Jack Smith's Seizure of Trump Donor Checks and Media Communications Constitutes Illegitimate Political Persecution
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "Jack Smith Seized Nearly 5,000 Checks Written By Trump Donors." September 29, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The article argues that Special Counsel Jack Smith abused his investigative powers by collecting thousands of Trump donors' financial records and spying on conservative journalists at The Federalist, none of which seemed necessary for his investigation. The author suggests this, combined with Smith's team dropping a similar probe into Hillary Clinton's campaign, proves the whole investigation was a politically motivated attack on Trump and his supporters rather than a legitimate legal inquiry.
Conclusion
Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump was an illegitimate, politically motivated act of lawfare rather than a legitimate legal investigation.
Premises
- Smith's team seized nearly 5,000 personal checks from Trump donors, including sensitive personal data like bank account numbers, routing numbers, signatures, and home addresses.
- These donations were largely small-dollar amounts (as little as $5) and had no apparent connection to the criminal investigation, as evidenced by their absence from Smith's public report.
- Smith's staff simultaneously killed an investigation into the Clinton campaign, suggesting a partisan double standard.
- Smith's team also subpoenaed communications from The Federalist and more than a dozen other media outlets, obtained via a broad subpoena of 87 phones from Trump administration officials.
- The Federalist has a history of investigative journalism exposing what it characterizes as Democrat-driven hoaxes (Russia collusion, Kavanaugh, Ukraine impeachment), suggesting Smith's targeting was retaliatory in nature.
- This information was only revealed through whistleblower disclosures, implying it was not voluntarily disclosed and may have been concealed.
Assumptions
- The lack of mention of donor checks in Smith's public report proves the checks were unnecessary to the investigation.
- Seizing broad categories of financial/communication records without evident direct relevance implies political motivation rather than legitimate investigative necessity.
- The Clinton campaign investigation was comparable in nature and evidentiary basis to the Trump investigation, making the disparate treatment probative of bias.
- Media organizations' critical reporting on Democrats makes them more likely targets of politically motivated surveillance rather than legitimate investigative subjects.
- Whistleblower disclosures and Senate testimony presented are accurate and complete characterizations of events.