This article is for registered BlabberBuzz users only. Don’t miss out! Join BlabberBuzz and get EXCLUSIVE content.
According to RedState, Smith’s apparent memory lapse surfaced during a tense exchange on Thursday with Representative Lance Gooden (R-TX) during a House hearing, where the Special Counsel conceded he could not recall being sworn in as required by federal law. While being questioned, Smith was pressed on whether he understood that taking an oath of office is a legal prerequisite for assuming his role. “Would you agree that taking the oath of office is a legal requirement for the job that you had?” Gooden asked. Smith responded, “I haven't researched whether it's required or not,” a stunning admission for a veteran federal prosecutor entrusted with one of the most politically explosive cases in modern history.
The exchange grew more pointed as Gooden drilled into the details of Smith’s appointment and the apparent irregularities surrounding his oath. The congressman noted that Garland had Smith retake the oath months after his initial appointment, suggesting that something was amiss in the original process. “It strikes me as odd that you don't remember who swore you in, how you were sworn in...Attorney General Garland had you retake the oath of office...Why did he make you do that?” Gooden pressed. Smith replied, “I don't know the particulars...I think I signed an oath.”
PELOSI HAS HER EYE ON BIG ENDORSEMENT IN NY HOUSE RACE
January 23, 2026
Gooden then highlighted what he described as a serious procedural defect in Smith’s first oath. “You signed it, but there was no witness. There was supposed to be either notarized or a witness. And apparently, Attorney General Garland thought it was significant enough to have you do another oath 11 months later! That's strange, right?” he said, underscoring the irregularity. For a legal system that routinely prosecutes citizens for technical violations, the idea that the Special Counsel himself may have failed to comply with a basic statutory requirement raises obvious concerns.
NBC OLYMPICS BROADCASTER CAUGHT ON HOT MIC TRASHING OLYMPIC FINALS
For many Americans, the oath of office is not a mere formality but a solemn commitment that marks a defining moment in a person’s public service. The author of the original account recalled, “I took an oath when I enlisted in the Army in 1984. I took another when I was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant. I remember those pretty clearly.” He went on to describe vivid details: “I remember details around them, especially the second one: The Major's name who administered the oath, the crusty old Sergeant Major of my acquaintance who, at my commissioning, rendered the first hand salute I received as an officer and a gentleman, and who received the traditional silver dollar in return. Most of all, I remember who pinned the first gold bars on my Class A uniform — my Dad, who described it as one of the proudest moments of his life.”
FREY FACES TOUGH QUESTIONS ON CNN OVER IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICY
Such memories are etched into the minds of those who take their duties seriously, which makes Smith’s professed inability to recall his own oath all the more troubling. “These are things that people remember. But Jack Smith doesn't?” the author observed, calling the situation “hard to countenance.” For a man empowered to bring unprecedented charges against a former president, the lack of clarity about his own legal standing is more than a curiosity; it strikes at the heart of legitimacy.
ICE AGENTS STORM BOSTON NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER WU’S SANCTUARY ORDER
The questions do not stop with Smith. Gooden’s line of inquiry naturally leads to Garland, who ordered the second oath nearly a year later. “And why would his boss, Merrick Garland, feel the need to have him take the oath again after 11 months? Was there some paperwork oversight? Was this simple incompetence?” the piece asked, pointing to a broader pattern of mismanagement.
VIRAL TESTIMONY USED TO SMEAR ICE REVEALED IN NEW VIDEO—WILL ANYONE ON THE LEFT EVER PAY A PRICE?
Given the track record of the Biden administration, many conservatives see this as part of a familiar story. “Given what we saw over the four years of the Biden administration, it seems likely that incompetence is the likely answer,” the author wrote, adding that “from befuddled old Joe to his cackling understudy right through the Cabinet, this was administration staffed by a big collection of people who weren't the sharpest knives in their specific drawers.” That assessment reflects a wider concern on the right that the same bureaucracy that weaponized the justice system against political opponents could not even follow its own basic rules.
THE AGENT WHO IGNORED THE BUTLER ROOF THREAT IS STILL AT THE SECRET SERVICE—WHY?!
The legal requirement itself is not obscure or ambiguous. Federal law is explicit: “I mean, it's the law. 28 U.S. Code § 544 - Oath of office says very simply: Each United States attorney, assistant United States attorney, and attorney appointed under section 543 of this title, before taking office, shall take an oath to execute faithfully his duties.” For a former United States Attorney not to know — or claim not to know — whether such an oath is required is difficult to reconcile with the responsibilities of the office.
“But how could a former United States attorney now know this? Isn't knowing the law his job?” the author asked, noting that while Gooden acknowledged Smith had signed an oath at the outset, “there was no affirming witness signature and no notarization.” That kind of sloppiness would be unacceptable in any ordinary federal appointment, let alone in the appointment of a Special Counsel tasked with pursuing a former president.
JOE ROGAN LINKS TIM WALZ’S ANTI–FREE SPEECH STANCE TO EXPLOSIVE SOMALI FRAUD SCANDAL
“This is just incompetence — or maybe worse, just plain carelessness. Just like everything else in the late, unlamented Biden administration,” the piece concluded, tying Smith’s situation to a broader critique of Democratic governance and bureaucratic overreach. The unresolved question now is whether a potentially defective oath could undermine the legal validity of Smith’s actions as Special Counsel. “And to the larger point, if Smith wasn't, in fact, properly sworn in as Special Counsel, does that invalidate the actions he took in that role?” the author asked, noting that “that may be moot now from a practical standpoint, as the prosecutions in question have since been dismissed. Still, it's something to ponder,” especially for those who believe that the rule of law must apply just as strictly to the prosecutors as it does to the prosecuted.
