The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently briefed the House Judiciary Committee on an ongoing internal investigation concerning allegations of misconduct in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office. The briefing, which centered on ethics and accountability issues, has drawn sharp criticism from committee chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH).
According to sources familiar with the briefing, the inquiry into Smith’s office was initiated after an internal self-report surfaced in mid-2023. However, DOJ officials, citing the pending nature of Smith’s high-profile prosecutions of President-elect Donald Trump at the time, delayed further investigative actions. Jordan expressed dissatisfaction with this approach, arguing that such delays could potentially compromise the integrity of the investigation.
BREAKING: The Department of Justice recently briefed the House Judiciary Committee on an internal investigation it had opened into Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office over misconduct allegations pic.twitter.com/Aur4Cu1XS2
— Gabe Kaminsky (@gekaminsky) December 5, 2024
The allegations against Smith’s team remain shrouded in mystery, but reports suggest they involve high-stakes legal maneuvers that drew both media and judicial scrutiny. For example, one senior prosecutor in Smith’s circle was accused of attempting to sway legal counsel through inappropriate remarks during a closed-door meeting. Another deputy faced criticism for controversial sentencing recommendations in a separate, politically charged case.
Jordan’s letter to DOJ leadership not only underscored his frustrations but also served as a formal demand for records and evidence preservation. This indicates the Judiciary Committee’s intent to pursue a deeper probe into what it perceives as systemic ethical lapses within the DOJ.
Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee is authorized to conduct oversight of the Justice Department to inform potential legislative reforms,” the letter stated. “As previously stated, Congress has long considered potential legislative reforms to the operations of, including proposals that would remove OPR’s exclusive authority to review allegations of ethical misconduct levied against Department attorneys. The Department’s and OPR’s failures to provide any detailed information demonstrate the need for Congress to reexamine these potential reforms to determine whether OPR is a necessary component of the Department.
The DOJ has acknowledged receipt of Jordan’s correspondence but refrained from public comment. With GOP oversight intensifying, the department faces mounting pressure to ensure transparency and uphold public trust as the investigation unfolds.
