A conversation with Jack Smith ’94

Quick Overview

Jack Smith, a career prosecutor, expresses deep concern that the current state of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is "not normal," citing the sidelining of DOJ traditions in favor of desired outcomes, the vilification of public servants, and the elevation of individuals lacking professional ideals, which collectively threaten the rule of law.

Key Points: Smith asserts that the current situation in the DOJ is "not normal," noting traditions are being set aside because "particular outcomes are wanted" and people are targeted based on opposition to the president. A major concern for Smith is the "vilification of public servants" who adhere to prosecutorial ideals, contrasting this with the hiring of individuals like an advisor to the Attorney General who was videotaped telling rioters to "kill police officers" on January 6th. Smith distinguishes between acceptable policy changes following elections and the crossing of "red lines" involving process violations, such as seeing career prosecutors resign over being asked to investigate politically sensitive matters. The core difference in current actions is a focus on achieving specific outcomes rather than following established DOJ processes, exemplified by cases where local prosecutors found no case, but leadership still pushed forward, causing career prosecutors to resign. Smith emphasizes that competence, integrity (defined as treating people equally under the law, regardless of politics), and communication are the three necessary components for a functioning public institution like the DOJ. Competence requires decades of experience and judgment, analogous to surgery, and Smith notes the disbandment of the Public Integrity Section represents a "jettisoning of expertise at the cost of the rule of law." Smith advises current DOJ lawyers to stay and serve if they believe in public service unless asked to do something unethical or violate their oath, stating that experienced prosecutors will know the difference between policy disagreement and an ethical violation.