Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Legal Intelligence

Former Special Counsel Smith Says Judicial Distrust Hampers DOJ Operations

Smith's public statements arrive as the Justice Department operates under an administration he has accused of institutional interference — raising questions about prosecutorial independence that...

The Congressional Times · July 3, 2026

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith stated publicly this week that the U.S. Department of Justice 'can't do its job' due to growing judicial distrust of federal prosecutors, according to a report published by The Hill on July 3, 2026. Smith, who served as special counsel and brought federal charges against President Donald Trump following Trump's first term in office, said he is 'very concerned' about the integrity of future elections and accused the current administration of weaponizing the Justice Department. The remarks were made in a public forum and reported by The Hill.

Smith's tenure as special counsel was established under 28 C.F.R. § 600, which governs the appointment of special counsels within the DOJ. He was appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. The two federal indictments Smith secured against Trump — one related to the handling of classified documents (Case No. 9:23-cr-80101, S.D. Fla.) and one related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election (Case No. 1:23-cr-00257, D.D.C.) — were both dismissed after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, consistent with longstanding DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting president, as outlined in OLC opinions from 1973 and 2000.

Smith's claim that judges have developed distrust toward federal prosecutors reflects a broader documented trend. Multiple federal judges have issued public rebukes of DOJ conduct in recent months, including orders in immigration-related cases questioning prosecutorial representations. The specific cases underpinning Smith's generalized assertion were not identified in the published report; a review of individual court dockets in the D.C. Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit would provide a more complete evidentiary record of judicial findings against government attorneys.

The accusation that the administration has 'weaponized' the DOJ is disputed by the current administration. The DOJ, under Attorney General Pam Bondi — confirmed by the Senate on February 22, 2025, by a 54-46 vote per the Senate roll call record — has stated its prosecutorial decisions are made on the merits of individual cases. Congressional oversight of DOJ operations falls primarily under the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, neither of which has opened a formal investigation into the claims Smith raised, based on publicly available committee records as of July 3, 2026.

What remains unknown is the specific judicial rulings or documented incidents Smith cited to support his claim that judicial distrust is operationally impairing DOJ functions. Smith's full remarks, including any supporting evidence he presented, have not been published in transcript form as of this reporting. The complete transcript of the forum, if publicly released, and any forthcoming congressional testimony from Smith would provide the documentary record needed to evaluate his specific claims. No congressional hearing featuring Smith has been scheduled, according to the Senate and House Judiciary Committee calendars reviewed as of today's date.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com