A top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith wanted to remove a core constitutional shield. He believed lawmakers should lose their protection from prosecution. This is not speculation.
It is written in plain text. J.P. Cooney was Smith’s principal deputy prosecutor.
He wrote these words in 2021. The Washington Examiner obtained the exchange. Cooney told colleague Molly Gaston he wanted to repeal the clause.
He said he was an advocate for removing it. He admitted they were stuck with the current law. He implied the law was an obstacle.
This clause protects Congress from executive branch pressure. It stops prosecutors from targeting legislators for their speech. It keeps the branches of government separate.
Cooney clearly disliked this separation of powers. He called the restrictions ridiculous in other messages. He complained about limits on getting phone records.
This mindset shaped the subsequent investigation. Smith’s team later targeted dozens of lawmakers. They subpoenaed text messages and call logs.
They reviewed private communications with the White House. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley highlighted this shift. He noted Cooney flaunted his disdain for the clause.
Grassley said Smith’s team tore up the Constitution. He argued this was abuse of power. The investigation sought records from many senators.
This included Republicans like John Cornyn and Mike Lee. It also included Democrats like Cory Booker. Grassley questioned Smith directly about this strategy.
He asked if Smith directed his staff on this. Smith claimed his team took obligations seriously. He said they consulted legal experts on the clause.
Grassley dismissed this defense as contradicted by actions. The staff had already received warnings in 2023. They knew subpoenaing such info could be illegal.
Yet they proceeded with the investigation. Cooney and Gaston now work for Democracy Forward. This group focuses on holding power accountable.
They claim the Trump administration deprioritized corruption. They frame their past work as public service. Critics see a different pattern of behavior.
They see a targeted effort to silence lawmakers. The money trail here is political influence. The payoff was access to private data.
The cost was constitutional precedent. Cooney’s views foreshadowed the aggressive tactics used. He wanted to lower the barrier for prosecution.
He succeeded in getting the data anyway. This reveals a deep ideological drive. It shows a willingness to bend rules.
The documents prove the intent was there. The intent was to weaken legislative immunity. This is a significant breach of trust.
Voters deserve to know the motives. The motive was not just investigation. It was a desire to change the law.
They acted as if the law did not matter. This sets a dangerous precedent for all. Future prosecutors may feel empowered to do the same.
The separation of powers is fragile. It requires constant defense by the public. Understanding this helps explain the strategy.
It was not just about evidence. It was about power dynamics. The records show a clear path.
From disdain for the clause to action. The action violated the spirit of the law. The law exists to protect democracy.
Cooney sought to dismantle that protection. He did so while serving the government. This is the core of the controversy.
The facts are now in the public domain. Readers can see the emails for themselves. The strategy was transparent to those who looked.
The execution was aggressive and broad. It targeted both parties equally. This does not excuse the constitutional breach.
It highlights the systemic nature of the issue. The bureaucracy operated with impunity. The oversight failed to stop them.
Now the documents speak for themselves. The intent was clear from the start.