OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Jack Smith Accused of Abusing Rules and Privileges in Trump Probes

5 sources · updated 2026-09-29
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

In late 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and conservative groups released Justice Department, National Archives, and whistleblower records concerning former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 2022–2024 investigations of Donald Trump. The materials include June–July 2023 emails about Smith’s office rushing a purchase of Axon forensic video software days before the Aug. 1, 2023 election-interference indictment; 2021 texts in which prosecutors Molly Gaston and J.P. Cooney said they ignored written filter guidance for potentially privileged documents; a February 2022 National Archives inspector general note classifying a referral to DOJ as not a criminal referral; and Grassley’s hearing disclosures that Smith’s office obtained communications involving more than a dozen news outlets and at least 4,782 checks from Trump donors. Smith had indicted Trump in the classified-documents and election cases, dropped both after the 2024 election, and later resigned. He is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 5 articles

4 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 4 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Chuck Grassley, Molly Gaston, J.P. Cooney, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Chuck Grassley
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: Justice Department records, text messages, whistleblower documents, OIG case report
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 28, 17:06 UTC by Breitbart, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Breitbart (Justice Department records).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK. Only right-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days; The Hill reported it on 2026-09-25.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage has not reported the Justice Department records that right-leaning coverage treats as evidence Jack Smith's office skipped its own rules. Breitbart says the office authorized an Axon software buy as urgent just before the election-interference indictment. The Federalist says a prosecutor ignored filter guidance because it was "not tenable." The same right-leaning coverage says investigators then reviewed White House texts without a filter team in place. A reader of left-leaning coverage never sees those files, so the probes still look like ordinary process. Right-leaning outlets do not lead with the same cache. Breitbart opens on the overnight software order. The Federalist opens on Speech or Debate and attorney-client filtering. Did any court later hold that the rushed purchase or the unfiltered NARA texts violated the law?
Bottom line

Left-leaning coverage has not reported Daily Caller's finding that NARA's inspector general labeled its February 2022 note a referral for guidance, not a criminal referral.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Jack Smith's office authorized the Axon software purchase prior to creating the UFMS obligation because the purchase was urgent. official statementin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • NARA's Office of Inspector General classified its February 2022 message as a referral for DOJ assessment and guidance, not a criminal referral for prosecution. official statementin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • FBI first handled the classified-documents complaint as a spillage issue with little likelihood of being pursued as a criminal matter. official statementin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The Axon purchase card form had an empty funding section and blank signature blocks. contextin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • NARA general counsel Gary Stern made substantive edits to DOJ court filings after Smith's office told the court NARA played no role in prosecutorial strategy. official statementin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets frame the records as evidence that Smith’s office bent purchasing, privilege, and investigative rules to target Trump. Breitbart, citing Oversight Project FOIA files, reports that after Axon was asked on June 26, 2023, to convert proprietary video and audio, a records officer on July 12 demanded overnight shipment as a “desperate need,” executive officer Ariel McIntyre first objected that Smith wanted stricter-than-DOJ rules, then authorized the buy before a UFMS obligation because it was “urgent”; dongles shipped July 15, two weeks before the election indictment, with prices withheld and paperwork incomplete. The Federalist, using Grassley documents, reports Gaston and Cooney texts from February 2021 admitting they ignored filter guidance as “not tenable,” that a formal filter team was not in place until June 2022, and that in August 2023 NARA texts were reviewed within an hour without waiting for a taint team or Speech or Debate screening. The Daily Caller reports a NARA OIG case note saying the February 2022 contact was “not the same as a criminal referral,” contrary to Smith’s court claim that a NARA criminal referral prompted the documents probe, and that FBI/PIN initially treated it as “spillage.” Grassley also said Smith’s NARA subpoena of 87 White House phones scooped communications involving The Federalist, CNN, Fox, the AP and others, and that the office acquired 4,782 donor checks with account numbers, signatures, and addresses.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it rests on named officials, dated emails and texts, FOIA and inspector-general records, and on-the-record Grassley disclosures, not a single anonymous leak. Established in the released files are the Axon request, the “desperate need”/pre-UFMS authorization, Gaston-Cooney’s filter-guidance texts, the OIG’s non-criminal-referral classification, NARA’s production of White House texts, and Grassley’s account of media communications and 4,782 checks. Still alleged, and not independently adjudicated here, are that the software buy was improper, that privilege and Speech or Debate rules were systematically violated, that Smith misled courts about how the documents case began, and that media and donor records were seized for partisan mapping rather than a legitimate investigation. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for Smith’s testimony, DOJ or NARA responses, full unredacted purchase and filter files, and any confirmation of which reporters’ communications and which checks were actually obtained.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.