Newly uncovered documents reveal that J.P. Cooney, the principal deputy prosecutor for former Special Counsel Jack Smith, advocated for repealing the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause in 2021, before the special counsel’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election commenced. The messages, first obtained by the Washington Examiner, show Cooney stating he was an "advocate for repealing the clause" in a discussion with colleague Molly Gaston. The revelation emerged during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, questioned Smith about his staff’s handling of congressional privileges.
The Speech or Debate Clause shields members of Congress from civil or criminal prosecution for their legislative actions and speech, serving as a key separation-of-powers safeguard against executive coercion. Republicans have argued that Cooney’s early skepticism of the clause foreshadowed Smith’s team’s later decision to subpoena communication records and toll data from dozens of lawmakers. Smith’s office maintained that it respected the clause and consulted with the Public Integrity Section when necessary.
What the Left Is Saying
Proponents of the special counsel’s investigation argue that the scrutiny was necessary to address conduct central to constitutional government, including alleged efforts to obstruct the lawful transfer of power and mishandle classified documents. They maintain that the investigation was impartial and conducted within legal boundaries. Cooney and Gaston, who now work for the advocacy group Democracy Forward, stated in a hiring announcement that they joined to address what they described as the Trump administration’s "de-prioritization" of public corruption enforcement. They emphasized their history of "holding the most powerful accountable for public corruption and civil rights abuses."
What the Right Is Saying
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley stated that the records revealed Cooney’s "disdain for the Speech or Debate Clause," which Grassley described as a violation of the separation of powers. "Jack Smith and his team disgracefully tore up the Constitution throughout his partisan investigation," Grassley said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "That’s what happens when runaway Democrat government is in power." Grassley further alleged that Smith’s team "secretly obtained toll records and text messages from dozens of members of Congress," violating the constitutional safeguard. During a hearing on Tuesday, Grassley questioned Smith on whether he issued directives to his staff regarding the Speech or Debate Clause and attorney-client privilege, dismissing Smith’s defense as contradicted by his staff’s actions.
What the Numbers Show
The documents in question are from 2021, predating the formal appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel. The investigation’s scope included subpoenas for communications involving lawmakers such as Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Ron Johnson, R-Wis., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Mike Lee, R-Utah, Cory Booker, D-N.J., and the late Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Grassley noted that in 2023, Cooney, Gaston, and other staff members received warnings that subpoenaing congressional information could violate the Speech or Debate Clause. Cooney previously described statutory restrictions on obtaining lawmakers’ telephone records as "ridiculous" in separate 2021 messages.
The Bottom Line
The disclosure of Cooney’s 2021 comments intensifies ongoing political and legal debates over the scope of the special counsel’s investigations and the interpretation of congressional immunity. While Smith maintains that his team took their obligations under the Speech or Debate Clause seriously, Republican critics argue the staff’s pre-investigation views indicated a predetermined intent to bypass constitutional protections. The hearing and subsequent document releases keep the legal and political fallout from the 2020 election investigations in the spotlight, particularly as the Trump administration continues to critique the prior administration’s enforcement priorities.