By Don Terry | Friday, October 17, 2025 | 5 min read

When Pam Bondi took her oath at the White House, the move came with immediate signals that she was stepping into her new role ready to make waves. Within hours of being sworn in, she announced plans to form what she called a “weaponization working group.” Its purpose, according to an internal memo, was to examine the actions of special counsel Jack Smith — the prosecutor who brought two criminal cases against former President Donald Trump. Bondi’s group, she said, would dig into what she described as “improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions” connected not only to Trump’s legal battles but also to the Justice Department’s handling of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot investigations.

Bondi’s announcement wasn’t exactly unexpected. During her confirmation hearing weeks earlier, she’d already set the tone by accusing the Justice Department of unfairly “targeting Donald Trump.” Her comments reflected a message that has been a rallying cry for Trump and many of his political allies: that the DOJ, under President Biden, has been “weaponized” against conservatives. This has been a talking point on cable news, at campaign rallies, and in Republican fundraising emails. The idea is that prosecutors have treated Trump and his supporters unfairly, launching investigations that are politically motivated.

The facts, however, are complicated. The Justice Department has also overseen several politically sensitive investigations involving Democrats, including President Biden’s own handling of classified documents and an inquiry into his son, Hunter Biden. To date, no credible evidence has emerged showing that Trump’s criminal prosecutions were launched for partisan reasons. Still, the weaponization narrative has been effective in shaping political perception. And Bondi’s “working group” was seen as a way to give that narrative a more official, institutional edge.

But after the initial burst of headlines, something unexpected happened. The grand idea of a “weaponization working group” targeting Jack Smith’s probe seems to have faded quietly into the background. There were no fiery press conferences, no sweeping subpoenas, no dramatic revelations. Weeks stretched into months, and the initiative that had been rolled out with political fanfare seemed to evaporate into silence.

That silence has only fueled speculation about what the working group was really meant to do. Some observers now wonder if the initiative was ever intended to operate as a genuine investigative body at all, or if its focus quietly shifted toward targeting Trump’s political adversaries — people like Letitia James, James Comey, Adam Schiff, and others long painted as enemies by his allies.

And if that’s the case, it could backfire in ways Bondi may not have fully anticipated. Going after someone like Schiff wouldn’t be a simple political swing; it could easily turn into a legal minefield. If Schiff were to argue that any charges amounted to a vengeful prosecution, it could pry open the door to the January 6 investigation the same way a case against Jack Smith might. In other words, the strategy that’s meant to silence critics could end up giving them a stage.

Behind the scenes, legal experts and political strategists have noted something that Trump’s inner circle may not have fully considered. If the Department of Justice were to actually go after Jack Smith, the consequences could be far more explosive than the initial political headlines. Prosecuting a special counsel is not a routine political maneuver — it would be an unprecedented legal battle with massive implications.

If Smith were targeted by the DOJ, he and his legal team would have the right to discovery. That means they could demand access to virtually everything connected to the January 6 investigation: internal memos, classified documents, witness statements, grand jury testimony, and any communications tied to the criminal cases involving Trump. What has remained behind the curtain could suddenly be dragged into the spotlight. Every uncomfortable detail the Trump camp may have preferred to keep buried could wind up as evidence, played out in courtrooms and splashed across front pages.

That kind of discovery wouldn’t silence Jack Smith. Quite the opposite. It would give him a massive stage to lay out the evidence he’s spent years assembling. Instead of weakening the special counsel, a prosecution might hand him the biggest platform of his career. In practical terms, such a case could turn into a second, unfiltered trial over the events of January 6 — only this time, Trump’s allies would be the ones forcing the issue back into the headlines. What was once political theater would become a legal spectacle, one where the risks would likely outweigh any potential benefits for the former president.

Even some conservatives who support Trump have quietly acknowledged the danger of this scenario. Legal battles are unpredictable, and discovery cuts both ways. If a prosecution against Smith turned into a legal free-for-all, it could expose not only the details of the Capitol riot investigation but also internal communications among Trump’s own orbit. That could include material that’s politically embarrassing, legally risky, or both. It could also prolong the very storyline the campaign wants to move past heading into another election cycle.

Bondi’s “weaponization working group” was born in a moment of political fury, meant to signal strength and push back against what Trump and his allies see as an unfair system. But after the initial announcement, it appears to have lost momentum, perhaps precisely because its follow-through could open a legal Pandora’s box. For all the rhetoric about going on offense, the reality is that certain fights carry consequences that are bigger than any single press release or rallying cry.

What’s left now is an open question. Did the working group quietly fold? Is it dormant, waiting for a political moment to reignite? Or did the people behind it realize that a symbolic gesture is a lot safer than an actual showdown in federal court? Whatever the answer, the silence around Bondi’s headline-grabbing announcement speaks volumes. In politics, not every loud beginning leads to an equally loud ending — especially when the risks are this high.

Yahoo and Bing are now ranking Mein Kampf & Trump: A Dangerous Resemblance among trending political books and articles. What’s fueling the attention? Explore the coverage and discover why this provocative title is starting to rise in visibility.