By Stephen Zogopoulos, USNN World News
The recent defense by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland of Special Counsel Jack Smith, following the charging of former President Donald Trump with concealing documents and other crimes, has sparked intense controversy. Critics argue that Garland’s unwavering support for Smith, despite a series of concerns surrounding the investigation, raises questions about the integrity and impartiality of the process, as well as Attorney General Garland himself. This article examines the background of the case and highlights why both Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Jack Smith should recuse themselves from any proceedings involving Trump.
Smith’s Controversial Track Record
One of the key reasons behind the skepticism surrounding Smith’s appointment is his controversial track record as a prosecutor. Smith’s high-profile prosecution of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, which resulted in a conviction on bribery charges, was ultimately unanimously overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice John Roberts criticized the government’s “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute,” raising doubts about Smith’s judgment and legal expertise.
Moreover, Smith’s decision not to pursue prosecution in the case of nonprofits targeted by the IRS, despite considering charging them with conspiracy to violate campaign finance law, further underscores concerns about his impartiality. These actions suggest a propensity to push boundaries and a potential willingness to prioritize personal agendas over a fair and balanced investigation.
Smith’s Connections and Bias
Another factor contributing to the controversy surrounding Smith’s appointment is his personal connections and potential bias. Smith’s wife, a film director who produced a documentary about former First Lady Michelle Obama, has openly donated to President Joe Biden’s campaign. This familial connection and political affiliation raise legitimate concerns about Smith’s ability to remain neutral and unbiased in an investigation involving former President Trump, a political opponent of Biden.
Garland’s Defense and Apparent Conflict of Interest
Attorney General Garland’s defense of Special Counsel Smith has further intensified the skepticism surrounding the investigation. While Garland describes Smith as a “veteran career prosecutor,” critics argue that this defense fails to address the valid concerns raised about Smith’s track record and potential biases. Moreover, Garland’s appointment of Smith and his insistence on defending him without addressing these concerns raise questions about Garland’s own judgment and impartiality.
The regulations governing the special counsel’s appointment require them to notify the attorney general of significant events in the investigation. However, Garland’s assertion that he has followed federal regulations does not address the substantive concerns raised regarding Smith’s conduct. Additionally, the attorney general’s ability to oversee and question the actions of the special counsel is undermined if he staunchly defends them without due scrutiny.
Calls for Recusal
Given the numerous concerns surrounding Special Counsel Smith’s track record, potential bias, and the lack of transparency in the investigation, there are growing calls for both Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith to recuse themselves from any proceedings involving Donald Trump. Critics argue that Garland’s unwavering support for Smith, coupled with the potential conflict of interest arising from their shared political affiliations, creates an atmosphere of bias and undermines the credibility of the investigation.
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s defense of Special Counsel Jack Smith in the face of mounting concerns raises serious doubts about the impartiality and fairness of the investigation into former President Donald Trump. Smith’s controversial track record, potential bias, and connections, along with Garland’s unwavering support, have led to calls for both Smith and Garland to recuse themselves from any Trump-related proceedings. To ensure a fair and transparent investigation, it is imperative that the integrity of the process be upheld and any appearance of bias or impropriety be avoided.
