Politics

Why Elon Musk’s Jack Smith retribution threat is so worrying

Published

2 years ago

November 11, 2024

Why Elon Musk’s Jack Smith retribution threat is so worrying

Elon Musk on Friday called for the punishment of special counsel Jack Smith in reply to a post on X from Reps. Jim Jordan and Barry Loudermilk calling on Smith to “preserve all records.” The exchange signals that while Smith may be winding down his cases against the president-elect, the Republicans are just starting to wind up their efforts to seek retribution.

That the special counsel is preparing to mothball his two prosecutions of now-President-elect Donald Trump is evident from reporting on Smith’s conversations with Justice Department leadership, as well as Smith’s motion this week asking the trial judge overseeing the Jan. 6 case to pause the court’s deadlines. That motion was almost immediately granted by Judge Tanya Chutkan. In the filing, Smith characterized the circumstances of the case as “unprecedented” and said he intends to file a report with the court by Dec. 2 laying out how he plans to proceed.

The problem for Smith is a DOJ policy that prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president.

The problem for Smith is a DOJ policy that prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president. That policy is a result of lawyers for presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton successfully arguing to the Justice Department that prosecuting the sitting head of the executive branch would violate the Constitution. While other countries can and do prosecute their sitting heads of government and while scholars have questioned the binding power of a DOJ memo authored by its Office of Legal Counsel, there is a less-than-zero chance that Attorney General Merrick Garland revisits that analysis, given his fear of appearing partisan.

This leaves Smith — and the DOJ — with basically two choices: They can dismiss the cases, or they can pause the cases until Trump is no longer president (again). Pausing the cases would be an exercise in futility since Trump will dismiss the cases as soon as he takes office. This would include giving up the pending appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of the classified documents case — a dismissal based on Cannon’s outlier conclusion that the very appointment of the special counsel was unconstitutional. Dropping an appeal of a poorly reasoned decision that undercuts the use of a special counsel normally would not be palatable to the Justice Department. But this is not a normal time, and a Trump-appointed attorney general will not only drop the appeal but will also likely seek to do away with the use of special counsels altogether.

Another issue for Smith and the department is whether to try and rush out his report before Smith is fired. And the release of any such report raises the possibility of a conflict between Smith and the ever-cautious Garland. Under the regulations governing the conduct and accountability of special counsels, such a conflict could require Garland to report the disagreement to Congress.

Questioning the authority of the special counsel is exactly what Trump and his allies have done since the Mueller investigation. The most recent example, reported by The Washington Post, is the incoming Trump administration’s plan to have the “next Justice Department … look ‘critically’ at what Smith’s team did over the past couple of years to ‘make sure nothing like this ever happens again.’” The Trump-led Republican Party has made a cottage industry out of “investigating the investigators,” with congressional investigations into the investigation of Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller’s Russian interference probe, the Georgia election interference case brought by Fani Willis, the New York fraud case and the Hunter Biden prosecution, as well as, most famously, special counsel John Durham’s own investigation.

Durham embodies the pinnacle of the Republican fetish for investigating investigations. He spent four years, much time in private dinners with former Attorney General William Barr and millions of taxpayer dollars to uncover exactly nothing, while also managing to lose two jury trials. But Durham could soon be unseated as reigning champ of the “investigate the investigations” game.

Investigations carried out by Congress, however, can be a double-edged sword for Republicans.

The joint letter from Jordan’s House Committee on the Judiciary and Loudermilk’s Subcommittee on Oversight demanding Smith’s team preserve all their documents signals the gleeful ramping-up of their investigation into the prosecutions. The request itself is modeled after what is called a “preservation notice” in litigation, which puts the recipient on notice not to destroy any potentially relevant or discoverable documents. Such requests are highly intrusive and usually overbroad — but directing such a notice to Smith is a meaningless, showboat action. Smith’s team already needs to preserve its documents in the normal course of recordkeeping — not to mention the historical value of these particular records. Prosecutors are not in the habit of shredding their files upon the conclusion of a case.

The Jordan-Loudermilk inquiries would normally be frustrated, however, by the DOJ’s standard refusal to provide information or testimony about a pending criminal investigation or case. But if Smith dismisses the cases, then that argument is weakened. Moreover, a Trump-appointed attorney general is likely to order full disclosure of any and all information sought, without regard to protecting witnesses or sensitive information. Similarly, if called to testify, Smith and his team will not have the shield of a pending case with which to deflect inquiries.

Investigations carried out by Congress, however, can be a double-edged sword for Republicans. A probe in this case will involve testimony about and the disclosure of that evidence Jordan and Loudermilk want preserved. Such a proceeding may not be what Trump wants, given that it puts a renewed focus on acts that resulted in dozens of criminal charges against him, both federal and state. NBC News reporter Ken Dilanian raised the specter of a more Nixonian approach when he asked whether Trump might not just order all of the prosecution’s accumulated evidence at the DOJ be destroyed. This more commonsense approach to erasing the history of the federal cases against Trump would now run afoul of the congressional notice of preservation.

Nor are congressional inquiries the only weapon available to Republicans. An attorney general fully committed to doing Trump’s bidding could direct the DOJ to begin actual criminal investigations.

Mike Davis, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch who is now rumored to be a potential nominee for attorney general, illustrated this in a sexist rant directed at New York Attorney General Letitia James: “Let me just say this to Big Tish James. … I dare you to try to continue your lawfare against President Trump in his second term. Because listen here, sweetheart, we’re not messing around this time,” Davis said on a podcast. “And we will put your fat ass in prison for conspiracy against rights, I promise you that.”

This is the same Mike Davis who previously spoke of his wish to harm Trump’s political enemies: “I want to drag their dead political bodies through the streets, burn them, and throw them off the wall. (Legally, politically, and, financially, of course.)” It’s unclear what criminal charge Davis has in mind when he speaks about “conspiracy against rights,” but in other threats against Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson, Davis specified obstructing a congressional investigation and lying to Congress as charges he believes should be pursued.

Not only is there zero evidence upon which to open such investigations against James or Smith, much less on which to charge or convict, the motivation Davis expressed also violates the DOJ Manual. For example, Section 9-27.260 pertaining to “Initiating and Declining Charges—Impermissible Considerations” bars the use of “political associations, activities or beliefs” as a factor in the decision to bring charges. Section 9-85.500 of the manual also requires that “federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

However, such rules are of little value in the face of an attorney general who’s determined to ignore and violate them.

Smith and his team started late through no fault of their own. By the time Smith was appointed, it was always clear that getting the Jan. 6 case to trial before the election was a tall order. Against the odds, in the face of a conservative Supreme Court majority that seemed inclined to allow the clock to run out, Smith’s team made speedy progress with the aid of Chutkan’s no-nonsense management of the case.

But “almost” in criminal prosecutions counts for nothing. History will judge Smith’s efforts only by what in his report sees the light of day. And if an incoming Trump DOJ opens punitive criminal investigations, then Smith and many others will suffer the consequences of Garland’s belief that justice must be blind to political realities — regardless of how much those political realities stand in the way of justice.

Shan Wu

Shan Wu is a legal analyst and former federal prosecutor who served as counsel to then-Attorney General Janet Reno.

Politics

Ted Cruz blasts JD Vance as ‘insecure,’ says he’s focused on helping GOP win midterms

Published

10 minutes ago

October 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Ted Cruz fired back at JD Vance for suggesting he’s already focused on a 2028 presidential bid, calling the vice president “insecure” while insisting he’s focused on the 2026 midterms.

“In my experience, people engage in political bomb-throwing when they’re feeling insecure,” Cruz said in a phone interview Saturday. “So he’s welcome to make whatever comments he likes. I’m going to keep focusing on the midterms and helping us win on Election Day in the next 30 days.”

Cruz’s comments came in response to an NBC News interview Thursday with Vance in which the vice president suggested Cruz was prematurely eyeing a White House run.

“It is really obvious to me that, at this very moment, Ted Cruz is running for president,” Vance said. “At this moment, I’m not. I’m trying to help elect Republicans. That’s what I’m going to keep on doing.”

Vance is widely viewed as the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, but Cruz has said he doesn’t believe Vance is the sure-fire nominee and suggested he might throw his own hat in the ring. “I’ll certainly be part of the discussion,” he told MS NOW in August.

On Saturday, Cruz told Blue Light News he is dedicated to helping Republicans maintain control of both chambers of Congress. He pointed to his travel this cycle to campaign with candidates in Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, South Carolina as well as in his home state of Texas as proof. He also said he has trips planned this month to campaign with Republicans in Alaska, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina.

“Over the last 10 years, there’s no Republican in the country who has campaigned for more Senate candidates, more House candidates, more gubernatorial candidates than I have, and this year will be no exception,” he said.

Cruz rattled off a list of a dozen GOP candidates he’s helped bolster in past years, including former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, U.S. House candidate Karoline Leavitt — and the vice president.

“Indeed, ironically, I spent a full day on the road with JD Vance, campaigning with him when he was running for Senate in Ohio [in 2022],” Cruz said. “I was very glad he won that race. I was very glad to help him.”

A spokesperson for Vance did not immediately respond to Cruz’s latest comments.

Vance campaigned in Texas and Florida this week and will hold a rally in Alaska on Monday.

Politics

Republicans don’t have a clear boogeyman for this year’s midterms

Published

40 minutes ago

October 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Republicans have tried to find a new boogeyman this year as they rail against Democratic socialism and the “radical” left: Zohran Mamdani. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Bernie Sanders.

Still more mentioned than all of them, at least in campaign ads: former President Joe Biden.

A Blue Light News review of hundreds of ads running in battleground House and Senate races in recent months shows Republicans largely haven’t seized on progressive icons in paid media. Instead, Biden is the Democrat most likely to be mentioned in GOP ads this cycle, coming up across dozens of races.

President Donald Trump has frequently sought to blame Biden for high prices and other challenges that his administration has faced. Even so, the former president has become a far less useful punching bag for Republicans since leaving office and remaining largely out of the spotlight: At this time in the 2024 cycle, Biden had been mentioned in more than 1,000 Republican House and Senate ads, according to AdImpact data.

The data illustrates how Republicans have been unable to land on a clear villain as they seek to convince voters that Democratic control of Congress would be worse than keeping the GOP in charge. Their warnings about old establishment figures like Biden and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi don’t land like they once did. But they also haven’t been able to seize on emerging democratic socialists like they had hoped to.

Democrats’ foil, meanwhile, has never been more obvious, with Trump’s approval rating in the mid-thirties amid continued high prices and the Iran war.

“No one will match the level of Pelosi for Republicans, in part because the Obamacare vote was such a touchstone moment. And the ‘we have to pass it to find out what’s in it,’” said Doug Heye, a longtime Republican operative who noted he still has “Fire Pelosi” swag from the Republicans’ successful 2010 midterm rout. The then-speaker was central to the GOP’s campaign message that year.

Part of the challenge for Republicans comes from Democrats’ lack of a clear leader. Pelosi stepped down from Democratic leadership at the start of 2023, and her successor, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) does not elicit the same animus from Republicans. In the 2022 cycle, her last term as Democratic leader, Pelosi was invoked in more than 80 GOP ads, Blue Light News’s analysis found. Now, she’s mentioned just a handful of times, while Jeffries hasn’t been mentioned in any battleground TV ads this year, according to the Blue Light News review of transcripts.

Biden was an easy target for the GOP in 2022 and 2024, when Republicans blamed him for high inflation and the cost of living. Now, poll after poll shows that voters are more likely to hold Trump — not Biden — responsible for the current state of the U.S. economy, even as Trump tries to redirect the blame.

Even Kamala Harris, the most recent Democratic standard-bearer as their 2024 nominee, is named less often in paid media this cycle than Biden. And among other potential future Democratic presidential candidates, only California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez appear as Republican foils — and not as often as Harris or Biden.

Ocasio-Cortez is often mentioned by Republicans in the same sentence as Sanders, especially when the GOP seeks to tie Democrats in battleground races to the party’s progressive wing. In Michigan’s hotly contested Senate race, former public health official Abdul El-Sayed was endorsed by both — something his opponent Mike Rogers and GOP outside groups have seized on.

“El Sayed is endorsed by extreme liberals like AOC, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders,” one recent ad from the conservative super PAC Sentinel Action Fund says.

Some Republicans have sought to run against the progressives even when there are no such ties: One ad that ran earlier this year from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the state’s GOP comptroller promised to stand up to Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders and the “new radical left.” Neither Sanders nor Ocasio-Cortez have endorsed in either race.

Most often, the GOP has run ads seeking to tie Democratic candidates to socialism or communism — the concepts themselves — in dozens of House battleground races and nearly every major Senate race. Just this week, the Trump administration launched a national $20 million DHS-funded campaign-style ad spree that features Trump lambasting “communism, socialism, and Marxism.”

But when it comes to specific political figures — like Mamdani, New York City’s mayor — it gets complicated. Republicans once salivated at the prospect of Mamdani as a foil when he was first elected last year. But his first year in office has largely boosted his standing with voters, complicating efforts to turn his tenure into a negative for Democrats.

Trump’s surprising continued embrace of the New York City mayor — just last week, the president stood by Mamdani and said he hoped he would “be a great mayor” — has further complicated GOP efforts to paint him as a villain.

In a handful of swingy New York congressional districts, Republicans have still attempted to tie their opponents to Mamdani, while Democrats have pushed back on the connection. In New York’s 21st District, which Trump won by more than 20 points two years ago, Democratic dairy farmer Blake Gendebien ran an ad arguing that his Republican opponent wants voters to think he’s “running against Zohran Mamdani” but “that’s a load of bull.”

The GOP has characterized prominent Democrats as socialist for decades. As progressives won a series of contested primaries this year, some Democrats worried the rise of figures with ties to the Democratic Socialists of America would give Republicans easy ammunition for the general election.

But being called a “socialist” may not have the same shock value it once did.

“I don’t think just calling a candidate ‘socialist’ works that well for Republicans, particularly this late in the game,” said Matt Towery, a longtime GOP pollster. “If a candidate focuses on parts of the DSA’s platform and can authentically pin it on their opponent, that might work. But Republicans just assume people have a bad reaction to the term socialist, and the term doesn’t elicit the same reaction it used to.”

Politics

‘A slow-moving car crash:’ Republicans are wary of the $200 million-plus price tag to save Ken Paxton

Published

7 hours ago

October 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Republicans know they have to spend big to save Ken Paxton. They’re increasingly worried MAGA Inc. won’t throw down in time.

In private conversations over recent weeks, senior Hill Republicans and GOP officials have nudged President Donald Trump’s team to start spending more on the Texas Senate race before it’s too late, according to three people with direct knowledge of those conversations, who were granted anonymity to discuss them.

Those fears escalated after audio leaked of Paxton privately trashing Trump’s midterm convention, with some worrying it could impact whether MAGA Inc. continues spending after a current wave of GOP ad bookings run out Oct. 12.

A Trump operative told Blue Light News that MAGA Inc. and its affiliates are expected to spend near $45 million on direct mail, TV, and digital advertising in Texas through Oct. 12, an increase from its previous $20 million to boost Paxton. But they said the team is still assessing how much more money to send in the final weeks, in consultation with Senate Republicans and their top super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund.

The Trump operative, who like others in this article was granted anonymity to speak candidly, would not commit to any plans when asked by Blue Light News.

With national Democrats starting to finally spend for their Senate nominee, James Talarico, after months of holding off, and as polling of the race tightens, Republicans expect the cost of salvaging Paxton’s campaign will only skyrocket. And, they’ve started to panic.

“It’s a five-alarm fire, no doubt,” one GOP senator said. “Can we put it out? I hope so.”

“This is a slow-moving car crash that we’re witnessing right now,” a Republican strategist in the state said. “And there’s a 75% chance that the ultimate result here will be catastrophic from a GOP Senate majority standpoint.”

A fourth Republican, a national operative, spoke to the urgency factor: “While it’s money we shouldn’t have needed to spend, it needs to be spent now,” said a national GOP operative, describing the state as more winnable than North Carolina, Georgia and potentially Ohio.

Even with a massive war chest, Texas is turning into a huge money sink for the GOP that senators worry could hurt them in other tight races as they work to defend deep-red states and try to flip blue seats in Michigan and New Hampshire.

Trump himself nodded to some of the concerns at a rally just across the Texas border in Oklahoma Thursday night, saying those voters aren’t the ones he’s concerned about.

“We’re worried about Michigan. We’re worried about Texas,” he told the crowd. “We’re worried about a few states.”The president is scheduled to visit Texas again next week for a rally in San Antonio next Wednesday.

SLF poured another $60 million into Texas on Wednesday, bringing its total expenditure there to a record-breaking $131 million. With the MAGA Inc. money and additional GOP ad reservations, the race is already on track to top $200 million from outside Republican groups hoping to save Paxton. Paxton’s own campaign recently announced a $20 million ad buy — one of the largest single media investments in a Texas Senate race.

Some Republicans want MAGA Inc. to take over spending for Paxton in Texas in the final few weeks, so SLF can focus its resources elsewhere. MAGA Inc. could also funnel money into SLF’s recently established Texas PAC. But, according to two people with direct knowledge of that matter, that hasn’t happened.

“At some point I think the people spending that money are going to have to make hard choices and figure out where the money can have the biggest impact, and certainly Texas is the most expensive,” Sen. John Cornyn, who lost to Trump-backed Paxton in the primary, recently told POLITICO.

SLF Executive Director Alex Latcham indicated to Blue Light News the group will keep spending in Texas: “Senate Leadership Fund’s investment through Texas PAC affirms our commitment to maintaining the Republican majority and defeating Far-Left liberals like James Talarico.”

But Republicans’ money concerns have been complicated by Paxton himself. A growing number of GOP senators and top operatives have been stunned by what they described as unforced errors by the Texas Senate nominee. For example, he crossed one of the brightest red lines with Trump, telling a group of donors that “everybody’s numbers dropped” after the president’s GOP convention in Dallas last month, according to the audio leak reported by The New York Times.

“There seems to be very little strategy there,” said another Republican senator, granted anonymity to candidly discuss the race. “Sometimes, I think [Paxton] wants to lose.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump, while on his way to Texas to tour a motor facility on Thursday, told reporters he hadn’t talked to Paxton about his convention comments. Later, he told a crowd in Texas that “Ken Paxton was at my side more than anybody, and I have to always remember that because he can be a pain in the ass sometimes. I’ll be honest.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told reporters this week that he hadn’t seen the audio of Paxton trashing Trump’s convention. He acknowledged the stakes in his home state were high — and that the influx of cash is key.

“The reason that it is a serious race and a close race right now is that for several months the Democrats were massively outspending us,” he said, “and I am glad now that we are seeing money invested in communicating with the voters.”

The White House has attempted to reassure concerned senators, with chief of staff Susie Wiles telling Senate Republicans this week that there will be enough money available for competitive races in the final stretch, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting.

GOP operatives in both Michigan and New Hampshire said they feel that some of the cash being shoveled toward Texas should be going to their states instead. Most polls show Republicans running narrowly behind or neck and neck in both states, even though they hold a spending advantage on the airwaves there.

“We’re focusing so much on ‘we’ve got to put this money into Texas.’ Why? We’ve never had a problem in Texas. Let’s focus on taking back a seat we haven’t had in years,” said an ally of former Sen. John E. Sununu, who’s in a tight race against Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas. “There are real chances in Michigan and New Hampshire,” said the person, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the dynamics.

Sununu’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Latcham, who heads SLF, said that “Texas PAC is a dedicated effort that will not take resources from our other ongoing investments across the Senate map.”

Recent polling still shows the Texas Senate race with a razor-thin margin. Most public polling over the past two months shows Talarico with an edge, though Paxton’s campaign released an internal poll Tuesday that shows Paxton leading by three points among likely voters, 48% to 45%.

“I don’t think the needle has moved in the last month,” said one Texas Republican elected official, granted anonymity to speak frankly. “Unless it’s the worst polling that’s ever been done in political history, all this spend hasn’t changed anything, and I think people have made their mind up.”

Lisa Kashinsky, Samuel Benson, Alex Gangitano and Kelsey Brugger contributed to this report.