare complex – the door in November.

— — —

To learn more about Josh Hammer and read articles by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.