The Political Theater of Special Counsel Testimony: A Threat to Equal Justice Under Law

The Facts of the Matter

Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to testify publicly before the House Judiciary Committee on January 22nd regarding his investigations into President Donald Trump. This hearing, called by Republican Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, follows Smith’s previous closed-door testimony where he stated that the January 6th, 2021 Capitol riot “does not happen” without President Trump’s involvement. Smith led two major investigations that resulted in indictments against Trump - one concerning the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and another regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

These investigations, while resulting in formal charges, were ultimately abandoned following President Trump’s victory in the November 2024 presidential election. The Justice Department cited long-standing legal opinions that prevent the indictment of a sitting president, raising serious questions about the timing and purpose of these investigations. Smith’s lawyer, Lanny Breuer, has stated that the special counsel is “ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing” about these investigations.

Context and Background

The context of these investigations cannot be separated from the highly charged political environment in which they occurred. President Trump has consistently maintained that the Justice Department was “weaponized” against him during his campaign to return to the White House. This allegation strikes at the heart of democratic principles, particularly the notion that justice should be blind and applied equally regardless of political affiliation or status.

The timing of these investigations, spanning the period leading up to a presidential election, raises fundamental questions about prosecutorial discretion and the appropriate use of governmental power. The principle that no person is above the law must be balanced against the equally important principle that the justice system should not be used as a political weapon. The fact that these indictments were pursued and then abandoned based on election outcomes creates a troubling precedent for future political engagements.

The Dangerous Precedent of Politicized Justice

What we are witnessing represents one of the most dangerous developments in modern American political history. The pursuit of investigations against a leading presidential candidate, followed by the abandonment of those same investigations based on election results, creates a perception that justice is subordinate to political outcomes. This perception, whether accurate or not, erodes public trust in our institutions and undermines the rule of law.

The foundational principle of American democracy is that all citizens stand equal before the law. When investigations appear timed to influence electoral outcomes or when charges are dropped based on political considerations, we risk transforming our justice system into just another political battlefield. This is antithetical to the vision of our Founding Fathers, who established a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent the concentration and abuse of power.

The Constitutional Implications

The constitutional dimensions of this situation cannot be overstated. The principle that sitting presidents cannot be indicted exists for important reasons related to the separation of powers and the ability of the executive branch to function effectively. However, when this principle intersects with politically charged investigations, it creates a situation where justice appears to be delayed or denied based on political fortune rather than legal merit.

This raises profound questions about whether our current legal framework adequately addresses the complex intersection of politics and justice. The spectacle of high-profile investigations being launched and then abandoned based on election results threatens to undermine public confidence in our entire legal system. When citizens begin to believe that justice depends on political outcomes rather than factual evidence and legal principles, the very foundation of our republic is threatened.

The Threat to Democratic Institutions

What makes this situation particularly alarming is the precedent it sets for future political engagements. If investigations can be launched against political opponents with the knowledge that they will be abandoned if those opponents achieve electoral success, we risk creating a system where the justice system becomes just another tool in political warfare. This undermines the independence and credibility of our legal institutions and threatens the stability of our democratic system.

The proper functioning of democracy requires that citizens have confidence in the impartiality of their institutions. When that confidence erodes, when people begin to believe that justice is not blind but rather politically motivated, the social contract that underpins our republic begins to fray. This is not merely about one investigation or one political figure; it is about preserving the integrity of our democratic system for generations to come.

The Path Forward: Restoring Trust and Integrity

Moving forward requires a renewed commitment to the principles of justice and fairness that should guide all prosecutorial decisions. Investigations must be based on evidence and law, not political timing or electoral calculations. The appearance of justice being weaponized for political purposes damages our democracy regardless of which party or individual benefits in the short term.

We must reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and equal justice under that law. This means ensuring that investigations are conducted with integrity, that timing considerations are separated from political calculations, and that the justice system remains independent from political pressures. The testimony of Special Counsel Smith presents an opportunity for transparency and accountability, but it also carries the risk of further politicizing an already fraught situation.

Conclusion: Upholding Democratic Principles

In conclusion, the upcoming testimony of Special Counsel Jack Smith represents more than just another congressional hearing; it represents a critical moment for American democracy. How we handle investigations of political figures, how we balance the need for accountability with the principles of fairness and impartiality, will define the health of our republic for years to come.

The abandonment of indictments following an election outcome, while legally justified under current interpretations, creates a perception of justice being subordinate to political power. This perception, if allowed to take root, could do lasting damage to public trust in our institutions. We must remain vigilant in defending the principles of justice, fairness, and equal treatment under the law that form the bedrock of our democratic system.

The American experiment in self-government depends on citizens believing that their institutions function fairly and impartially. When that belief erodes, when justice appears to be just another political football, we risk losing what makes our system unique and enduring. The testimony ahead should be approached with seriousness and a commitment to uncovering truth while preserving the integrity of our democratic institutions.