Jack Smith's Team Deliberately Bypassed Privilege Protections to Target Trump
Source: Margot Cleveland. "Jack Smith’s Team Ignored Privileges To Get Trump." September 28, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The article claims that prosecutors investigating Trump ignored the normal rules for protecting privileged communications (like conversations with lawyers or between senators), and did so on purpose, while following those same rules carefully in other cases. The author argues this proves the investigation was politically motivated and improperly conducted, and that Jack Smith should be forced to explain this when he testifies before Congress.
Conclusion
Jack Smith's special counsel team and predecessor prosecutors deliberately disregarded attorney-client privilege and Speech or Debate Clause protections in their investigation of Trump, demonstrating that the investigation was weaponized rather than conducted according to normal DOJ procedures.
Premises
- Text messages show prosecutors Molly Gaston and J.P. Cooney explicitly admitting they 'ignored the written description of filtering' privileged materials in February 2021, early in the investigation
- No formal filter/taint team was established for the Trump investigation until June 2022, roughly a year and a half after the investigation began
- In contrast, documented emails show the same prosecutors and other DOJ officials rigorously following filter protocols in other, non-Trump cases—including stopping all review, assigning separate filter teams, and taking up to 60 days for proper scrubbing
- In August 2023, after NARA provided subpoenaed text messages including those of Trump and 44 senators, Smith's team began reviewing the materials within one hour, apparently without waiting for the filter team to segregate privileged information
- There is no evidence the Speech or Debate Clause privilege (protecting congressional communications) was applied at all to the subpoenaed senator texts
- Senators Grassley and Johnson, whose own communications were allegedly exposed, characterize this as reckless disregard for constitutional protections and dishonesty by Smith
Assumptions
- The documents and text messages obtained are authentic and accurately represent the events described
- Deviation from filter protocols in this investigation was intentional or reflects institutional bias, rather than resulting from resource constraints, technical difficulty, or reasonable prosecutorial discretion
- The comparison cases cited are sufficiently similar in scope and complexity to the Trump investigation to serve as a valid baseline for 'normal' procedure
- Failure to strictly follow filter guidance necessarily indicates improper access to privileged material, rather than incidental or corrected exposure
- The special counsel's actions were motivated by a desire to target Trump specifically, rather than by other prosecutorial or investigative pressures
- Grassley's whistleblower documents were selected without omitting exculpatory context that might explain the delays or procedures used