Jack Smith Had Run-In With Chief SCOTUS Justice – Didn’t End Well

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Appointed by the Justice Department to dig into, and later run, President Joe Biden’s largest rival for the Oval office in 2024, Jack Smith, one time even had a serious run-in with a high-ranking federal judge.

This federal judge, being, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

As The Washington Times wrote, Smith, who ran the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Public Integrity Section during Obama’s time in office, often “relies on ethically dubious tactics, including media leaks and enticing witnesses, say those who have been caught in his snare,” the news outlet stated.

During his term, he was head of a team consisting of thirty federal prosecutors who investigated allegations of public corruption, the Times wrote, further adding that Smith and a few others, some of whom are currently working with former President Donald Trump on his classified documents case, “have followed a familiar playbook.”

The Washington Times added; “The script earned Mr. Smith a reputation as a hard-driving, intense prosecutor, but a string of mistrials and overturned convictions led to sharp rebukes from federal judges, including U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.”

Former Republican representative in Arizona, Rick Renzi, who was convicted by Smith and his team on account of corruption and fraud charges in 2013, told the Times; “These are no white knights. They are very dangerous and will use any tactics to win at all costs.”

Renzi kept his innocence going, but he still ended up serving nearly two years in prison before Trump pardoned him in 2021. He wrote a one hundred ninety page white paper about the successful pardon which was submitted by his legal team to the Justice Department. This document went over allegations of “repeated, concealed, and corrosive” misconduct by the prosecutors involved in his case, the Times reported.

Renzi stated that he was shocked by the similarities between his case and the prosecution of Donald Trump.

The Times writes:

Mr. Trump was charged with 37 felony counts, including willful retention of national defense information, obstruction and false statements. Walt Nauta, an aide to the former president, has also been indicted in the investigation.

A review found that Mr. Smith’s team followed the same playbook in the Trump case as in other high-stakes political prosecutions of both Republicans and Democrats. That playbook has resulted in a spotty record.

The Supreme Court withdrew the conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnel, another Republican who had been accused of welcoming payments and gifts despite the violation of federal public corruption laws. This was a landmark decision.

In said decision, John Roberts stated that in the high courts collective decision “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

The trial regarding former Democratic Senator John Edwards of North Carolina , who attempted being a presidential candidate but was accused of unlawfully utilizing campaign funds to keep his affair and illegitimate child a secret, concluded in a hung jury and then was declared a mistrial, just as the case involving Senator Robert Mendez, accused of taking bribes, did.

As all of these major court decisions were being made, Roberts maintained a firm grip on the reins of court. This could have been because he rued his decision last term when assigning the writing of the court’s massive gun-control case to Justice Clarence Thomas. The opinion that this resulted in was so hostile and broad to gun regulation that it resulted in the state being high and dry, being uncertain as to what they could do to deal with the massive increase in gun violence in all areas around the state. However, having assigned this opinion to Clarence Thomas, Roberts likely felt like there was no escape from this issue.

This current running term, however, he assigned himself four out of seven important opinions, as to not repeat last time, these included affirmative action, and he even went on and won some more distinct conservative outcomes with the aid of Justice Kavanaugh or Justice Amy Coney Barret, or even both.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend