• Jack Smith's attorneys characterize the ethics probe against him as “imaginary and unfounded.”
• The investigation was initiated following a complaint from Senator Tom Cotton regarding potential Hatch Act violations.
• Smith's actions in prosecuting Trump are defended as strictly adhering to legal principles and devoid of political motivations.

Attorneys for former special counsel Jack Smith vehemently rejected the basis of a recent watchdog investigation as "imaginary and unfounded." This inquiry, from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), examines Smith's prosecutions of President Donald Trump regarding alleged Hatch Act violations. The OSC confirmed that the investigation was initiated following a referral from Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who argued Smith’s actions might influence Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, according to ABC News and Los Angeles Times.

In a letter to OSC acting head Jamieson Greer, Smith's lawyers, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, assert that Smith acted consistently with the legal standards expected of a prosecutor. They emphasized, "Mr. Smith was fiercely committed to making prosecutorial decisions based solely on the evidence," defending his record as free from political influence. This response marks Smith's first public defense following the announcement of the inquiry, which Smith's legal team claims lacks any substantive merit, as reported by The Hill and CBS News.

The inquiry poses significant questions about the intersection of criminal prosecution and political activity, particularly during election seasons. Smith's attorneys counter these claims by underscoring that no established law prevents prosecutors from pursuing cases involving candidates for office, a stance that aligns with long-standing Justice Department policies, according to Newsweek and ABC News.

Smith's legal challenges arose from two criminal cases he led against Trump in 2023, one concerning classified documents and the other relating to efforts to undermine the 2020 election results. Both cases were ultimately dropped following Trump's re-election, attributed to a Justice Department policy that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Smith has suggested that this policy directly influenced his decisions and is at the core of the current scrutiny, as highlighted by Los Angeles Times and The Hill.