The filing of a Freedom of Information lawsuit by a conservative legal organization, Judicial Watch, seeking records “concerning potential misconduct of any person working for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office” could provide Attorney General Bondi with an opportunity to seek accountability from the erstwhile special counsel.

Judicial Watch first submitted its request in December, before President Trump began his second term. The petition seeks “records and / or communications about any investigations, inquiries, or referrals” relating to potential misconduct by Mr. Smith or any member of his team involved in the failed prosecutions of Mr. Trump for election interference and the retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Both cases have since been dismissed.

Mr. Biden’s Department of Justice — led by Attorney General Garland — acknowledged receipt of the request but cited “unusual circumstances” in requesting an extension of time to fulfill it. A week before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the DOJ asked Judicial Watch to name with greater specificity “the types of records you are seeking.” Such back and forth exchanges are not uncommon in FOIA proceedings, which can drag on for months.   

Judicial Watch responded that it seeks to lay eyes on any “documents, emails, memoranda, reports, referrals, and any internal or external communications related to allegations, investigations, or findings of misconduct concerning any attorney working for Special Counsel Jack Smith.” Judicial Watch has not received any communication from the DOJ subsequent to that clarification in January. Mr. Trump was sworn in on January 20.

Judicial Watch’s complaint alleges that the DOJ is “in violation of FOIA” and that Judicial Watch will “continue to be irreparably harmed” until the DOJ complies with its request for any documents related to “potential misconduct by attorneys employed by Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office.” Judicial Watch argues that the DOJ has failed to “produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production.”

Now Judicial Watch wants a federal judge to “conduct searches for any and all records responsive” to its request — and pay attorneys’ fees incurred in the course of the litigation, to boot. FOIA in this regard only applies to records held by the executive branch, whose entire authority, constitutionally speaking, is now vested solely in Mr. Trump, the man Mr. Smith tried to convict and imprison.

Ms. Bondi could pivot toward compliance with Judicial Watch’s request, which dovetails with her own priorities. As soon as she was sworn in, she created a “Weaponization Working Group” to probe “Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff, who spent more than $50 million targeting President Trump, and the prosecutors and law enforcement personnel who participated in the unprecedented raid on President Trump’s home.” The August 8, 2022, search of Mar-a-Lago, during which FBI agents entered the private bedchambers of the first lady, enraged Mr. Trump.

Judicial Watch is pressing the DOJ following a stunning success the group achieved in Georgia against the district attorney of Fulton County, Fani Willis. Ms. Willis, who brought a sprawling racketeering case against Mr. Trump and 18 others, was disqualified due to her secret romance with her handpicked special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, and the case is currently on ice. Ms. Willis is appealing that ruling to the Georgia supreme court.

Judicial Watch — under Georgia’s open records law,  a state version of FOIA — asked Ms. Willis to produce any records related to her interactions with Mr. Smith or the House January 6 committee. A Fulton County judge found her to be so deficient in her response that he vented to her lawyer: “First, you claim there are no documents because you didn’t search. Then, after searching, you still find no documents. Now, everything … is somehow exempt.” 

The judge, Robert McBurney, also found Ms. Willis’s office to be in such default of their obligations that he ordered them — meaning Fulton County’s taxpayers — to pay $21,578 in attorneys’ fees. Ms. Willis, in a separate records case brought by one of her defendants in the racketeering case, has been ordered to pay more than $50,000 in attorneys’ fees. Judge McBurney, though, elected not to appoint a special master to oversee Ms. Willis’s office, for now.

Judicial Watch’s president, Tom Fitton, declares in a statement: “Jack Smith and his team were a rogue political operation, whose only purpose was to keep Donald Trump from being elected. … This new Justice Department must get on the ball and stop the secrecy about the lawfare against President Trump.” The Sun reached out to a lawyer for Mr. Smith for comment.