There’s something deeply troubling about discovering that the people tasked with enforcing our laws actually disdain the Constitution they swore to uphold. New documents reveal that J.P. Cooney, Jack Smith’s right-hand man during the Biden-era election probe, openly advocated for repealing the speech or debate clause. You know, that pesky constitutional protection that prevents the executive branch from bullying lawmakers into submission.
“I’m an advocate for repealing the clause but absent that, we’re stuck with it,” Cooney wrote in 2021. Stuck with it. Like the Constitution is some annoying obstacle course instead of the bedrock of our republic. The message was sent to Molly Gaston, another prosecutor who’d eventually join Smith’s team. Both of them apparently viewed this fundamental separation of powers doctrine as an inconvenience rather than a crucial safeguard against tyranny.
Here’s what makes this worse. The speech or debate clause isn’t some obscure technicality buried in Article I. It exists for a reason that should concern every American regardless of party affiliation. It shields members of Congress from prosecution stemming from their legislative actions and speech. The Founders understood something basic about human nature and power: if prosecutors can threaten elected representatives with criminal charges for doing their jobs, democracy doesn’t last long.
Senator Chuck Grassley isn’t mincing words about what happened next. “Records provided to my office revealed that Jack Smith’s right-hand man, J.P. Cooney, flaunted his disdain for the speech or debate clause,” the Iowa Republican told reporters. “Later, Cooney and Smith violated this constitutional safeguard by secretly obtaining toll records and text messages from dozens of members of Congress.”
Dozens. Not one or two lawmakers caught up in some narrow investigation. Dozens of elected representatives had their communications secretly swept up by Smith’s team. That’s not careful prosecution. That’s fishing.
When Grassley pressed Smith during Tuesday’s Capitol Hill hearing, the former special counsel gave the predictable bureaucratic response. He claimed his team took their obligations seriously and consulted with people familiar with the clause. Smith insisted the speech or debate protection represents “an important part of the separation of powers.” The words sound right, but actions tell a different story. When your principal deputy is literally advocating for repealing constitutional protections, and then your office proceeds to vacuum up lawmakers’ communications anyway, the “we took it seriously” defense rings hollow.
This isn’t just about legal procedure or prosecutorial overreach, though both matter enormously. It’s about the mentality that pervades certain corners of Washington where progressive prosecutors apparently believe the rules don’t apply when they’re pursuing the right targets. There’s an arrogance baked into that 2021 email from Cooney. He doesn’t hide his contempt for constitutional limits. He says it plainly, almost casually, like he’s complaining about speed limits on an empty highway.
Grassley captured the broader problem perfectly: “Jack Smith and his team disgracefully tore up the Constitution throughout his partisan investigation. That’s what happens when runaway Democrat government is in power.” Some will dismiss this as political hyperbole, but the evidence supports his assessment. Smith’s office was investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election, sure. Nobody disputes that serious allegations deserve serious investigation. But the means matter as much as the ends. Actually, in a constitutional republic, the means might matter more.
The irony cuts deep here. Smith’s team was supposedly protecting democratic processes while trampling on the constitutional architecture designed to preserve those very processes. You can’t defend democracy by shredding the separation of powers. You can’t uphold the rule of law by ignoring constitutional constraints when they become inconvenient. That’s not justice. That’s raw power dressed up in prosecutorial robes.
This revelation about Cooney’s views should raise alarm bells about who gets appointed to sensitive prosecutorial positions. When someone openly states they want to repeal constitutional protections, maybe that person shouldn’t be entrusted with investigating elected officials. Just a thought. The fact that such views apparently didn’t disqualify him from serving as principal deputy prosecutor tells you everything about the culture Smith fostered within his office.
We’ve seen this pattern before. Prosecutors convinced of their own righteousness, certain they’re the good guys, willing to bend or break rules because the target deserves it. It’s a dangerous mindset that’s infected too much of federal law enforcement lately. The Constitution isn’t a suggestion. It’s not guidelines for when things are easy. It’s the framework that protects all of us, especially when passions run high and political pressure mounts.
American voters deserve prosecutors who view constitutional limits as features, not bugs. We need investigators who understand that protecting the process matters more than securing any single conviction. Jack Smith’s team failed that test spectacularly, and Cooney’s emails prove it wasn’t an accident.
Related: Trump Posts Cotton’s Phone Number After Senator Blocks Daylight Saving Bill