# A conversation with Jack Smith ’94 Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M8vsVfVdpo Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/2M8vsVfVdpo Generated: 2026-03-04T17:01:15.461+00:00 --- ## 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. **Context:** The conversation features Jack Smith ('94), a career prosecutor who served in various roles including Special Counsel at the DOJ, speaking with Professor Alex Whiting. The discussion centers on Smith's perspective, gained from 30 years across Republican and Democratic administrations, regarding the current state and traditions of the Department of Justice after he left his role, focusing heavily on departures from established norms regarding process, political influence, and professional integrity. ## Detailed Analysis Jack Smith argues that the changes within the Department of Justice are fundamentally abnormal, moving beyond standard policy shifts that accompany new administrations. He is deeply concerned by the willingness of leadership to abandon decades-old DOJ traditions to achieve specific results, such as targeting perceived enemies or avoiding investigations where they might lead. Smith highlights the dangerous trend of vilifying experienced, nonpartisan public servants while promoting individuals whose ethical standards conflict with core legal ideals, citing the example of an advisor to the Attorney General who encouraged violence on January 6th. He delineates the red lines that distinguish policy changes from misconduct: the focus on outcomes over process, which leads to actions resembling "show trials," and the failure to follow facts, citing the signal app case as an example where an investigation was shut down immediately despite clear evidence of handling classified war plans. Smith stresses that a functional DOJ requires competence, integrity (defined as treating everyone equally under the law), and communication. He equates prosecutorial skill to a specialized craft like heart surgery, noting that losing career experts, such as the effective disbandment of the Public Integrity Section, degrades the department's ability to function correctly and maintain public trust. Smith concludes that while prosecutors must accept carrying out lawful policies they dislike, they must resign if asked to violate their oath or act unethically, emphasizing that the rule of law, which is under threat, is not self-enforcing and requires dedicated people of high integrity to protect it. ### Introduction and Context - David Wilkins introduces Jack Smith, noting Smith taught civil procedure in 1991; The event is part of the Center on the Legal Profession's speaker series; Ground rules include no recordings and respect for the discussion. ### Current State of the DOJ - Smith states clearly that what is happening now "is not normal"; He observes traditions being set aside for desired outcomes and the targeting of opposition; He is primarily concerned with the vilification of career public servants who adhere to ideals. ### Process vs. Outcomes - Smith differentiates between election consequences (policy shifts) and violations of DOJ traditions; He defines the red line as prioritizing an outcome over fair process, comparing this to 'show trials' internationally; He points to the James and Comey cases as examples where career prosecutors advising against action were overridden. ### The Importance of Facts - Smith stresses the maxim "facts matter"; He notes current leadership shows a "reticence to follow the facts" if they lead to investigating people the President does not want investigated, citing the signal app case as an example where an investigation was immediately shut down. ### First Principles for the DOJ - Smith outlines three necessary principles: process matters, following facts matters, and keeping politics out of decision-making; He emphasizes the need to protect nonpartisan public servants so they can uphold the rule of law. ### Competence as Specialized Skill - Smith equates prosecutorial expertise to heart surgery, requiring years of practice ('getting reps') to build judgment; He cites the disbandment of the Public Integrity Section as a "jettisoning of expertise" that makes it easier to manipulate outcomes. ### Integrity and Independence - Integrity means treating people equally under the law, irrespective of politics; Smith recalls that early in his career, pursuing cases based on political enmity was unthinkable; Losing integrity means judges and juries lose trust in prosecutors across all case types. ### Communication Challenges - Smith acknowledges the difficulty prosecutors face communicating due to rules protecting fair trials, contrasting this with powerful defendants who spread misinformation; He suggests future leaders must add communication skills to the traditional competence and integrity.