Sen. Hagerty Files Bar Complaint Against Jack Smith Over Prosecutorial Misconduct

4 min read

Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) has filed a formal bar complaint against former special counsel Jack Smith, accusing him of prosecutorial misconduct that allegedly damaged the constitutional order. In a post on X, Hagerty labeled Smith a ‘partisan actor’ and claimed his actions violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Complaint Details and Legal Arguments

Hagerty submitted the complaint to R. Culver Schmid, Chairman of the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. In the letter, he described Smith as having committed serious misconduct, including failing to disclose critical facts and law to a federal court. The complaint alleges that Smith violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by seeking and obtaining a nondisclosure order from a federal district court without advising the court of important legal information.

Hagerty emphasized that the lack of candor resulted in a violation of federal law and an invasion of constitutional privileges that ensure a fully free legislative process. He argued that the Constitution provides members of Congress with wide protection for their official communications, and that Smith failed to disclose key information that would have alerted the court to a legislative-privilege issue.

Subpoena and Nondisclosure Order Controversy

During the Biden administration, Smith served as Special Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. He sent a subpoena to Verizon, Hagerty’s cell phone provider, requesting phone records. Hagerty claimed that Smith obtained these records under a secret court order that did not flag the constitutional and statutory protections those records may have.

The subpoena was accompanied by a nondisclosure order forbidding Verizon from informing Hagerty or anyone else. A letter from Smith threatened Verizon with obstruction of justice if it disobeyed the order. Hagerty argued that the nondisclosure order was issued by District of D.C. Chief Judge James Boasberg and did not mention the Speech or Debate Clause, a Senate law requiring notice when someone seeks Senate data, or the fact that the records belonged to members of Congress.

Impact on Legislative Privileges

Hagerty asserted that the nondisclosure order prevented him and his colleagues from intervening to quash the subpoena. He claimed that had they known about the order, they would have aggressively contested it. The senator argued that the invasion of Congress’s legislative privileges was complete when Verizon handed over the records without contesting the subpoena.

Hagerty also claimed that Smith’s failure to disclose the relevance of the subpoena to legislative communications was a violation of the duty of candor a lawyer owes to a judge. A lawyer must provide the court with sufficient facts to permit a case- and fact-specific analysis, the senator wrote. He added that a lawyer must also tell the judge about controlling legal authority that cuts against their argument, even if the other side is not present.

Consequences and Broader Implications

In his letter, Hagerty concluded that Smith’s lack of candor before a federal tribunal directly resulted in injury to the United States Congress. He urged the Board to investigate and pursue the most serious remedy possible — disbarment — in light of the gravity of Smith’s intentional conduct, the effect of depriving Congress of legal recourse and appeal, and the broader harm to the constitutional order, including the chilling effect on legislative communications.

Hagerty also noted that Smith’s investigators obtained internal communications between journalists and Trump administration officials during the federal election investigation of President Trump. Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, and readers can watch the hearing.

Legal and Ethical Standards in Prosecution

Hagerty’s complaint highlights the importance of ethical and legal standards in the prosecution of high-profile cases. He argued that the failure to disclose critical information to the court undermined the integrity of the judicial process and violated the constitutional rights of members of Congress. The senator’s detailed explanation of the ethical obligations of lawyers underscores the broader implications of prosecutorial misconduct in shaping the legal landscape and protecting legislative privileges.

As the complaint moves forward, it could set a precedent for how legal professionals are held accountable for their actions in high-stakes cases. The outcome of this case may have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, as well as the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional protections.

Source: Breitbart

Written by

Connor Davis