Federal authorities have reportedly initiated an investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith concerning alleged illegal political conduct, raising significant questions about the impartiality of legal processes in high-profile cases. This development, first reported by The New York Post, centers on claims that Smith’s actions were explicitly aimed at influencing the recent election.

The investigation is being conducted by the Hatch Act Unit on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ), as confirmed by an email from Senior Counsel Charles Baldis of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). This official inquiry underscores the seriousness with which these allegations are being treated, emphasizing the principle that no individual is exempt from legal scrutiny.

Republican Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, a prominent voice and chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly welcomed the OSC’s prompt action. In a statement to the outlet, he emphasized his appreciation for the thoroughness of the investigation, asserting that “No one is above the law” and that Smith should be held fully accountable for his conduct.

Senator Cotton further articulated his concerns, accusing Jack Smith of “weaponizing the legal system against President Trump” and actively working to undermine his political efforts. This sentiment was extensively detailed in a lengthy thread posted by Cotton on X, highlighting what he perceives as a profound misuse of official power.

According to Cotton’s post, “Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns.” He contended that such actions are not only unethical but potentially constitute illegal campaign activity originating from a public office, prompting a deeper examination of how Smith utilized his DOJ role to allegedly influence the election.

Cotton specifically cited Smith’s push for an “out-of-the-ordinary, rushed trial for President Trump,” with jury selection scheduled just two weeks before the crucial Iowa caucuses. He argued that no other case of comparable magnitude would typically proceed with such speed, further alleging that Smith attempted to bypass standard legal processes by seeking direct Supreme Court intervention without justifiable cause.

The senator inferred that the true motive behind these expedited actions and unconventional requests was to secure a swift ruling that would negatively impact Trump before the election. Cotton labeled these as “partisan, unlawful action,” maintaining that Smith’s conduct was not standard, necessary, or justified, but rather indicative of a “political actor masquerading as a public official.”

The article also notes that Smith was the DOJ lawyer who previously led two criminal investigations into during former President Trump’s administration. These inquiries focused on his handling of classified documents and his actions on January 6, 2021, regarding the 2020 election outcome. Both of these cases were ultimately dropped, providing a broader context to the current investigation.

The ongoing investigation by federal authorities into Jack Smith’s alleged illegal political conduct signifies a critical moment in evaluating the intersection of legal authority and political influence. This scrutiny underscores the imperative for transparency and accountability within the justice system, particularly concerning actions that could be perceived as impacting democratic processes.