A member of Republican leadership and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Cotton, is calling for a federal investigation into a former special counsel, Jack Smith, whose two criminal cases against President Trump were rendered null and void after the 2024 election. Mr. Cotton says some of Mr. Smith’s actions appear to have been motivated by an attempt to influence the presidential race. 

Mr. Trump himself has long called for investigations into his political rivals and those who have come after him in the past, including Speaker Pelosi, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, and Governor Cuomo, among others. The senator from Arkansas now says Mr. Smith should be fair game. 

“I write requesting the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether Jack Smith, Special Counsel for Attorney General Merrick Garland, unlawfully took political actions to influence the 2024 election to harm then-candidate President Donald Trump,” Mr. Cotton writes to the acting special counsel of the United States, Jamieson Greer. 

“Many of Smith’s legal actions seem to have no rationale except for an attempt to affect the 2024 election results — actions that would violate federal law,” Mr. Cotton says. 

In a statement, the senator argues that Mr. Smith’s actions were at the very least “unethical.” 

“Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn’t just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office,” Mr. Cotton claims. 

Mr. Smith, a Harvard-educated former federal prosecutor who once worked at the Hague, was tapped by Attorney General Garland in 2022 to lead the investigations into Mr. Trump. Ultimately, he would bring two cases against the then-former president — one for allegedly taking classified documents from the White House and refusing to return them, and the other for allegedly attempting to steal the 2020 presidential election. 

Mr. Cotton points to several legal maneuvers Mr. Smith took during his time as special counsel that he says are worthy of investigation. 

“On December 11, 2023, after President Trump filed his defense with the District of Columbia District Court, Smith pressed for a trial before the election by moving for an expedited review by the appeals court. On the same day, however, Smith further escalated this push and filed a petition with the Supreme Court to bypass the district court,” Mr. Cotton writes, arguing that Mr. Smith may have improperly gone around the typical appellate process. 

The senator further states that a brief on presidential immunity in a lower court following the Trump v. United States ruling from the Supreme Court was improper. Not only did the brief from Mr. Smith exceed typical page limits, but it included information that Mr. Cotton says should have been kept under wraps. 

“In fact, Smith also incorporated grand jury testimony typically kept secret at this point in other proceedings. This action appears to be a deliberate and underhanded effort to disclose unsubstantiated and extensive allegations timed to maximize electoral impact,” Mr. Cotton argues. 

“These actions were not standard, necessary, or justified — unless Smith’s real purpose was to influence the election,” Mr. Cotton claims. “In fact, throughout Special Counsel Smith’s tenure, he regularly used far-fetched and aggressive legal theories to prosecute the Republican nominee for president.”