{"id":2678703,"date":"2026-10-08T07:59:25","date_gmt":"2026-10-08T11:59:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignexclusive-jack-smith-didnt-just-cut-constitutional-corners-he-shredded-separation-of-powers\/"},"modified":"2026-10-08T08:06:20","modified_gmt":"2026-10-08T12:06:20","slug":"utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignexclusive-jack-smith-didnt-just-cut-constitutional-corners-he-shredded-separation-of-powers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignexclusive-jack-smith-didnt-just-cut-constitutional-corners-he-shredded-separation-of-powers\/","title":{"rendered":"Jack Smith Shredded Separation Of Powers In Trump Probe"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Futm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignexclusive-jack-smith-didnt-just-cut-constitutional-corners-he-shredded-separation-of-powers%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2678703&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>Internal documents obtained by The Federalist reveal that Jack Smith\u2019s team showed a meaningful disregard for constitutional separation of powers during their investigation involving Congress members. Prior to Smith\u2019s actions against President Trump, a D.C. District Court Chief Judge rejected the Special Counsel\u2019s effort to bypass the Speech or Debate Clause in a case involving a congressman. <\/p>\n<p>Senator Chuck Grassley has released approximately 50 pages of internal communications that detail the limits imposed by the U.S.Circuit Court in <em>United States v. Rayburn house Office Building<\/em>, which restricts the seizure of Congressional records and mandates special procedures-like privilege review-before disclosure. Despite these guidelines, Smith\u2019s team considered and ultimately disregarded these protocols in their investigation.<\/p>\n<p>A memo drafted by Assistant Special Counsel John Pellettieri describes the legal challenges concerning the submission of <em>Rayburn<\/em> to searches of Rep. Scott Perry\u2019s records, including his cell phone and cloud accounts. The memo criticizes the <em>Rayburn<\/em> decision as erroneous and problematic and notes how prosecutors sought to bypass the special procedures by requesting to search third-party account data without following <em>Rayburn<\/em>. <\/p>\n<p>chief Judge Howell initially intended to require Smith\u2019s team to follow <em>Rayburn<\/em> procedures for Perry\u2019s Gmail and iCloud accounts, but the memo suggests that prosecutors may have avoided these protocols to prevent exposing warrants that could reveal the scope of their investigation to Congress. The sealed docket for Perry\u2019s case leaves questions about what orders Judge Howell issued, raising concerns that the team may have deliberately sidestepped court requirements to avoid disclosure. <\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, evidence indicates that Smith\u2019s team was aware of Howell\u2019s firm stance on <em>Rayburn<\/em> but chose not to fully disclose their efforts to obtain other members of congress\u2019s data to Judge Boasberg, the successor judge. This omission suggests an intentional effort to conceal the full extent of their subpoenas and warrants, prompting suspicion that the investigation aimed to avoid transparency and accountability to Congress. <\/p>\n<p>these revelations highlight a pattern of prosecutorial overreach and a potential disregard for constitutional protections, with internal communications shedding light on strategic decisions to sidestep court-imposed limitations.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Months before Jack Smith subpoenaed the toll records of scores of Republican senators, a Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court rejected the Special Counsel Office\u2019s attempt to sidestep the Speech or Debate Clause in another case involving a congressman. That detail and more revealed in <a href=\"https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1v9ufef8D6B96nl8fSm-0hMBq7RpWEoUt\/view?usp=sharing\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">internal documents<\/a> from the special counsel\u2019s team obtained exclusively by The Federalist, expose the depth of disregard Smith held for constitutional separation of powers.<\/p>\n<p>Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has authorized for public release another batch of documents related to Special Counsel Smith\u2019s targeting of President Trump. This cache consists of some 50 pages of internal communications the Iowa senator obtained pursuant to his oversight role as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including two memoranda detailing the limits the D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision in <em>United States v. Rayburn House Off. Bldg.<\/em>, placed on the seizure of Congressional records \u2014 constitutional limits Special Counsel Smith would later disregard.<\/p>\n<p>A three-page, single-spaced memorandum drafted by Assistant Special Counsel John Pellettieri, addressed to Jack Smith and dated January 8, 2023, opened by stating the memorandum sought to summarize \u201cSpeech or Debate litigation before Chief Judge Beryll Howell,\u201d pertaining to searches regarding Representative Scott Perry. The memorandum then noted that \u201c[t]he logistical and legal difficulties regarding execution of these warrants arises from questions about the application of the D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision in <em>United States v. Rayburn House<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Over the next page, Pellettieri explained that the <em>Rayburn<\/em> case involved a warrant to search the congressional offices of Representative William J. Jefferson, and had established \u201c\u2018special procedures\u2019 that contemplated the use of a \u2018filter team,\u2019\u201d to \u201cdetermine whether any seized materials were privileged under the Speech or Debate Clause.\u201d On appeal, the D.C. Circuit rejected the DOJ\u2019s search protocol,\u00a0 and held that \u201cpermit[ing] the government to review privileged materials without affording the member an opportunity to assert privilege before compelled disclosure to the Executive Branch violated the Speech or Debate Clause.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Pellettieri unabashedly declared: \u201cThe <em>Rayburn <\/em>decision is erroneous and highly problematic for obvious reasons.\u201d He added that \u201c[t]here is broad and narrow language in <em>Raburn <\/em>that make it difficult to determine the scope and reach of the opinion, as well as what exactly it requires.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>As the memorandum would then explain, prosecutors had pushed a narrow reading of <em>Rayburn<\/em> in its subpoenaing of Representative Perry\u2019s records. Nonetheless, \u201c[o]ut of an abundance of caution given questions about the scope of <em>Rayburn<\/em>,\u201d the memorandum explained, that prosecutors included with the warrant application an attachment stating it would adopt \u201c<em>Rayburn-<\/em>compliant protocols,\u201d namely giving Rep. Perry \u201can opportunity to assert the Speech or Debate privilege over records in the extraction,\u201d from his cell phone. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe argued before Chief Judge Howell,\u201d the memorandum continued, \u201cthat this protocol was not required by <em>Rayburn\u201d<\/em> because the phone seized was Rep. Perry\u2019s personal cell phone, but asked the court to apply the review process to avoid delaying the case. \u201cChief Judge Howell determined that it was prudent to conclude that <em>Rayburn <\/em>applied to Rep. Perry\u2019s phone given broad language in the <em>Rayburn <\/em>opinion,\u201d Assistant Special Counsel Pellettieri explained. In applying that procedure, Rep. Perry asserted privilege over some 2,000 emails and text messages, and the Court concluded 164 records were privileged. The D.C. Circuit Court would later reverse the lower court\u2019s decision, holding that the Speech or Debate privilege was broader than that then-Chief Judge Howell had afforded Rep. Perry.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the memorandum continued with a summary of comments Chief Judge Howell made concerning the scope of <em>Rayburn<\/em> and its application to two other warrants. Prosecutors had directed one warrant at Google to seize the contents of Rep. Perry\u2019s Gmail account and had filed a second warrant application to seize from Apple the content of Perry\u2019s iCloud account. <\/p>\n<p>According to the materials released by Grassley, the special counsel\u2019s office had filed a motion with the court asking permission to \u201csearch the Gmail and iCould (sic) accounts without any of the <em>Rayburn-<\/em>complaint protocols we had acquiesced to with respect to the cell phone.\u201d Here, Pellettieri explained that prosecutors had \u201cargued that even if <em>Rayburn <\/em>applied to the cell phone, it did not apply to records in the possession of a third party (Google or Apple) because, among other things, the warrant did not compel disclosure by Rep. Perry.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The memorandum then recounted that Chief Judge Howell \u201cwas not comfortable\u201d with their approach, and was \u201cseeking some sort of middle ground that would respect <em>Rayburn<\/em>,\u201d while limiting \u201cthe privilege review she (or other judges) might be required to conduct under a <em>Rayburn-type <\/em>protocol.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>According to the cache of documents authorized for release by Grassley, Ray Hulser had requested Pellettieri prepare that memorandum for the special counsel in advance of Smith\u2019s planned meeting with Chief Judge Howell on January 10, 2023. In asking for the memorandum, Hulser wrote that they \u201chope[d]\u201d Judge Howell \u201cdoes not want to get into a legal discussion about [Speech or Debate] but Jack could use a one-pager that gives a very high-level summary of the issues we\u2019re dealing with in the <em>Perry <\/em>litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>After reviewing the draft memorandum, Hulser asked Pellettieri to cut it to \u201ca single page with simple bullets, . . . e.g., <em>Rayburn<\/em> is a 2007 D.C. Circuit opinion that found a \u2018non-disclosure\u2019 protection in the Speech or Debate Clause, in order to protect against chilling Members from candid communications. No other circuits agrees, and two circuits expressly disagree.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In other words, Hulser wanted Smith\u2019s focus with Chief Judge Howell to be the fact that other circuits disagreed with <em>Rayburn<\/em>, even though as a district court judge in the District of Columbia, Howell was required to follow <em>Rayburn<\/em>. <\/p>\n<p>However, from the summary provided, Judge Howell stuck to the <em>Rayburn <\/em>procedure \u2014 at least as to the records seized from his Perry\u2019s cell phone. It is unclear what transpired during the January 10, 2023 meeting scheduled between Special Counsel Smith and Judge Howell, and whether the then-Chief Judge told Smith that his team would need to comply with <em>Rayburn <\/em>before reviewing any materials obtained from Google and Apple. In fact, it is unclear whether Google or Apple ever provided documents and\/or data to the Special Counsel team. All we know from the memorandum is that the warrant to Google stated prosecutors \u201cwould wait to search the emails upon further order of the court.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>And the docket related to Perry remains sealed, other than a handful of orders Judge Howell unsealed related to the seizure of the Congressman\u2019s cell phone. Accordingly, there is no public record of what Judge Howell ordered concerning the Special Counsel\u2019s need to comply with <em>Rayburn <\/em>related to the Gmail and iCloud material.<\/p>\n<p>This leads one to wonder whether the special counsel\u2019s team decided against moving move forward with a search of Perry\u2019s gmail and iCloud accounts because they did not want him (and others) to learn of those warrants \u2014 which he would have, had Judge Howell required Smith to follow the <em>Rayburn <\/em>protocol, at least for some of the records, as the Chief Judge indicated she intended to do.<\/p>\n<p>Given that Smith\u2019s team abandoned their efforts to obtain Sen. Ted Cruz\u2019s toll records after AT&#038;T raised Speech or Debate concerns over the special counsel\u2019s subpoena targeting the Texas Senator\u2019s cell phone, that possibility definitely tracks.<\/p>\n<p>The fight over <em>Rayburn<\/em>\u2019s scope reaches much beyond Perry, though: The memoranda released by Grassley reveal that Special Counsel Smith knew that the Chief Judge of the District Court had insisted on applying the <em>Rayburn <\/em>procedures and believed that decision applied even if prosecutors were seeking legislative materials from third parties \u2014 at least when the Court <em>knew <\/em>the warrants at issue targeted a Member of Congress.<\/p>\n<p>These facts render Smith\u2019s later decision to withhold from Judge Howell\u2019s successor, Judge James Boasberg, the information that he was seeking nondisclosure orders for subpoenas targeting other members of Congress, even more nefarious. <\/p>\n<p>Smith claims he made the decision to seek those toll records only after obtaining the concurrence of the Public Integrity Section, but all PIN did was concur that the litigation risk was low. And the just-released memoranda suggest the special counsel knew he should have consulted Judge Boasberg, just as the team had previously consulted Judge Howell. They didn\u2019t and we now have further evidence why that was \u2014 because the special counsel knew the court would have required prosecutors to follow <em>Rayburn<\/em>, thereby revealing to Congress what they were up to.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist\u2019s senior legal correspondent. Margot\u2019s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press.     She is also a regular guest on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/democrats-alito-freakout-is-a-false-flag-operation-to-take-down-the-court\/\" title=\"Democrats are falsely targeting Alito to undermine the ...\">nationally syndicated radio programs<\/a> and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize\u2014the law school\u2019s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.      Cleveland is a former <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/5-media-lies-about-the-latest-special-counsel-revelations\/\" title=\"5 Media Lies About The Latest Special ... Revelations\">full-time university faculty member<\/a> and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance.       Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments\u2014her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Smith ignored court limits on Congress records, docs show<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2678704,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Screenshot-251.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[38298,32463,57386,56572,71560],"class_list":["post-2678703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-federal-court","tag-jack-smith","tag-legal-investigation","tag-separation-of-powers","tag-trump-probe"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Screenshot-251.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2678703","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2678703"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2678703\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2678707,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2678703\/revisions\/2678707"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2678704"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2678703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2678703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2678703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}