The new special counsel, Jack
Smith, is a former acting U.S.
attorney
who said
the investigations would not pause
or flag under his watch.
We're going to have more on him
in just a moment.
Let's get right to CNN
senior legal affairs
correspondent Paula Reid.
What else, Paula?
Did Attorney
General Merrick Garland
say about appointing this
special counsel?
Well, Don,
we knew this was something
under consideration
within the Justice Department.
And during that speech,
he pointed to the extraordinary nature
of these cases
and said, in order
to protect the Independ
of the Justice Department,
he had to make this move.
And that was also notable
that he said he's
not going to
be overseeing the day to day
operations of the special counsel.
Now, under the regulations,
if there are any charges
that the special counsel wants to bring,
those are subject
to the approval of the attorney general.
But it's interesting.
He wants to really establish
that this is going to be
an independent entity
that is going to be operating separate
from the Justice Department,
except for the
the particular instances
where they may be required
to check in with the attorney general.
But it's unclear, John,
if this is really going
to satisfy critics
and anyone who wants to claim
that this is partizan.
The former president's
spokesman has already said today
that this is, quote, a political stunt.
It would I would expect nothing less.
Tell us
more about Jack Smith all of a sudden
sort of the world's most interesting man.
Yeah, when I was making calls
to sources
today on the former president's
legal team, I got a lot of hoo.
And then I said,
since the biography,
I haven't gotten too many reactions yet.
But it's
interesting to look at his biography
This is someone who's been a long time
prosecutor, worked in various offices
for the Justice Department
across the country,
also led the division
of the Justice Department
that focuses and specializes
in prosecuting public officials
who are accused of corruption.
And he was most recently
chief prosecutor
at the special court of The Hague.
And we know from sources
that they considered
many different people
for this potential assignment.
They were looking for
someone that they thought
could ultimately
withstand partizan critiques and John,
of course, we know those are coming.
What else have you learned, Paula,
about the special counsel's
team and sort of the base of operations?
So we know that
they're not going to be operating
within the Justice Department.
We saw that with special counsel
Robert Mueller.
He had separate offices
that CNN was staking out.
And then also John Durham.
They don't operate inside
Main Justice or inside buildings
where there are other Justice
Department officials doing their work.
He will, though,
be overseeing many of the same people
that are working on this investigation.
This is something
that's been underway for quite some time.
Now, they will also
have their own budget.
There's really no limit on that.
That is, though, interestingly,
that is one of the few things
that they have to go through
Congress for.
Otherwise, Congress is not allowed
to get
the details
of the special counsel's work.
So interestingly,
this really does
kind of insulate
the Justice Department and Garland
from congressional oversight on these two
highly controversial probes.
Yeah, that is a very significant change
between yesterday and today.
And also potentially pertinent given
Republican control of the House, Paula.
Thank you so much for your reporting.
More now on the reaction
by the former president.
I'm joined by CNN's Kristen Holmes.
Kristen,
what is the former president
saying about all this?
Well, John, no surprise,
the former president is lashing out
at the Justice Department.
And one thing to pay attention to
is that we have learned
that former President
Trump was angry
even before the actual appointment
of a special counsel,
that just the prospect of
it was something
that had been daunting for him,
that he reminded him of Robert Mueller.
And he thought this would just draw out
those investigations.
And he was angry,
continued in an interview
that he did
after that announcement, he said,
I have been proven innocent
for six years on everything
from fake impeachments
to Mueller, who found no collusion.
And now I have to do it more.
It is not acceptable.
It is so unfair.
The worst politicization of justice.
The Republican Party
has to stand up and fight.
And that last line
I do want to point to here,
because this is coming at a time
when we know that there have been
a number of Republicans who have said
it's time to move on from Trump.
Many saying
that he has too much baggage in
some of these legal battles
are what they are talking about
when it comes to that baggage.
And in the past,
some of them had
some of these kind of incidents,
including the search of Mar
a Lago have galvanized Republicans.
But it's really unclear
if that's going to happen
this time around, John.
Yeah, we're going to talk more about that
a little bit. It is a new dynamic.
I also understand that
that the former president
is planning to talk more about this
maybe tonight.
What have you learned about that?
That's right.
So he took to Social
and said
that he would be making a statement
at Mar a Lago at eight 30.
And I have to tell you,
I made a number of calls
to members of his inner circle
who are surprised to learn from me
that he would be making this announcement
there was a last minute scramble.
Many advisers
essentially
telling him
not to make this announcement,
not to have any kind of statement here.
They did not think that
it was thought through.
Given that it came
just hours before he put it on social
and there was no plan there for that.
And one source in particular
who was familiar
with his thinking
saying that it was likely
to be more of a rant
than an actual statement.
Of course,
we'll be keeping an eye on that for you.
All right.
Christine Holmes, thank you very much.
And I should let everyone know
we will keep an eye on it
and we will let you all know
if it makes actual news.
Perspective now
from CNN senior law enforcement
analyst Andrew McCabe,
a former deputy
director of the FBI director.
You've got some pretty unique experience
in these types of matters.
So how necessary here was the appointment
of a special counsel to address
even the appearance
of a conflict of interest
Yeah.
So to be clear, John,
first of all, these are very,
very hard
decisions, issues of first impression,
totally unique circumstances.
I know what that feels like.
I've been in this chair.
This case is not clear in one direction
or the other. It's a very close call.
Under the circumstances,
I think the department did
the right thing,
leaning in toward
towards the direction of trying to do
everything they can
to avoid even the appearance
of a conflict of interest.
Now, you could argue well,
this could cause
excessive delay on the prosecution, slow
things down,
maybe even make it harder
to make that indictment or no indictment
decision later on.
But I think they're doing the right thing
to put the investigation
on the strongest possible
footing early on.
What does it tell you
maybe about where investigators are maybe
nearly done?
Or is this just the beginning
of a new phase?
It's hard.
It's hard to say with with specificity.
But I will say,
you know,
you don't typically consider
and go through the go through the
the stress and the notoriety
of appointing a special counsel
over an investigation
that you think is not going anywhere.
So I think you can safely assume
that the department believes
that they are coming up to an indict
or know indict decision
There is no question
that this investigation, certainly
in the Mar
a Lago investigation and more broadly,
the January 6th investigation
is heading
to that very controversial point
And you can assume
also that the attorney general
thinks it's beneficial
to have an independent
special counsel
make a recommendation
as to that decision.
Of course,
the final decision is in the AG's hands.
What's your take on Jack Smith's resume,
the kind of person you'd want heading up
an investigation like this?
You know, I
like the fact that we don't know
much about Jack Smith.
He's a guy
that seems to have pursued his career
and his prosecutions in a very quiet,
lawyerly professional way.
There doesn't appear to be
any obvious
lean in one political direction
or another.
I think that's that's much to his credit.
So he seems like
an entirely legit candidate
for this role.
I will say that that reputation of
independence and apolitical nature
is not going to insulate him
from a withering series
of partizan attacks.
You know,
those are coming
the days
when you can put in a special counsel
to avoid all that are far behind us.
The one advantage here is
that he'll be on the receiving
end of those attacks, less
so the department and the FBI.
And that's a good thing
for those institutions long term.
So the DOJ investigation,
it seemed to have gone quiet,
at least
as far as we could tell,
or at least we were hearing
up to the midterms.
There was the expectation
they might amp up again.
Now, the midterms are over.
What kind of deliberations
do you think were happening
behind the scenes
that maybe led to the
special counsel appointment?
There's absolutely no question
that those investigators
and prosecutors
are working hard during that entire
quiet period.
It actually gives them an opportunity
to step back
from any of the more visible,
overt actions
that they would normally be pursuing
and really go
deep on the evidence that they have.
Making connections,
identifying other potential witnesses,
getting their subpoenas and,
you know,
all their ducks
in a row
to unleash new subpoenas,
bring in new witnesses, bring people,
new folks into the grand jury.
It seems like they've done
that as they've issued new subpoenas
just this week.
So you can assure you'll be assured
they haven't lost any ground,
even though we haven't seen
what they've been doing.
And it became, as I said,
if anyone knows what it's like
to be in this kind of moment, it's you.
Appreciate you being with us tonight.