express gazette logo
The Express Gazette
Saturday, October 3, 2026

Jack Smith's Top Deputy Advocated Repealing Lawmaker Protection, Documents Show

Newly revealed documents show JP Cooney, principal deputy prosecutor under Special Counsel Jack Smith, expressed support for repealing the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, drawing criticism from Senate Republicans.

US Politics • 2 hours ago
Jack Smith's Top Deputy Advocated Repealing Lawmaker Protection, Documents Show

Newly uncovered documents indicate that a top deputy to Special Counsel Jack Smith advocated for the repeal of a constitutional protection afforded to lawmakers. J.P. Cooney, who served as Smith's principal deputy prosecutor, expressed his stance in a 2021 exchange.

The Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution shields members of Congress from civil or criminal prosecution related to their legislative actions and speech, intended to prevent the executive branch from coercing the legislative branch through legal threats.

"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, which protects the separation of powers," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital. "Later, Cooney and Smith violated this constitutional safeguard by secretly obtaining toll records and text messages from dozens of members of Congress."

Grassley further stated, "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."

Cooney's past views on the Speech or Debate Clause became a point of contention during a hearing where Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley questioned Smith directly, citing Cooney’s support for repealing the clause. "When you became Special Counsel, what direction did you give your staff to handle Speech or Debate and Attorney-Client material? Did you issue any directives? If so, to whom? Please explain," Grassley asked.

Smith responded, "So, with respect to the Speech or Debate Clause, first, we took our obligations seriously under the Speech or Debate Clause. It's, in my view, an important part of the separation of powers. I had members of my staff who were very familiar with the clause, having worked in the public integrity section for years. We also, when it was appropriate or required, consulted with the public integrity section regarding application of that clause."

Republicans have contended that Cooney's stated views foreshadowed the Special Counsel's office's subsequent actions, including the use of subpoenas for lawmakers' communication records. Smith's team obtained and reviewed communications involving numerous lawmakers, and separate subpoenas sought telephone records from a smaller group of members of Congress. Among those whose messages with White House personnel were reviewed were Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Ron Johnson, R-Wis., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Cory Booker, D-N.J., along with the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Grassley had previously stated, "In 2023, Cooney, Gaston, Windom and Ray Hulser were given warnings that subpoenaing congressional information could violate the Speech or Debate clause."

Cooney had also reportedly complained about what he termed “ridiculous” statutory restrictions when attempting to obtain lawmakers’ telephone records during a separate 2021 investigation.

Democracy Forward, the advocacy organization where Cooney and another prosecutor, Molly Gaston, now work, referred Fox News Digital to a press release announcing their hiring. In the release, Cooney and Gaston stated they had spent years "holding the most powerful accountable for public corruption and civil rights abuses."

Smith's investigation focused on efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the retention of classified documents by former President Donald Trump, and related matters. While Republicans have characterized the probe as politically motivated, Smith has maintained that his office acted impartially. Supporters of the investigation argue it was necessary given the nature of the allegations, which they say involved core aspects of constitutional government and the peaceful transfer of power.


Sources