Department of Justice attorneys tied to special counsel Jack Smith’s pursuit of President Donald Trump have a history of protecting political allies, as newly revealed emails cast light on their role in blocking a probe into the Clinton campaign.
These attorneys, Richard Pilger and J.P. Cooney, were instrumental in shutting down an investigation into allegations that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee misreported payments for the Steele Dossier, a document alleging ties between Trump and Russia, according to the Daily Caller.
The Federal Election Commission later fined the Clinton campaign and DNC $113,000 in 2022 for failing to properly disclose over $1 million paid through the law firm Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS, the outfit behind the dossier. Those payments were listed as legal services on FEC filings, a characterization that reeks of creative accounting to anyone paying attention.
In a June 14, 2019, email, Cooney downplayed the issue, stating, “The FEC has approved campaigns hiring vendors, or in this case, a law firm, and that vendor contracting with third parties to provide services.” His casual dismissal of the misreporting as “probably reported as legal services or something like that” suggests a troubling willingness to wave off potential violations when the right players are involved.
That kind of logic might fly in a law school seminar, but it hardly holds up when public trust is on the line. If this were just business as usual, why did the FEC ultimately slap down a six-figure fine for the same conduct Cooney shrugged off?
Pilger, alongside Cooney, also advised against opening a criminal investigation, and their combined input led the FBI to drop the matter in 2019. An unclassified FBI memo noted that prior to this DOJ consultation, agents believed there was enough evidence to pursue the allegations of false reporting by the DNC.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley has been relentless in exposing this apparent double standard, releasing records that highlight the involvement of whistleblowers who flagged DOJ interference years ago. Grassley stated on Thursday, “These records show the same partisans who rushed to cover for Clinton rabidly pursued Arctic Frost, which was a runaway train aimed directly at President Trump and the Republican political apparatus.”
Grassley’s words cut to the core of a system that seems to pick its targets based on political jerseys rather than evidence. When insiders can bury one investigation while turbocharging another, it’s no wonder faith in our institutions is fraying at the edges.
The senator also thanked Attorney General Bondi and FBI Director Patel for turning over the requested information, signaling his intent to keep digging into this mess. His persistence is a reminder that accountability isn’t just a buzzword, but a necessity when dealing with power brokers who play by their own rules.
Cooney, one of the lead prosecutors on Jack Smith’s team, and Pilger, who reviewed and approved aspects of the Arctic Frost investigation tied to Smith’s case, didn’t just stop at shielding Clinton. Their involvement in high-profile actions against Trump raises serious questions about whether justice is blind or just wearing a partisan blindfold.
Seeing the same names pop up in efforts to protect one side while prosecuting the other isn’t a coincidence; it’s a pattern. This kind of selective enforcement doesn’t just undermine specific cases; it chips away at the very idea of equal treatment under the law.
Records released by Grassley in January confirmed their dual roles, showing how deeply embedded these attorneys were in both suppressing scrutiny of Clinton and advancing the case against Trump. That overlap isn’t just eyebrow-raising; it’s a glaring red flag for anyone who values fairness over factionalism.
The public deserves better than a justice system that looks like a revolving door of favoritism, where investigations are greenlit or buried based on who’s in the crosshairs. Restoring confidence starts with exposing these discrepancies, not sweeping them under the rug with bureaucratic excuses.
Grassley’s ongoing push for answers is a step in the right direction, but it’s only the beginning of what needs to be a broader reckoning. If the DOJ can’t apply the same rigor to all players, regardless of political affiliation, then its claim to integrity is nothing more than a hollow slogan.
Until those in power prove they can wield it without prejudice, stories like this will keep surfacing, each one a reminder of how far we’ve strayed from impartial justice. Let’s hope the spotlight stays on, because sunlight is still the best disinfectant for a system in desperate need of cleaning.
