The launching of an investigation by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee — including Senator Adam Schiff — into the firing of the last remnants of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team underscores President Trump’s intention to eradicate the prosecutor’s legacy.

The Democratic lawmakers are asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to turn over records relating to at least 20 erstwhile employees of the Department of Justice who were terminated last month. The senators write in a letter to Ms. Bondi that “firing career administrative staff who lack decision-making authority because they were doing their job is a petty but pernicious abuse of power.”

The letter calls the latest batch of firings “draconian personnel actions.” The housecleaning covered not only attorneys but also, the letter asserts, “paralegals, finance staff, administrative staff, and United States Marshals.” The Democrats demand a reply from Ms. Bondi detailing the “criteria” for the firings by Friday — and call the dismissals a “grave injustice.”

The firings are traceable, CBS News reports, to the “Weaponization Working Group” convened by Ms. Bondi early in Mr. Trump’s second term. That body was formed to probe, among other matters, “Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff, who spent more than $50 million targeting President Trump.” The group is now led by a lawyer, Ed Martin, who previously served as acting United States attorney for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Martin also serves as the special attorney for mortgage fraud. He has been tasked by Ms. Bondi with investigating allegations of fraud against both Mr. Schiff and the attorney general of New York, Letitia James. Mr. Martin’s prospects for confirmation by the Senate as permanent United States attorney were ended when even Republicans blanched at his participation in the “Stop the Steal” movement challenging the results of the 2020 election.

Now Mr. Schiff in a statement accuses the DOJ of “ongoing efforts to whitewash the lawlessness that occurred on January 6.” One of Mr. Smith’s two cases against Mr. Trump accused the 47th president of crimes related to the events at the Capitol. The case, though, was upended by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States that presidents are presumptively immune from prosecution for their official acts. 

The prosecution for January 6 was dropped after Mr. Trump secured re-election and, with it, the “categorical” immunity that the DOJ and the Supreme Court reckon is afforded to sitting presidents. Mr. Smith’s other case, in respect of the storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon after she ruled that Mr. Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. 

Mr. Smith contended, to the last minute of his tenure, that he could have convicted Mr. Trump “but for” the outcome of November’s election. The prosecutor argued in his final report that “the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.” Mr. Smith resigned days before Mr. Trump returned to the White House. Disclosures from the end of Mr. Smith’s tenure show that the special counsel benefited from $150,000 in personal pro bono legal services. 

Mr. Smith’s  lawyer, Peter Koski, is facing sanctions from Mr. Trump in the form of an executive order revoking his security clearance. Mr. Smith is himself facing legal jeopardy in the form of a Hatch Act investigation instigated by Senator Tom Cotton. That law bars federal employees from undertaking certain kinds of political activities. 

Mr. Cotton argues that the timing of Mr. Smith’s prosecutions, and his all-fired rush to try Mr. Trump before the 2024 election, amounted to an effort to sway the vote. Mr. Koski has responded on behalf of his client, who has not been heard from directly since he resigned, that “Mr. Smith followed well-established legal principles in conducting the investigations into President Trump.”

Mr. Koski adds that the investigation of Mr. Smith is “premised on a partisan complaint that suggests the ordinary operation of the criminal justice system should be disrupted by the whims of a political contest But the notion that justice should yield to politics is antithetical to the rule of law.”